[DEFEATED] Conscientious objection to abortion

[Imperium Anglorum]

Conscientious objection to abortion
Human Rights: Mild

The World Assembly,

Recognising that it would be immoral to force a health care provider to perform an abortion if that medical provider has a bona fide conscientious objection to abortion,

Believing that forcing a medical provider to do so against his or her will would be counterproductive at ensuring safe and quality care, and

Confident that access to abortion is sufficiently provided by GA 499 'Access to Abortion' and requirements therein for member nations to provide affirmative access to abortion services at national expense, hereby enacts as follows:

1. No health care provider in any member nation who expresses a bona fide conscientious or religious objection to abortion may be required to perform or assist in any abortion, provided that such objection is communicated publicly in advance and that such objection does not impose a substantial burden on access of necessary treatment to preserve life or prevent severe permanent injury.
   
   
2. Health care providers, when exercising rights under section 1, must refer persons seeking an abortion to appropriate resources to access such services.
   
   
3. Assistance, in section 1, does not include the sale of, purchase of, or transacting in goods used in abortion services.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Access to Abortion. viewtopic.php?p=37584111#p37584111

---

Would like to hear thoughts on appropriate category.

'IA has gone soft!' or maybe IA is just pragmatic when it comes to trying to force people to do stuff they don't want to do.

[Boston Castle]

First things first. Text looks fine to me. If anything, it's the minorest of quibbles, but would just replace "his or her" with "their", but plus sa change.

As for category, I'd think Bioethics, this seems to be more a thing that simply relates to medicine than an overall concern. If you, for some reason, expanded it to include conscientious objection generally, then I could see it being a Civil Rights resolution. Someone more experienced than me could probably say definitively though.

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "While our delegation doesn't have much experience in World Assembly affairs yet, upon reading this draft proposal my first thought was that the appropriate category would be Civil Rights. The idea that a civilian - in this case a health care provider - would be forced to conduct a procedure that is against their conscience and one that they would not perform willingly if they had that option, does have the characteristics of a Civil Rights issue in my ear.

Regarding the rest of the draft proposal, the idea that a health care provider would be allowed to refuse a patient in this way does somewhat worry me. Yes, from what I see there are enough protections to thwart a ban on abortion or an infringement upon that right, yet I fear that this might create a precedent. It may be that this fear is based upon our delegation's relative inexperience, I fully recognise that. Yet could this proposal not inspire a similar proposal for granting people the right to refuse LGBTQ+ individuals, or any other minority group if they approach it the same way as this proposal does?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Regarding the rest of the draft proposal, the idea that a health care provider would be allowed to refuse a patient in this way does somewhat worry me. Yes, from what I see there are enough protections to thwart a ban on abortion or an infringement upon that right, yet I fear that this might create a precedent. It may be that this fear is based upon our delegation's relative inexperience, I fully recognise that. Yet could this proposal not inspire a similar proposal for granting people the right to refuse LGBTQ+ individuals, or any other minority group if they approach it the same way as this proposal does?"

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We think that there is a substantial difference between an objection to an action and an objection to serving a person. The latter is an objection to providing a service to a specific person. The former is an objection to the service itself. The case which you give is a clear example of discrimination. There is a clear difference between someone who bakes cakes objecting to baking a cake for a sexual minority and someone objecting to baking cakes in the first place.

There are two counterarguments which I also want to dismiss. First is the hypothetical about including some kind of message on the cake. Insofar as the cake-baker commits to putting lettering determinable by the purchaser on the cake, there again is discrimination. If, on the other hand, no lettering of any kind is permitted, this would be very different. Second has to do with who might be called upon to provide abortions. Recognise that most abortions are still non-surgical and would happen in an abortion clinic. Denial of service would not happen there. We imagine that most cases under section 1 would occur when a person is brought into hospital for emergency treatment. We can discount the possibility of a specialty abortion provider who refuses to conduct abortions, this being a contradiction in terms, so we are left with doctors who do many things (probably general surgeons) who have bona fide objections to abortions. In such cases, it would be incumbent on the hospital to substitute a doctor willing to provide treatment. If no such doctor is present, treatment must be provided nevertheless.

The last portion applies both ways as well. Those concerned about denial of service need not fret about a manufactured impossibility of service. And those concerned about people being forced to conduct abortions against their will can sleep soundly that the possibility thereof is small. A similar calculus occurred when our delegation wrote Access to Abortion. Those concerned about denial of service get what they want by having all pre-schedulled abortions conducted at state expense. Those who fear the Assembly forcing people within that nation to conduct abortions also can sleep soundly in the knowledge that such abortions need not be conducted in their country.

[North Supreria]

First things first. Text looks fine to me. If anything, it's the minorest of quibbles, but would just replace "his or her" with "their", but plus sa change.

As for category, I'd think Bioethics, this seems to be more a thing that simply relates to medicine than an overall concern. If you, for some reason, expanded it to include conscientious objection generally, then I could see it being a Civil Rights resolution. Someone more experienced than me could probably say definitively though.

North Supreria agrees with the Ambassador of Boston Castle. In addition to the ambassador, the objections that health care providers may have to perform or assist with abortion is really about ethics, often linked to religion.

[Nolo gap]

conscientious objection is when it is yourself refusing to violate your own beliefs.
the term in not appropriate to one person censoring life decisions made by others about their own commitments and lives.

so whom precisely is the objector being referred to here? is there an unborn fetes stating this objection?
or an unverifiable assumption that one would?

[Daarwyrth]

Regarding the rest of the draft proposal, the idea that a health care provider would be allowed to refuse a patient in this way does somewhat worry me. Yes, from what I see there are enough protections to thwart a ban on abortion or an infringement upon that right, yet I fear that this might create a precedent. It may be that this fear is based upon our delegation's relative inexperience, I fully recognise that. Yet could this proposal not inspire a similar proposal for granting people the right to refuse LGBTQ+ individuals, or any other minority group if they approach it the same way as this proposal does?"

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We think that there is a substantial difference between an objection to an action and an objection to serving a person. The latter is an objection to providing a service to a specific person. The former is an objection to the service itself. The case which you give is a clear example of discrimination. There is a clear difference between someone who bakes cakes objecting to baking a cake for a sexual minority and someone objecting to baking cakes in the first place.

There are two counterarguments which I also want to dismiss. First is the hypothetical about including some kind of message on the cake. Insofar as the cake-baker commits to putting lettering determinable by the purchaser on the cake, there again is discrimination. If, on the other hand, no lettering of any kind is permitted, this would be very different. Second has to do with who might be called upon to provide abortions. Recognise that most abortions are still non-surgical and would happen in an abortion clinic. Denial of service would not happen there. We imagine that most cases under section 1 would occur when a person is brought into hospital for emergency treatment. We can discount the possibility of a specialty abortion provider who refuses to conduct abortions, this being a contradiction in terms, so we are left with doctors who do many things (probably general surgeons) who have bona fide objections to abortions. In such cases, it would be incumbent on the hospital to substitute a doctor willing to provide treatment. If no such doctor is present, treatment must be provided nevertheless.

The last portion applies both ways as well. Those concerned about denial of service need not fret about a manufactured impossibility of service. And those concerned about people being forced to conduct abortions against their will can sleep soundly that the possibility thereof is small. A similar calculus occurred when our delegation wrote Access to Abortion. Those concerned about denial of service get what they want by having all pre-schedulled abortions conducted at state expense. Those who fear the Assembly forcing people within that nation to conduct abortions also can sleep soundly in the knowledge that such abortions need not be conducted in their country.

"Our delegation appreciates the time you have taken to elaborate on this topic, as well as address our concerns. We find that your explanation is most satisfactory, and has managed to dispel our previously expressed fears."

[Calamari Lands]

"The Calamarilandese Delegacy supports this resolution and believes that the current draft doesn't have any major flaws that can be pointed out by us. We would like to give our 2 cents by stating that we believe that Bioethics is a more fitting category than Civil Rights, as the resolution directly affects the healthcare process and its topic is abortion, which is usually addressed by bioethics."

[Island Girl Herby]

Yeah I got an objection. Why the hell would somebody become a doctor if they was morally opposed to bona fide medical procedures?

[The Python]

Full support. If On Abortion is going to be repealed, this must pass.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yeah I got an objection. Why the hell would somebody become a doctor if they was morally opposed to bona fide medical procedures?

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. You are curious as to why someone who is honestly pro-life, rather than the hypocritical 'pro-life' of the death penalty supporters, might want to go into a profession where that person would save lives? The answer seems self-evident to me. Given it is a subjective state of mind being discussed as well, the (now closed, at least legally,) question of whether a foetus or zygote is a life qua person also is subjectively determined and therefore not something which I want to focus on. An actor analysis simply need note the subjective beliefs of the actor.

Edit. Got ninja'd by an intervening post, edited in the quote. Then edited this edit message in.

[Wallenburg]

"There exists no reason to grant these deleterious exceptions to the expectations of professional medicine. It does no good for the field and does no good for the patients. It simply grants the anti-abortion lobby ground where we need not cede it."

[The Python]

"There exists no reason to grant these deleterious exceptions to the expectations of professional medicine. It does no good for the field and does no good for the patients. It simply grants the anti-abortion lobby ground where we need not cede it."

If I understand this correctly, doctors that refuse to perform abortions have to direct patients to someone who will perform the abortion. It will not stop patients from recieving abortions in theory.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Allowing doctors not to perform procedures they do not want to perform is much better policy than an alternative of forcing it upon them, which raises, in our view, questions related to personal autonomy. The main objection our delegation sees is that provision of an objection might reduce access to reproductive care. Given the passage of GA 499 we are unconvinced of any impact thereon. And if an emergency situation occurs, we also are unconvinced that our position endangers anyone. As to the ground, if anything, anti-choice activists are currently swimming unassisted (at least mostly unassisted, a few have joined together a la some kind of 'Waterworld',) off-shore.

[Tsaivao]

"My largest qualm with this is that this resolution does not guarantee the existence of such alternative resources within member nations, nor that these alternative resources will be of the particular speed, quality, or convenience of other medical procedures. If this resolution attempts to define what may be considered "appropriate" then I would be more considerate to this proposal.

It is of my understanding that medical professionals in most nations are required to take an oath to not deny patients of medical service. What happens here at these edge cases? What if an individual attempts to seek an abortion prior to the third trimester, but that service is strategically delayed such that the option is no longer possible? I understand these ethical qualms, but I find that there are ethics for the patient as well as the operator." -- Delegate Manhu Sentai Laogai of Tsaivao

[Imperium Anglorum]

Access to Abortion. viewtopic.php?p=37584111#p37584111

[Wallenburg]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Allowing doctors not to perform procedures they do not want to perform is much better policy than an alternative of forcing it upon them, which raises, in our view, questions related to personal autonomy. The main objection our delegation sees is that provision of an objection might reduce access to reproductive care. Given the passage of GA 499 we are unconvinced of any impact thereon. And if an emergency situation occurs, we also are unconvinced that our position endangers anyone. As to the ground, if anything, anti-choice activists are currently swimming unassisted (at least mostly unassisted, a few have joined together a la some kind of 'Waterworld',) off-shore.

"In non-primitive societies, professionals with such essential social duties as physicians are not permitted to pick and choose which patients to treat. You are a fool, ambassador, if you genuinely think that a pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for antidepressants or asthma-relieving steroids over some 'conscientious objection' is not endangering their patients."

OOC: Or hormone therapy for trans people.

[North Supreria]

"In non-primitive societies, professionals with such essential social duties as physicians are not permitted to pick and choose which patients to treat. You are a fool, ambassador, if you genuinely think that a pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for antidepressants or asthma-relieving steroids over some 'conscientious objection' is not endangering their patients."

OOC: Or hormone therapy for trans people.

It is not about which patients a doctor wants to treat, it is about which medical procedure. It is not about filling in prescriptions for medicines, but about a medical procedure. In non-primitive society it is normal to give people a choice. Doctors who do not want to perform an abortion will therefore hardly be found in an abortion clinic, and in hospitals there should always be someone who can perform an abortion in such a case.

(In the same case, someone who does not want to prescribe medication will hardly be found in a pharmacy).

[Opiachus]

Our delegation objects to some other delegations' characterization of societies which support the proposed measure as being "primitive." This disparaging remark divides WA member states, is not constructive, and has problematic connotations. We feel their argument would be equally strong without the use of such language.

[North Supreria]

Our delegation objects to some other delegations' characterization of societies which support the proposed measure as being "primitive." This disparaging remark divides WA member states, is not constructive, and has problematic connotations. We feel their argument would be equally strong without the use of such language.

North Supreria would like to apologize for the language. Indeed, this should not have happened. We regret our previous words, in which North Supreria has stated undesirable comments and untruths. We will be more careful when raising objections in the future.

[Tinhampton]

Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: I would like to remind the seemingly eponymous representative from North Supreria that he did not make the comments being criticised by the Opian ambassador.

[Separatist Peoples]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Allowing doctors not to perform procedures they do not want to perform is much better policy than an alternative of forcing it upon them, which raises, in our view, questions related to personal autonomy. The main objection our delegation sees is that provision of an objection might reduce access to reproductive care. Given the passage of GA 499 we are unconvinced of any impact thereon. And if an emergency situation occurs, we also are unconvinced that our position endangers anyone. As to the ground, if anything, anti-choice activists are currently swimming unassisted (at least mostly unassisted, a few have joined together a la some kind of 'Waterworld',) off-shore.

"In non-primitive societies, professionals with such essential social duties as physicians are not permitted to pick and choose which patients to treat. You are a fool, ambassador, if you genuinely think that a pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for antidepressants or asthma-relieving steroids over some 'conscientious objection' is not endangering their patients."

OOC: Or hormone therapy for trans people.

"The C.D.S.P. agrees, in principle, that medical service providers ought not be providers if they are unwilling to provide medical services. However, on careful review, this delegation sees utility in allowing proviers to opt out of limited subsets of treatment that have personal ethical conflicts where essential preconditions are met. Where the objection is clearly made well in advance, and is therefore not entirely a surprise to patients or fellow providers and where the delay to seek alternative treatment does not harm the patient nor deprive them of treatment entirely, the equitable balance seems to favor allowing moral objections. If somebody demands an amputation where a less invasive treatment addresses a problem and amputation is not warranted, it would be reasonable for a surgeon to refuse to perform an amputation.

"However, this delegation would like to see the final draft modify section 1 to reduce the high barrier to challenging a physician's objection. The objection should not prevent treatment where such treatment is difficult to secure. For example, if the only such provider in a remote area refuses treatment, the patient should need only to show that visiting an alternate provider is unduly burdensome, not a medical risk. The rights of Access to Abortion greatly limit the burden already, but we would be remiss not to consider those remaining burdens."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The C.D.S.P. agrees, in principle, that medical service providers ought not be providers if they are unwilling to provide medical services. However, on careful review, this delegation sees utility in allowing proviers to opt out of limited subsets of treatment that have personal ethical conflicts where essential preconditions are met. Where the objection is clearly made well in advance, and is therefore not entirely a surprise to patients or fellow providers and where the delay to seek alternative treatment does not harm the patient nor deprive them of treatment entirely, the equitable balance seems to favor allowing moral objections. If somebody demands an amputation where a less invasive treatment addresses a problem and amputation is not warranted, it would be reasonable for a surgeon to refuse to perform an amputation.

"However, this delegation would like to see the final draft modify section 1 to reduce the high barrier to challenging a physician's objection. The objection should not prevent treatment where such treatment is difficult to secure. For example, if the only such provider in a remote area refuses treatment, the patient should need only to show that visiting an alternate provider is unduly burdensome, not a medical risk. The rights of Access to Abortion greatly limit the burden already, but we would be remiss not to consider those remaining burdens."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We view these remarks as well taken and have adjusted language from 'does not prevent necessary treatment' to 'does not impose an undue burden on access of necessary treatment'. Edit. Undue changed to substantial.

[Wallenburg]

"The new language is unsatisfactory, but less so than what it replaces. My office will not support this. If a physician goes into a particular line of work, they have no right to walk away from it because they find practicing medicine revolting."