NATION

PASSWORD

Doctors' beliefs impacting on abortion provision

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
I V Stalin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Jul 13, 2004
Ex-Nation

Doctors' beliefs impacting on abortion provision

Postby I V Stalin » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:25 am

Link
Pregnant women could find it harder in future to obtain an abortion because of the growing number of doctors who are opposed to carrying out terminations.

A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs.

Abortion provoked the strongest feelings among the 733 medical students surveyed, according to the study in the Journal of Medical Ethics. "The survey revealed that almost a third of students would not perform an abortion for a congenitally malformed foetus after 24 weeks, a quarter would not perform an abortion for failed contraception before 24 weeks and a fifth would not perform an abortion on a minor who was the victim of rape," said researcher Dr Sophie Strickland.

"In light of increasing demand for abortions, these results may have implications for women's access to abortion services in the future," she added.

Concern about termination services is rising, with fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure, according to the Department of Health. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has voiced concern about the "slow but growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy and is therefore concerned about the abortion service of the future".

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "Abortion is taught increasingly infrequently in medical school, and students may not be required to engage much with the reasons why a woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and the distress this may cause. All of us involved in women's reproductive healthcare need to ensure that young doctors understand why women need abortions, and that this is a profession to be proud of."

Some 45.2% of those surveyed believed doctors should have the right to refuse to treat someone when doing so clashed with their personal beliefs, but 40.6% disagreed. "Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine," said Strickland.


Backing for a doctor's right to refuse to perform any procedure was highest among Muslim medical students, at 76.2%. Some 54.5% of Jewish students also thought doctors should have the right to refuse, as did 51.2% of Protestants and 46.3% of Catholics.

Guidance drawn up by the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, advises doctors to refer a patient to a colleague if they object to a certain procedure or treatment.

"However, we also make clear that doctors have an overriding duty to provide care for patients who are in need of medical treatment, whatever the cause of that medical need. It is not acceptable to opt out of treating a particular patient or group of patients because of personal beliefs or views about them, for example if they misuse drugs or alcohol," said Dr Peter Rubin, the GMC's chair.

The British Medical Association said that while doctors and medical students can refuse to participate in treatments they are uncomfortable with, patients must not be harmed or affected by their decision. They must also give patients enough information so they can seek treatment elsewhere within the NHS, according to a spokesman for the doctors' union's medical ethics committee.

The Department of Health said: "Patients' clinical needs always come first, and practising doctors understand this. It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief and the law does not entitle people to apply such beliefs in a way which impinges upon other people, even if they claim that their religion or belief requires them to act in this way.

"All patients have a right to a comprehensive and fair NHS. The NHS constitution, white paper and the Equality Act provide the legal framework and principles that underpin the way the NHS should provide its services and support its staff."


Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.
One million deaths is a statistic. One death is a smaller statistic.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to tell if they're legitimate" - Abraham Lincoln

Farnhamia - "The concept of zero means nothing."

Like football? Like The Blizzard

User avatar
Horsefish
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7402
Founded: Jun 06, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Horsefish » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:27 am

I V Stalin wrote:Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.


Well you've answered your own question there. I find the fact this is even being considered as quite disturbing.
Areopagitican wrote:I'm not an expert in the field of moron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to have sex with Shakira (or another dirty ethnic), at the very least, it must be part of a threesome with a white woman. It's a sacrifice, but someone has to make it.

Geniasis wrote:Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bludgeon some whales to death with my 12-ft dick.

Georgism wrote:
Geniasis wrote:Maybe if you showered every now and then...

That's what the Nazis said, we're not falling for that one again.

The Western Reaches wrote:I learned that YOU are the reason I embarrassed myself by saying "Horsefish" instead of "Seahorse" this one time in school.

What's wrong with a little destruction?

User avatar
I V Stalin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Jul 13, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby I V Stalin » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:30 am

Horsefish wrote:
I V Stalin wrote:Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.


Well you've answered your own question there. I find the fact this is even being considered as quite disturbing.

I wasn't aware I asked a question...

I suppose I'd be interested to see if anyone thinks that a doctor should have the right to refuse treatment on "moral, cultural or religious" grounds - and not just limited to abortion, but to treatment for drink and drug users.
One million deaths is a statistic. One death is a smaller statistic.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to tell if they're legitimate" - Abraham Lincoln

Farnhamia - "The concept of zero means nothing."

Like football? Like The Blizzard

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:32 am

Yay for doctors not having to treat Jews, blacks, women, Republicans, the obese, smokers, left handed people, gingers and people whose name starts with the letter K !
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Horsefish
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7402
Founded: Jun 06, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Horsefish » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:35 am

I V Stalin wrote:I wasn't aware I asked a question...

I suppose I'd be interested to see if anyone thinks that a doctor should have the right to refuse treatment on "moral, cultural or religious" grounds - and not just limited to abortion, but to treatment for drink and drug users.


Well not really question but you know, you've summed up the article pretty well.

I'm more concerned if it means that people can refuse to treat people in an emergency or what? If theres someone else willing to do it, who is just as competant in the hosital who isn't busy then thats not too bad though
Areopagitican wrote:I'm not an expert in the field of moron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to have sex with Shakira (or another dirty ethnic), at the very least, it must be part of a threesome with a white woman. It's a sacrifice, but someone has to make it.

Geniasis wrote:Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bludgeon some whales to death with my 12-ft dick.

Georgism wrote:
Geniasis wrote:Maybe if you showered every now and then...

That's what the Nazis said, we're not falling for that one again.

The Western Reaches wrote:I learned that YOU are the reason I embarrassed myself by saying "Horsefish" instead of "Seahorse" this one time in school.

What's wrong with a little destruction?

User avatar
Meowfoundland
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5962
Founded: Mar 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Meowfoundland » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:40 am

I V Stalin wrote:Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.

I agree totally.
This was formerly a signature. One day, it may return to its splendid past. In the meantime, enjoy some pictures of my cats.

User avatar
The House of Petain
Minister
 
Posts: 2277
Founded: Jun 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The House of Petain » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:43 am

I'm mixed on this. I honestly don't mind doctors having a choice in performing an abortion. After all I couldn't imagine being forced into it. Though I think it's wrong to deny contraceptives to anybody. I'm just torn between religious freedom and poor medical practice.
Michael Augustine I of the House of Petain

Founder, Chief Executive & Emperor of Westphalia
1000 Schloss Nordkirchen Ave, Munster Capitol District, Westphalia 59394

User avatar
Crabulonia
Minister
 
Posts: 3087
Founded: Aug 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Crabulonia » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:44 am

While I suppose it is good that doctors do care about life, even not yet existent of malformed life, they shouldn't bring pregidous to their profession. I was surprised to see how comparitively low the Catholic number was, i've always figured them to be among the most anti-choice bunch but from what I can tell from this, they are among the lesser groups - stil high, but not 70% like some groups.

I should think it illegal to refuse to treat someone without good medical grounds, then again - I'm not a doctor.

User avatar
I V Stalin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Jul 13, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby I V Stalin » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:45 am

I'd argue that just because there is another person qualified and willing to do whatever is necessary, doesn't make it ok. If I were the patient, I know I'd put in a complaint about any doctor who refused to treat me, regardless of whether I was subsequently satisfactorily seen to.

On qualifying, doctors pledge the Declaration of Geneva, which states, among other bits:
I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity
...
The health of my patient will be my first consideration
...
I will not permit consideration of religion, nationality, race, politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and patients


By refusing treatment to a person due to their own beliefs they are breaking this pledge, doesn't matter if there is someone else to pick up the slack.
One million deaths is a statistic. One death is a smaller statistic.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to tell if they're legitimate" - Abraham Lincoln

Farnhamia - "The concept of zero means nothing."

Like football? Like The Blizzard

User avatar
Delator
Minister
 
Posts: 2225
Founded: Nov 29, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Delator » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:45 am

If you want the freedom to practice your religion to the letter, at the expense of the health of the patient...then do us all a favor and DON'T become a doctor, or anyone else in the field of medicine.

Simple, really.
Those that seek to place heel upon the throat of Liberty will fall to the cry of Freedom!

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:46 am

The House of Petain wrote:I'm mixed on this. I honestly don't mind doctors having a choice in performing an abortion. After all I couldn't imagine being forced into it. Though I think it's wrong to deny contraceptives to anybody. I'm just torn between religious freedom and poor medical practice.


And giving them a choice in general ? Say - a muslim doctor who does not wish to treat women under any circumstances, because touching them without being married is sinful.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22269
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saiwania » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:46 am

I don't think doctors should be allowed to pick and choose which procedures they want to do, if it is in within their job description. But I think the free market would sort it out. With less doctors willing to perform abortions, the doctors who are able to do so will get higher pay- as a result of increased demand for that skill set but less supply of it. Which in turn, could help incentivize some people into becoming abortion doctors until another equilibrium is set.
Last edited by Saiwania on Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sith Acolyte
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken!

User avatar
Crabulonia
Minister
 
Posts: 3087
Founded: Aug 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Crabulonia » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:46 am

I V Stalin wrote:I'd argue that just because there is another person qualified and willing to do whatever is necessary, doesn't make it ok. If I were the patient, I know I'd put in a complaint about any doctor who refused to treat me, regardless of whether I was subsequently satisfactorily seen to.

On qualifying, doctors pledge the Declaration of Geneva, which states, among other bits:
I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity
...
The health of my patient will be my first consideration
...
I will not permit consideration of religion, nationality, race, politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and patients


By refusing treatment to a person due to their own beliefs they are breaking this pledge, doesn't matter if there is someone else to pick up the slack.


Do you think the religious cross their fingers for that last part of the pledge?

User avatar
Primo Victoria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 541
Founded: Dec 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Primo Victoria » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:46 am

Well, as long as they don't endanger the patent in any way I don't see why they can't object to preforming a controversial treatment. Particularly in the case of abortion. The general belief in the Anti-Abortion community is that a fetus is a living human being. Thus, a doctor who holds this belief would see being forced to preform an abortion in the same light as being forced to smother a child. The article stated that the doctors would be able to simply recommend the patient go to a more willing practitioner, so no one is being denied treatment. All it's saying is that some doctors may choose to not do what they deem to be unethical. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.


Note, I am not an Anti-Abortion fanatic. In my mind it should be legal, minors just need to inform their parents.
I am Heathen, I am Gothar, I serve Tyr, I serve Thor, And I Serve ODIN!!!

New Nicksyllvania - Unjustly Deleted 4/2/11 - Rest In Peace Sweet Victorian

User avatar
The House of Petain
Minister
 
Posts: 2277
Founded: Jun 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The House of Petain » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:50 am

Delator wrote:If you want the freedom to practice your religion to the letter, at the expense of the health of the patient...then do us all a favor and DON'T become a doctor, or anyone else in the field of medicine.

Simple, really.


Not at all. It's a simple suggestion, but in practice, it's unrealistic. We already have a shortage of doctors, now you want even less? And yes, I know, I know. It's better to have a few good doctors, than many bad ones. To an extent this is probably true. But that's easy to say because there are enough doctors (well it's bearable, I'm not driving 50 miles to go see my doc) at the present.
Michael Augustine I of the House of Petain

Founder, Chief Executive & Emperor of Westphalia
1000 Schloss Nordkirchen Ave, Munster Capitol District, Westphalia 59394

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55276
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:53 am

I V Stalin wrote:...A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs. ...


Perspective public workers try to find a way to work less for the same wage. Colour me surprised, because I ain't.

Anyway:
1.about prescribing contraception: the MDs HAVE to do it if an eventual pregnancy would endanger the mother. They're sworn to help people stay healthy.
2.treating someone who's drunk or high: same. If the patient's state of intoxication is a danger to his life and limb or causes pain, MDs HAVE to treat them. Same reason as above.
3.about abortion: if the pregnancy is endangering the pregnant woman's health, it has to be performed, regardless of the MD's personal stances on that. Same reason as above.

Also, about MDs working in public hospitals: they have to apply the treatments and procedures offered by the local Ministry of Health. If they don't want to, they're free to look for another job, either in the private sector, or in somewhere else. In other words, if they refuse to apply the health policies approved by the hospital (which, in the public hospitals' case, means by the government), they should be fired for insubordination.
Last edited by Risottia on Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
.

User avatar
The House of Petain
Minister
 
Posts: 2277
Founded: Jun 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The House of Petain » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:53 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
The House of Petain wrote:I'm mixed on this. I honestly don't mind doctors having a choice in performing an abortion. After all I couldn't imagine being forced into it. Though I think it's wrong to deny contraceptives to anybody. I'm just torn between religious freedom and poor medical practice.


And giving them a choice in general ? Say - a muslim doctor who does not wish to treat women under any circumstances, because touching them without being married is sinful.


Assuming that doctor isn't working at a public hospital or an ER, is there anything wrong with that? To clarify, it's silly and I agree rather stupid, but if you are going in for a checkup, and you have a choice on what doctor you can and cannot see, where's the problem? After all, assuming you do have a choice, that doctor's business will likely suffer on its own, due to it denying half the population, bad reputation, etc.
Michael Augustine I of the House of Petain

Founder, Chief Executive & Emperor of Westphalia
1000 Schloss Nordkirchen Ave, Munster Capitol District, Westphalia 59394

User avatar
I V Stalin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Jul 13, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby I V Stalin » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:57 am

Crabulonia wrote:
I V Stalin wrote:I'd argue that just because there is another person qualified and willing to do whatever is necessary, doesn't make it ok. If I were the patient, I know I'd put in a complaint about any doctor who refused to treat me, regardless of whether I was subsequently satisfactorily seen to.

On qualifying, doctors pledge the Declaration of Geneva, which states, among other bits:
I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity
...
The health of my patient will be my first consideration
...
I will not permit consideration of religion, nationality, race, politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and patients


By refusing treatment to a person due to their own beliefs they are breaking this pledge, doesn't matter if there is someone else to pick up the slack.


Do you think the religious cross their fingers for that last part of the pledge?

Almost certainly! :p

There's a great bit after that, actually, which says: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning..." - nice ambiguous statement there.
One million deaths is a statistic. One death is a smaller statistic.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to tell if they're legitimate" - Abraham Lincoln

Farnhamia - "The concept of zero means nothing."

Like football? Like The Blizzard

User avatar
Sovereign Spirits
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Apr 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sovereign Spirits » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:58 am

Doctors are people, too. The reason they figure they can refuse any services is because they don't have a direct customer relationship. It's all muddled in a bureaucratic middle-man mess and nobody knows where the money is coming from.

Nobody ought to be forcing anybody to provide or withhold services of any kind. Period. If they don't want your money and your patronage, that's one less customer (one less returning customer, might I add). Better hope they can make up for it somehow or they're going under. As for the customer, better hope they can find a place that can safely perform the abortion and is willing to.

Otherwise, there are always options out there. Now, and in the future if demand increases as well. Granted, not every option, now or in the future, is your first choice but... How desperate are you, right?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson, November 1787

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:59 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
The House of Petain wrote:I'm mixed on this. I honestly don't mind doctors having a choice in performing an abortion. After all I couldn't imagine being forced into it. Though I think it's wrong to deny contraceptives to anybody. I'm just torn between religious freedom and poor medical practice.


And giving them a choice in general ? Say - a muslim doctor who does not wish to treat women under any circumstances, because touching them without being married is sinful.

Well he shouldn't work in an emergency room, but he could only accept male clients at his practice sure no problem.
Last edited by Greed and Death on Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:02 am

The House of Petain wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
And giving them a choice in general ? Say - a muslim doctor who does not wish to treat women under any circumstances, because touching them without being married is sinful.


Assuming that doctor isn't working at a public hospital or an ER, is there anything wrong with that? To clarify, it's silly and I agree rather stupid, but if you are going in for a checkup, and you have a choice on what doctor you can and cannot see, where's the problem? After all, assuming you do have a choice, that doctor's business will likely suffer on its own, due to it denying half the population, bad reputation, etc.


I could actually live with the gender thing.
However, when the doctor is allowed to pass moral judgement on me, to state "no, I will not help you for you have sinned" my objections grow quite a lot more. A doctor should not be a judge. He or she should help.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
I V Stalin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1529
Founded: Jul 13, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby I V Stalin » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:02 am

Saiwania wrote:I don't think doctors should be allowed to pick and choose which procedures they want to do, if it is in within their job description. But I think the free market would sort it out. With less doctors willing to perform abortions, the doctors who are able to do so will get higher pay- as a result of increased demand for that skill set but less supply of it. Which in turn, could help incentivize some people into becoming abortion doctors until another equilibrium is set.

That works somewhere with privatised healthcare, but not in countries with public healthcare systems.

In the UK, in practice only GPs and obstetricians are ever in a position to perform abortions, and in the former case only medical abortions. Legally, both can refuse to perform an abortion, but only if they refer to someone who will. However, doctors are not (or should not be, at least) stupid, and will know before they choose either of those career paths that they may (GP) or will (obstetrics) at some point be in a postion where they are asked to provide an abortion - if they already object to doing so, they should be choosing another career path.
One million deaths is a statistic. One death is a smaller statistic.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to tell if they're legitimate" - Abraham Lincoln

Farnhamia - "The concept of zero means nothing."

Like football? Like The Blizzard

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:04 am

greed and death wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
And giving them a choice in general ? Say - a muslim doctor who does not wish to treat women under any circumstances, because touching them without being married is sinful.

We he shouldn't work in an emergency room, but he could only accept male clients at his practice sure no problem.


We had a topic on this a while back. Two students were told they would be unable to graduate from medical university if they did not follow the course on female anatomy that was included in the curriculum - even though they were planning to set up a practice where they would never have to treat women.
The consensus then was that they indeed should finish the course; hence why I referred to it.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
The House of Petain
Minister
 
Posts: 2277
Founded: Jun 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The House of Petain » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:11 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
The House of Petain wrote:
Assuming that doctor isn't working at a public hospital or an ER, is there anything wrong with that? To clarify, it's silly and I agree rather stupid, but if you are going in for a checkup, and you have a choice on what doctor you can and cannot see, where's the problem? After all, assuming you do have a choice, that doctor's business will likely suffer on its own, due to it denying half the population, bad reputation, etc.


I could actually live with the gender thing.
However, when the doctor is allowed to pass moral judgement on me, to state "no, I will not help you for you have sinned" my objections grow quite a lot more. A doctor should not be a judge. He or she should help.


I don't disagree, assuming that doctor is responsible to the general public (an ER) or is paid by the taxpayers. But if it's a private practice, funded entirely by themselves, it should be their choice. And it should also be a choice of the consumer to not go to that doctor because he/she does throw his/her religious views in your face.
Michael Augustine I of the House of Petain

Founder, Chief Executive & Emperor of Westphalia
1000 Schloss Nordkirchen Ave, Munster Capitol District, Westphalia 59394

User avatar
Nulono
Senator
 
Posts: 3805
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Nulono » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:21 am

Unless the abortion is medically necessary, I don't see the problem. A doctor should be allowed to become a doctor because s/he wants to heal, and not be forced to kill.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
Numbers written with an apostrophe are in dozenal unless otherwise noted.
For example, 0'3 = 0.25, and 100' = 144.

Ratios are measured in perunums instead of percent.
1 perunum = 100 percent = 84' percent

The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.

Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Authorian Lixl Isles, Cerespasia, Majestic-12 [Bot], The Archregimancy, Umeria, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads