So you don't think any doctor or nurse should suddenly be thrown into the pool of "people who may have to perform abortions", right?
I still question your analogy. A cardiologist treats hearts; if he's or she is not going to treat some hearts, he or she shouldn't be a cardiologist. Now if someone wants to be an obstetrician, he or she chooses to care for mothers and babies during pregnancy and at delivery. From my point of view, an abortion that isn't necessary for the mother's life or health is not part of that specialty: someone who has chosen to care for both mothers and babies should not suddenly be forced to choose to care for the mother at the expense of a baby he or she also considers a patient. Now someone who advertises as a "gynecologist" is clearly advertising that he or she treats women; that's a different specialty. (It's rare to see a pure OB or GYN, but I have seen it.)
I do think doctors should be very clear up front about what they do and do not do, and hospitals or other practices should be clear when hiring or taking on a partner about what will be required. There should never be a "wait, I don't do abortions!" moment.
And if laws do come to pass that require OB/GYNs all to do abortions, I think doctors and nurses in the field need to be grandfathered in. People should know before they choose a specialty if they will be required to do certain procedures, and it's my understanding that not all OB/GYNs in training are currently required to perform abortions, nor are they informed that they may be required to do so. I also think that laws should not cover all doctors. Many simply aren't qualified to do abortions. Some choose not to do them. Some choose for liability reasons; some fear for personal safety (sad and wrong but true); some choose because of their consciences.
Doctors should choose their specialties carefully but should retain rights of conscience, so long as they're open about their stance. Some things may be real shockers—when a judge suddenly sentences someone to "chemical castration" in a jurisdiction that has never seen it before, I can imagine a doctor who never before said "I don't do involuntary sterilization" refusing to take the patient—and I would completely agree with that doctor's right to do so.
I don't interfere with women's right to choose; in fact, I focus on making sure the choice involves real options, because if one has no resources to carry and raise a child, it's not a real choice. I also think medical professionals need to have some right to choose where their consciences are involved.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 02:37 am (UTC)I still question your analogy. A cardiologist treats hearts; if he's or she is not going to treat some hearts, he or she shouldn't be a cardiologist. Now if someone wants to be an obstetrician, he or she chooses to care for mothers and babies during pregnancy and at delivery. From my point of view, an abortion that isn't necessary for the mother's life or health is not part of that specialty: someone who has chosen to care for both mothers and babies should not suddenly be forced to choose to care for the mother at the expense of a baby he or she also considers a patient. Now someone who advertises as a "gynecologist" is clearly advertising that he or she treats women; that's a different specialty. (It's rare to see a pure OB or GYN, but I have seen it.)
I do think doctors should be very clear up front about what they do and do not do, and hospitals or other practices should be clear when hiring or taking on a partner about what will be required. There should never be a "wait, I don't do abortions!" moment.
And if laws do come to pass that require OB/GYNs all to do abortions, I think doctors and nurses in the field need to be grandfathered in. People should know before they choose a specialty if they will be required to do certain procedures, and it's my understanding that not all OB/GYNs in training are currently required to perform abortions, nor are they informed that they may be required to do so. I also think that laws should not cover all doctors. Many simply aren't qualified to do abortions. Some choose not to do them. Some choose for liability reasons; some fear for personal safety (sad and wrong but true); some choose because of their consciences.
Doctors should choose their specialties carefully but should retain rights of conscience, so long as they're open about their stance. Some things may be real shockers—when a judge suddenly sentences someone to "chemical castration" in a jurisdiction that has never seen it before, I can imagine a doctor who never before said "I don't do involuntary sterilization" refusing to take the patient—and I would completely agree with that doctor's right to do so.
I don't interfere with women's right to choose; in fact, I focus on making sure the choice involves real options, because if one has no resources to carry and raise a child, it's not a real choice. I also think medical professionals need to have some right to choose where their consciences are involved.