This subject, along with the subject of contraception, came up in an ethics class last year. Abortion is illegal here, though that doesn't mean it doesn't happen (I include here both backstreet abortions and those who go over to England for legal and much safer day procedures), and a large part of the class argued in favour of legalising it. Personally, I am against abortion, though I dislike the term 'pro-life', and I was surprised at how many of my class mates seemed to be advocating it. But, as the discussion went on..
The Hippocratic oath is somewhat outdated these days, but the main principles of medical care still hark back to it - first, do no harm. The question seems to be for whom we should be concerned - the mother, the visible, speaking, indisputably alive individual, or the dependent, voiceless foetus whose status is debated. The arguement that was made was that the illegality of abortion was not preventing it from happening, it was rather making it more likely to cause harm to the mother as well as the baby. I find myself leaning more and more towards this side of the argument. I wish it wasn't necessary, I wish others felt the same way about the life of the foetus as I do, but if abortions are going to happen, there has to be as little risk and trauma as possible.
What really annoyed me was the fact that two of the girls in the class live in an area where the only pharmacist in 20 miles refuses to stock any form of contraception. I recognise their right to choose what products to provide, I do, but I can't help but feel that it is a failure on their part to provide the best service.
As for forcing Ob/Gyn doctors and nurses to perform a procedure that goes against their personal moral beliefs, I don't know quite where I stand. Unfortunately, abortion does fall into that specialty. I don't think I could do it, but then I don't plan on going into obstetrics. I don't think the cardiology analogy above applies though - a cardiologist who refuses to provide more than palliative care for a congenital heart abnormality (many of which can now be fixed or at least alleviated to the point of presenting few clinical symptoms) would not be considered to be doing their job and wouldn't keep it for long.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 07:13 am (UTC)The Hippocratic oath is somewhat outdated these days, but the main principles of medical care still hark back to it - first, do no harm. The question seems to be for whom we should be concerned - the mother, the visible, speaking, indisputably alive individual, or the dependent, voiceless foetus whose status is debated. The arguement that was made was that the illegality of abortion was not preventing it from happening, it was rather making it more likely to cause harm to the mother as well as the baby. I find myself leaning more and more towards this side of the argument. I wish it wasn't necessary, I wish others felt the same way about the life of the foetus as I do, but if abortions are going to happen, there has to be as little risk and trauma as possible.
What really annoyed me was the fact that two of the girls in the class live in an area where the only pharmacist in 20 miles refuses to stock any form of contraception. I recognise their right to choose what products to provide, I do, but I can't help but feel that it is a failure on their part to provide the best service.
As for forcing Ob/Gyn doctors and nurses to perform a procedure that goes against their personal moral beliefs, I don't know quite where I stand. Unfortunately, abortion does fall into that specialty. I don't think I could do it, but then I don't plan on going into obstetrics. I don't think the cardiology analogy above applies though - a cardiologist who refuses to provide more than palliative care for a congenital heart abnormality (many of which can now be fixed or at least alleviated to the point of presenting few clinical symptoms) would not be considered to be doing their job and wouldn't keep it for long.