I wonder about Kyl too. I'd bet money his wife had maternity coverage.
I do think that nothing else is quite the same as abortion. I don't think doctors can pick and choose any procedure; abortion involves a human life (at least for some of us), which makes it substantively different from virtually any other issue. I don't think you should have to suffer for years. I think it's reasonable for the doctor to make certain that you are well-informed about your choice, but then he or she should perform the hysterectomy.
I honestly believe part of it is paternalism rather than conscience. Some of it is about avoiding lawsuits: doctors have been sued for performing tubal ligations and hysterectomies on patients who later change their minds. (Vasectomies aren't quite the same because many are reversible; lawsuits there, if I understand correctly, tend to be about procedures that weren't done correctly.) When I wanted to get pregnant, my husband and I had to deal with an OB/GYN who was otherwise great but was convinced I could not become pregnant without help and that we were wasting everyone's time by not considering IVF. He did argue with me, but he didn't refuse to treat me. As it is, doctors exercise their personal beliefs and idiosyncrasies all the time. Sometimes they shouldn't, and review boards and medical associations should sometimes get involved.
Abortion is a unique case in this country. There are countries where physician-assisted suicide is legal, and I would say those countries absolutely ought to allow doctors to refuse to participate. I don't see a slippery slope if we ask whether a case involves the active taking of a life.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-05 12:25 pm (UTC)I do think that nothing else is quite the same as abortion. I don't think doctors can pick and choose any procedure; abortion involves a human life (at least for some of us), which makes it substantively different from virtually any other issue. I don't think you should have to suffer for years. I think it's reasonable for the doctor to make certain that you are well-informed about your choice, but then he or she should perform the hysterectomy.
I honestly believe part of it is paternalism rather than conscience. Some of it is about avoiding lawsuits: doctors have been sued for performing tubal ligations and hysterectomies on patients who later change their minds. (Vasectomies aren't quite the same because many are reversible; lawsuits there, if I understand correctly, tend to be about procedures that weren't done correctly.) When I wanted to get pregnant, my husband and I had to deal with an OB/GYN who was otherwise great but was convinced I could not become pregnant without help and that we were wasting everyone's time by not considering IVF. He did argue with me, but he didn't refuse to treat me. As it is, doctors exercise their personal beliefs and idiosyncrasies all the time. Sometimes they shouldn't, and review boards and medical associations should sometimes get involved.
Abortion is a unique case in this country. There are countries where physician-assisted suicide is legal, and I would say those countries absolutely ought to allow doctors to refuse to participate. I don't see a slippery slope if we ask whether a case involves the active taking of a life.