![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Everyone can agree that no one should be compelled to commit murder, right? Well, why is it that when some of us disagree on the definition of murder, many of the same people who join me in opposing war and opposing the death penalty think that it's perfectly all right to require who believe that abortion is murder to perform abortions?
If you don't believe it's murder, I'm not stopping you from performing or having an abortion. (Yes, I know some people are trying, but many pro-lifers are trying through purely legal means like changing the laws, or doing what I do and working instead to support alternative.) But I don't think anyone the right to compel someone else who thinks it's murder to do it (except in the case where the mother's life is in danger). I live in a society where abortion is legal. I wish it weren't, and I work and give money to make alternatives to abortion more available. I don't interfere with anyone's legal right to get an abortion. Why should people interfere with the rights of conscience of people like me?
Saying something is legal should not mean people are actively compelled to do it. Execution is legal in many states (including mine, to our shame), but that doesn't mean medical personnel should take part in it—and in fact they are legally banned from doing so, as I understand the matter.
Those of us who believe a fetus is a living human being with rights do not have a legal right to interfere with others' abortions, but we should have a right not to be compelled to participate in abortions. Medical professionals should no more be forced to participate in elective abortions than to participate in executions, compulsory sterilization, or experiments such as the Tuskegee syphilis study. (I'm talking about people actively involved: doctors and nurses, not pharmacists or their assistants, office staff, etc.)
If all medical personnel followed their consciences at all times, we should have had a lot fewer crimes in the twentieth century, including in our own country—and that's true even if you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion.
I have known doctors who would not perform abortions and nurses who would not assist, and indeed the doctors may have avoided OB/GYN as their specialty to limit the possibility of being put in a position where they could be forced to participate in abortion. Some of them contributed their time, effort, and even medical supplies to care free for pregnant women who lacked—guess what?—insurance! I strongly do not believe the world would be better off if they were forced to choose between remaining in the medical profession but having to participate in abortion, and leaving and being unable to help all their patients in so many ways besides abortion. Do you really want these doctors and nurses to feel they have to give up their practices—both paid and charitable?
I've heard many analogies. If you don't believe in taking human life, you shouldn't join the military. True. But it's pretty darned obvious that the military takes human lives, isn't it? Is it obvious that the medical profession should take human lives as well as save them? You can tell me the fetus isn't fully a human being, and we can agree to disagree. But you can't tell me it's not alive, and that it's not human.
I'm really surprised that so many people seem insistent that any medical professional should have to perform abortions, and that any medical facility should have to have them there. Doctors and to a lesser extent nurses can choose specialties. They can say that there are procedures they are not comfortable performing: lots of medical personnel don't choose to do plastic surgery, or bypass surgery*, because it's not what they want to do. Hospitals can choose to offer or not offer services. More and more US hospitals have no emergency room, for financial reasons, which I think is terrible—but as far as I know, it's totally legal. I don't see Americans up in arms that any hospital MUST provide an emergency room. It is not discrimination to say "I will not perform abortions" or "This hospital will not perform abortions" in the same way that it would be to say "We will not treat African-Americans" or "We will not treat gays" or "We will not treat Republicans."
I suggest that it is discrimination to say that it's okay to choose not to do plastic surgery, but it's not okay to choose not to do abortion.
I do not, of course, include non-elective abortions: if a patient's life is in danger, then any qualified medical personnel has a duty to assist, whether it's by performing life-saving skin grafts or doing a bypass or performing an abortion because that's what the mother needs to live. Any doctor or nurse who is not qualified to perform or assist in a particular procedure, of course, should not.
* I think I'm not referring to heart bypasses in quite the right way, but I'm not sure where I've gone wrong.
If you don't believe it's murder, I'm not stopping you from performing or having an abortion. (Yes, I know some people are trying, but many pro-lifers are trying through purely legal means like changing the laws, or doing what I do and working instead to support alternative.) But I don't think anyone the right to compel someone else who thinks it's murder to do it (except in the case where the mother's life is in danger). I live in a society where abortion is legal. I wish it weren't, and I work and give money to make alternatives to abortion more available. I don't interfere with anyone's legal right to get an abortion. Why should people interfere with the rights of conscience of people like me?
Saying something is legal should not mean people are actively compelled to do it. Execution is legal in many states (including mine, to our shame), but that doesn't mean medical personnel should take part in it—and in fact they are legally banned from doing so, as I understand the matter.
Those of us who believe a fetus is a living human being with rights do not have a legal right to interfere with others' abortions, but we should have a right not to be compelled to participate in abortions. Medical professionals should no more be forced to participate in elective abortions than to participate in executions, compulsory sterilization, or experiments such as the Tuskegee syphilis study. (I'm talking about people actively involved: doctors and nurses, not pharmacists or their assistants, office staff, etc.)
If all medical personnel followed their consciences at all times, we should have had a lot fewer crimes in the twentieth century, including in our own country—and that's true even if you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion.
I have known doctors who would not perform abortions and nurses who would not assist, and indeed the doctors may have avoided OB/GYN as their specialty to limit the possibility of being put in a position where they could be forced to participate in abortion. Some of them contributed their time, effort, and even medical supplies to care free for pregnant women who lacked—guess what?—insurance! I strongly do not believe the world would be better off if they were forced to choose between remaining in the medical profession but having to participate in abortion, and leaving and being unable to help all their patients in so many ways besides abortion. Do you really want these doctors and nurses to feel they have to give up their practices—both paid and charitable?
I've heard many analogies. If you don't believe in taking human life, you shouldn't join the military. True. But it's pretty darned obvious that the military takes human lives, isn't it? Is it obvious that the medical profession should take human lives as well as save them? You can tell me the fetus isn't fully a human being, and we can agree to disagree. But you can't tell me it's not alive, and that it's not human.
I'm really surprised that so many people seem insistent that any medical professional should have to perform abortions, and that any medical facility should have to have them there. Doctors and to a lesser extent nurses can choose specialties. They can say that there are procedures they are not comfortable performing: lots of medical personnel don't choose to do plastic surgery, or bypass surgery*, because it's not what they want to do. Hospitals can choose to offer or not offer services. More and more US hospitals have no emergency room, for financial reasons, which I think is terrible—but as far as I know, it's totally legal. I don't see Americans up in arms that any hospital MUST provide an emergency room. It is not discrimination to say "I will not perform abortions" or "This hospital will not perform abortions" in the same way that it would be to say "We will not treat African-Americans" or "We will not treat gays" or "We will not treat Republicans."
I suggest that it is discrimination to say that it's okay to choose not to do plastic surgery, but it's not okay to choose not to do abortion.
I do not, of course, include non-elective abortions: if a patient's life is in danger, then any qualified medical personnel has a duty to assist, whether it's by performing life-saving skin grafts or doing a bypass or performing an abortion because that's what the mother needs to live. Any doctor or nurse who is not qualified to perform or assist in a particular procedure, of course, should not.
* I think I'm not referring to heart bypasses in quite the right way, but I'm not sure where I've gone wrong.
Tags:
From:
no subject
He has insurance, but not everyone is lucky enough to have a job that pays for insurance. They're usually low-paying jobs where they can't afford insurance on their own and if they do get sick, they can lose everything. Even some people with insurance run that risk.
Maybe we should give up the delusion that companies can reap huge savings with "cheap labor" by cutting those "unnecessary" costs, yet then all of us have to pay even more for it later when the uninsured show up at the emergency room because they couldn't get basic care.
I'm now wondering if his wife was covered under his insurance, or did she pay for her own? Is he even aware of what his policy covers? Many people who are more well-off don't bother looking, because they generally have better policies and more money to pay the resulting bills.
I think I'm the only woman at work who is covered by the city's insurance. The reason being that I'm single and have to pay for it myself instead of being able to covered by a partner's insurance, which is often cheaper.
Though one of my female cousins continued working at a job she hated for years because her husband's employer did not provide insurance. Her job did, and they had two young children who inherited some of our family's quirkier health issues, so it just wasn't an option. Her job paid for insurance, but her actual take home pay was just a bit more than what she was paying the babysitter.
I don't want to have children, and due to health reasons I'd be willing to get a hysterectomy at age 39. It's almost impossible to get a doctor to do the procedure at my age when you're childless or still have young children, unless there's a tumor or something.
Aforementioned cousin is two years older and had one this past summer (similar health issues, but hers got much worse), but she's got two grown kids so the doctors aren't worried she'll change her mind about wanting more kids.
That's the whole "slippery slope" we're dealing with about doctors getting to choose what they do. One might consider a hysterectomy an elective for me at this time, but judging by family history, I'll just have to suffer for years before they'll have to do something.
Why should I suffer for years because they don't want to do a preventative surgery that would be easier now before that aspect of my health takes a downward spiral? And could their reasoning be it's against their religious beliefs for a woman of child-bearing age to do anything that would prevent them from having children?
From:
no subject
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.