(July 1, 2014 at 9:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What if the most important principles to said doctor are his religious principles? Whats more important then? His principles or the (potential) patients health?

This principles are NOT religious, they are principles written in the doctor's ethics code, any doctor that doesn't follow them is not a doctor. The right to live is placed at 1st. A doctor may or may not consider a fetus a life/person, this is a personal choice and no one should be allowed to interfere with it. It isn't really a matter of religious faith, most people I know against abortion are secularists or atheists, it's more like a matter of ethics or conviction.

(July 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Losty Wrote: The harm is that if you allow a doctor to refuse treatment for religious reasons then you have to allow all doctors to refuse treatment for all religious reasons. Maybe the next doctor will refuse to perform an emergency c section because the mother isn't married and premarital sex is against his religion.

If we start allowing doctors to object to procedures based on their own religious beliefs, what happens to the car crash victim that needs a blood transfusion and is being treated by a devout Jehova's Witness?!?

Simply put, if you can't leave your superstitions at the door, find a new profession!

(July 1, 2014 at 9:00 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Losty Wrote: Did you know that some women die whilst trying to jump through hoops to get an abortion in places where it is more difficult legally?
The harm is that if you allow a doctor to refuse treatment for religious reasons then you have to allow all doctors to refuse treatment for all religious reasons. Maybe the next doctor will refuse to perform an emergency c section because the mother isn't married and premarital sex is against his religion.

---

No.

Again completely wrong. I'm not talking about religious reasons only, but also morals and ethics. Let's put it simply and I won't repeat this, refusing anything that endangers life is not allowed, refusing an abortion doesn't kill the woman. The case you mentioned doesn't apply where I live, since clinics are in the same city.

You allow refusal if there is an alternative. In the case of abortion, there are clinics for it. If you refuse something that is the only mean of saving a life, then it's not legal.

And the case of premarital sex is different, a doctor has nothing to do with personal decisions regarding sexual behavior, the case of abortion is a doctor believing they are killing someone. Seriously why is this so hard to understand? We shouldn't force people to go against their convictions so strongly, sounds like a dictatorship that violates freedom of conscience and religion/morals/ethics

What you're talking about is completely irrelevant. This is the way laws work, you have to be super careful how you word laws and you have to define all words whose definitions could be subjective. Then you have to remember that every time you rule a certain way you create precedent which can later be used as reasoning for future rulings. Some people may find interfering with god's will for someone to die just as morally objectionable as murder. Just because you don't doesn't mean the slippery slope is not created.

---

Also, clinics being in the same city isn't good enough. Sometimes women need abortions. No time for hospital transfers, and no time to wait for another doctor to show up. Also, are you really telling me there isn't a single city in your country without an abortion clinic?

(July 1, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 9:00 pm)blackout94 Wrote: Again completely wrong. I'm not talking about religious reasons only, but also morals and ethics. Let's put it simply and I won't repeat this, refusing anything that endangers life is not allowed, refusing an abortion doesn't kill the woman. The case you mentioned doesn't apply where I live, since clinics are in the same city.

You allow refusal if there is an alternative. In the case of abortion, there are clinics for it. If you refuse something that is the only mean of saving a life, then it's not legal.

And the case of premarital sex is different, a doctor has nothing to do with personal decisions regarding sexual behavior, the case of abortion is a doctor believing they are killing someone. Seriously why is this so hard to understand? We shouldn't force people to go against their convictions so strongly, sounds like a dictatorship that violates freedom of conscience and religion/morals/ethics

What you're talking about is completely irrelevant. This is the way laws work, you have to be super careful how you word laws and you have to define all words whose definitions could be subjective. Then you have to remember that every time you rule a certain way you create precedent which can later be used as reasoning for future rulings. Some people may find interfering with god's will for someone to die just as morally objectionable as murder. Just because you don't doesn't mean the slippery slope is not created.

We are talking about a conflict of rights. Putting it simple, the most important right prevails. This is not based on the slippery rope argument, the right that will prevail in the conflict will be chosen according to each concrete case and not in abstract. I'll give you basic examples, the objective is to find an equilibrium between objections and patients' rights:

1 - Should a JW be able to refuse giving a blood transfusion? No. What if there is an alternative method to blood transfusion that works equally well? Yes, the JW can refuse and use the alternative method
2 - Should a doctor refuse to treat someone who's life is eminently in danger because it goes against his/hers religion? No, obviously

As you can see from 1 or 2, the right to live surpasses the right to religious beliefs (religious, moral or ethical, it doesn't matter)

3 - Should a doctor refuse abortion if there is no other option or professional to perform it and the woman needs it right away? Not sure about it, but my answer would be no. What if there are professionals specially designated for it? Then yes.

4 - Should I be able to refuse to go to war because my ethics or religion is against it? Yes clearly (same for military service with guns, etc)
5 - Should I be able to refuse marrying 2 gay people if I'm against gay marriage? I'm not sure about it
6 - Should an individual refuse to sell contraceptives because it is against his religion? In this case it seems to me the answer is no

This are examples I quoted from my fundamental rights professors' book, I translated them to english.

We do not want extreme measures, I don't think all objections are valid, but I don't think either all should be invalid, the slippery slope argument doesn't apply because each case is an individual reality with no relation with other realities. Objection is allowed if there is no significant harm to the patient and an alternative method exists. In the cases I supported objection, there were always alternative methods with the same results.

(July 1, 2014 at 9:03 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm)Losty Wrote: It does apply.

Using the slippery slope argument is just as valid as saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because polygamy, marrying animals and marrying children would come next. It is never a sufficient argument and is mostly used as a fallacy. Each case is a case and should be given appropriate treatment. Comparison alone isn't enough to prove anything. You still haven't justified why doctors should be forced to violate their principles by performing an abortion, you just made comparisons and conjectures, saying that other situations would be unbearably allowed. I'm still waiting for the answer. Isn't the most important principle in a doctor's ethic the right to live? If so, then what's more important, treating a mother to avoid an unwanted child, or avoid killing a fetus (if the doctor considers abortion killing)? You already know the answer.

Seriously. That's where you're going to go with this? It is not the same. Not even close. Doctors have a responsibility to treat patients. Doctors have an obligation to put their personal issues on the back burner and do their fucking jobs. Don't like it? Don't be a doctor. I'm not even going to dicuss gay marriage or slippery slopes with you because you're obviously an idiot.

*edit* maybe calling you an idiot is too harsh. But seriously frustrating you do not understand what slippery slope is and your comparison to gay marriage is just ridiculous.

(July 1, 2014 at 9:15 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Losty Wrote: The harm is that if you allow a doctor to refuse treatment for religious reasons then you have to allow all doctors to refuse treatment for all religious reasons. Maybe the next doctor will refuse to perform an emergency c section because the mother isn't married and premarital sex is against his religion.

If we start allowing doctors to object to procedures based on their own religious beliefs, what happens to the car crash victim that needs a blood transfusion and is being treated by a devout Jehova's Witness?!?

Simply put, if you can't leave your superstitions at the door, find a new profession!

Like I already said, objections are allowed if there is no significant harm done. If a life is at stake, there are no possible objections. Objections are possible when there are alternative methods to reach the same result.

---

(July 1, 2014 at 9:24 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 9:03 pm)blackout94 Wrote: Using the slippery slope argument is just as valid as saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because polygamy, marrying animals and marrying children would come next. It is never a sufficient argument and is mostly used as a fallacy. Each case is a case and should be given appropriate treatment. Comparison alone isn't enough to prove anything. You still haven't justified why doctors should be forced to violate their principles by performing an abortion, you just made comparisons and conjectures, saying that other situations would be unbearably allowed. I'm still waiting for the answer. Isn't the most important principle in a doctor's ethic the right to live? If so, then what's more important, treating a mother to avoid an unwanted child, or avoid killing a fetus (if the doctor considers abortion killing)? You already know the answer.

Seriously. That's where you're going to go with this? It is not the same. Not even close. Doctors have a responsibility to treat patients. Doctors have an obligation to put their personal issues on the back burner and do their fucking jobs. Don't like it? Don't be a doctor. I'm not even going to dicuss gay marriage or slippery slopes with you because you're obviously an idiot.

You lost all credibility by insulting me. I'm not an idiot, I am right, have you studied fundamental rights or fundamental law, human rights? You obviously haven't, because if you did study it deeply, you'd know forcing citizens to go against their personal beliefs when there is no harm in it is something called fascism, AKA dictatorship. I'm quitting discussing because you seem to refuse to see my side and my points, the fact you insulted me just shows your lack or arguments. You are so right that your opinion directly conflicts with the Declaration of human rights.

This is not a matter of belief, a doctor considering abortion murder is directly related with the article saying a doctors duty is to protect life. A doctor interprets it this way, it is a possible interpretation, most laws don't have a single unanimous interpretation, nor they should have because that would make the law completely static (This doesn't mean all words can be infinitely interpreted as people see fit, there are parameters)

Actually studying fundamental rights (in my country) is one of my favorite hobbies.
I may have gone too far by calling you an idiot (though some things you say are just...well, you know), but I don't lose any credibility by insulting you. I am still right about the slippery slope. I am still right about a doctor's obligation to treat patients, and I am still right that your comparison to gay marriage is crap. My calling you an idiot doesn't magically negate facts and make you right. That's not how reality works.

(July 1, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Losty Wrote: Actually studying fundamental rights (in my country) is one of my favorite hobbies.
I may have gone too far by calling you an idiot (though some things you say are just...well, you know), but I don't lose any credibility by insulting you. I am still right about the slippery slope. I am still right about a doctor's obligation to treat patients, and I am still right that your comparison to gay marriage is crap. My calling you an idiot doesn't magically negate facts and make you right. That's not how reality works.

I'm merely defending the right of conscience objection. The slippery slope argument could be used the other way - If we restrict an objection of conscience, this would be a permit for the government to restrict all other objections of conscience, some of them being pretty valid. Why not treat each individual reality as a different case? Just because we say yes to doctor A, it doesn't mean we have to say yes to doctor B if the situation is different (the case of refusing abortion vs blood transfusion) - You are not right about the slippery slope and I'll explain it - The criteria to solve a conflict of rights, in this case objection of conscience V patient's rights is a criteria based on the motto 'Each case is a different case' (this is how it works in my country), therefore allowing objection in a single case DOESN'T allow in anyway an analogy to similar but slightly different situations.

I'll admit my comparison to gay marriage was stupid, and I apologize for it, sometimesmy expression of thoughts doesn't come out so well. That being said, if a doctor considers, like I said, the duty to treat a patient V the duty to not violate the fetus' 'life', what prevails? You can argue a fetus is not a life, your colleagues may think differently.

I stated facts. The fact doctors can object to performing abortions is a constitutional right and it is protected by the law where I live.

I've already justified why the argument of slippery slope won't work here, because of the criteria I mentioned, I don't know how it works in the US, each reality is a reality, but what I said is a fact, objections of conscience are a serious issue and cannot be decided by the slippery slope argument, mainly considering it's fallacious form. If I allow doctor A to refuse treatment, why do I need to allow doctor B? The first doesn't equal allowing the second, this is as simple as it gets. Just because objection to abortion is allowed it doesn't mean we will allow objections of blood transfusions, etc. By the way, if we forbid doctors to use conscience of objection, the number of professionals would decrease. In med school where I live, most students are not OK with the abortion matter.

It very well may be in your country. I still to do not agree that it's right. Sure we could treat every case individually, but that is not how the law really works and in serious situations no one has the time to go through court procedures. Most women are going to have abortions in abortion clinics anyways. Nobody wants to get an abortion done by someone who doesn't want to do it. But I still must insist that if you're going to be a doctor you must be prepared to perform an abortion if it is necesarry regardless of your personal beliefs.

---

Maybe your country's laws do not require that, then maybe your country has crappy laws. Maybe doctors in your country will still refuse, and maybe your country has crappy doctors.

(July 1, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Losty Wrote: It very well may be in your country. I still to do not agree that it's right. Sure we could treat every case individually, but that is not how the law really works and in serious situations no one has the time to go through court procedures. Most women are going to have abortions in abortion clinics anyways. Nobody wants to get an abortion done by someone who doesn't want to do it. But I still must insist that if you're going to be a doctor you must be prepared to perform an abortion if it is necesarry regardless of your personal beliefs.

I respect your view. I'm just trying to find an equilibrium between both sides, I don't like to take extreme measures. Treating each case individually is the only way the law will work properly in cases of conflict of rights, this is empirical knowledge according to the current doctrine.

What harm is there if specialized clinics exist, like in my case (Portugal)? Only professionals fine with the practice work there, women already know they can only have abortions there, there is one per city.

I'm sorry if I annoyed, you too annoyed me with some arguments, you sounded like you wanted to impose your views on all doctors. Again I must ask, how would we enforce this? Objection of conscience is a species of 'sub-right' connected with freedom of conscience

I don't want to be on this forum in conflict with another member, I hate conflicts, can we just get along despite you having called me an idiot? Our views are not that different as you might think, I'm pretty sure you too don't support abolishing completely freedom of objection.