I’m troubled by opioid abuse, but I trust doctors and patients more than government. I see no reason why abortion should be unique, other than the necessities of politics, which we don’t have to pay attention to here.
My intent was to rebut something foolish adaher said about the specific phrase, “A woman and her doctor.”
Once that was said and done, the thread took on a life of its own (so to speak) as all abortion discussions necessarily do. I’m participating in the sleigh-ride for its own sake, but, really, my purpose was accomplished in the OP.
(The mods may feel free to close it, if they feel it has nothing more to offer. Or, whatever: let’s kick the ball around a while. Maybe someone will actually say something new!)
But you’ve been avoiding the issue of what invoking the doctor actually means: that the doctor has final say in whether he will perform or recommend any medical procedure. If a person doesn’t like it, they can find a new doctor.
You want to try that again in English?
If a choice is between person A and person B, that implies that both have control over that choice. Under current law, this is true: a doctor does not have to perform an abortion. So if a woman wants an abortion, and a doctor doesn’t think she should have one, he can say “no”.
I still don’t see what you are trying to say, or why you think it is important.
Yes, an abortion is a medical procedure, and can only be performed by a medical professional. Medicine is regulated in this country. We’re not allowed to practice without a license.
(There are some leniencies for practicing on yourself. I am not allowed to cut a mole off of your skin, but I can get away with cutting one off my own.)
So, yes, if a woman couldn’t find a doctor willing to perform an abortion, she’d be out of luck.
As it stands now, there is no shortage of willing doctors, so this isn’t a major issue.
Yeah, we’re not really in disagreement, I was just asking in the earlier thread if doctors being allowed to say no was an inalienable right, or just a concession to current political realities.
First off, let’s be clear. A consensus is more than just a majority. A consensus is when pretty much everyone is in agreement on an issue. For example, you could say there’s a consensus in modern society that slavery is immoral. That belief may not be universal but you’d have to really look to find somebody who doesn’t hold it.
But I don’t think there’s any aspect of the abortion debate on which society has achieved a consensus. Pretty much every position on the subject has people on both sides of it.
You said a “broad consensus”. If you’re now going to change that to “pretty much everyone”, then you’re not going to find anything that fits that definition. Not even slavery. Not really seeing any reason to discuss that further.
I’m not really sure where the law stands, but what if a doctor (out of whatever reason we might want to imagine) refuses to perform any necessary procedure? What if it’s an emergency situation, and he doesn’t want to get blood on his suit? He’s late for bridge club. He’s afraid of further violence (fairly decent reason.) Whatevs. Can a doctor just say, “Not my problem, I’m outta here?”
I think this is the case.
(We have “Good Samaritan” laws to protect doctors who do get involved. Say somebody gets shot, the doctor tries to help, guy dies anyway: the law protects the guy’s family from suing the doctor. He did his best. But do we have “Bad Samaritan” laws, which let the doctor off the hook if he just doesn’t care to get involved? If he’s compelled to get involved…that’s troubling, innit?)
I don’t know if a doctor can get out of performing a medical procedure that is necessary, but a doctor does have the judgment to decide if it is necessary or not. If your leg is infected, whether to amputate or try to save the leg is between you and your doctor. And current medical ethics require doctors to take the baby into account when treating pregnant women. So unless it’s down to the baby coming out or the mother dying, a doctor doesn’t have to perform an abortion if in his medical judgment it’s not needed.
What i wanted to know, and this applies to euthanasia as well, is if the patient decides it’s necessary, should the doctor have any say?
That’s what the word means. I’m not inventing some new definition for it.
Out of curiosity, how many people in this country do you think are okay with slavery?
Euthanasia is not totally legal, although steps are being taken to legalize it, under limited conditions (such as terminally ill patients who are in severe pain.)
With euthanasia and with abortion, a doctor may say, “I will not do this.” The doctor may not say, “You will not do this.” No doctor has the power to decree, “This patient shall not receive this treatment,” but only, “I will not perform this treatment for this patient.”
We have the right to go “doctor shopping” until we find a doctor who will treat us the way we want.
Definitely. I’d argue that applies to chronic pain as well, but the government sees fit to put people in jail for that sort of thing. It needs to stop. The government has no right to get between doctors and patients with chronic pain.
Just an opinion, but I think that “broad consensus” and “pretty much everyone” are close to synonymous, but not absolutely so. The former might cover 75% agreement, and the latter 95% or higher.
Heh. As loathsome as it may be, I’m sure there are a handful of people who think it’s just fine. Some would point to the Bible for justification. Hyper-Libertarians might argue that it should be legal for a person to sell himself, voluntarily, into slavery from which he cannot escape again.
It’s hard to imagine any proposition that would receive absolute unanimity!
IMO, a consensus exists when most people agree and those that don’t, don’t really feel all that strongly about the issue.
European nations seem to have a consensus on abortion: legal in the first trimester, subject to government intervention after that point. That was what I wanted to discuss: how the political aspect of abortion in the United States causes people to take positions they probably wouldn’t if partisan politics wasn’t involved. Democrats aren’t prone to take absolutist pro-liberty positions on any issue, as a rule of thumb. That’s usually a Republican/libertarian thing to do. But politics and the “team mentality” cause people to take weird stances that aren’t based on any guiding principle.
Much as Democrats have “evolved” on free speech and censorship, I figure if women start aborting enough gay babies we’ll see some “evolution” on abortion too. The necessities of coalition politics make that a certainty, should it become possible to determine if a baby will be born gay.
Cite, please, that it is illegal to prescribe pain medication.
Oh my god you all suck.
adaher: re aborting “gay babies.” It seems a pretty sick thing to want to pin your political hopes and dreams on.
Just as Democrats are sometimes accused of wanting mass shootings, in order to advance a gun-control agenda, you’ve just put yourself in the position of speaking in favor of eugenics-based abortions, in order to make abortions unpopular.
Have you read any of the SDMB threads on outcome-based abortions? The consensus was “very broad” indeed that this is something that none of us admire, and which none of us would ban by law.
You’re digging yourself into a very, very ugly hole.