Opting out of abortion
Interesting news in today’s Oxford Mail: apparently eighty percent of terminations for Oxfordshire women are carried out in London and Reading at Marie Stopes clinics rather than in the JR hospital. Obviously, it would be better if they were all available at the JR without women having to travel, but as they’re all state-funded (can’t find the stats right now, but last time I looked about 90 per cent of abortions to local women were funded on the NHS) I suppose it’s okay.
What really fascinated me, though, were the comments following the article on the Oxford Mail’s site. The lack of provision in Oxfordshire is caused by the JR being a teaching hospital where a new set of medical students come to gynae every six months: the hospital can’t plan consistent services when they don’t know whether they’ll have conscientious objectors on the staff or not. As I write, there are 14 comments on the Oxford Mail’s site, and far from being the usual rants of pro-lifers, there’s a good mix, including some thoughtful contributions. Several go further than I think I would in limiting the right of doctors to opt out of procedures - I think that the crucial point is that doctors must be honest and open with patients seeking abortion provision, not attempt to sway their decisions and swiftly refer them on. I suppose we haven’t had to tackle before the problem of a shortage of doctors willing to perform abortions before, though this has long been a real concern for pro-choice advocates in the States.
People shouldn’t become doctors if there are certain procedures they don’t approve of [...] It’s not the doctors’ job to let their moral judgement cloud how they treat their patients
The sooner doctors realize that they are there to serve ALL people (whether they agree with them or not) the better.
They should be required to participate in procedures when it is tax payers money that keeps them in their jobs and tax payers money that has enabled them to train to do those jobs
DOCTORS ARE NOT THERE TO DECIDE WHAT OUR MORALS SHOULD BE BUT TO DO THE JOB THEY ARE WELL PAID FOR.
Surely, if they are agreeing to work for the NHS, paid by tax-payers money, then they should be required to perform all procedures offered by the NHS? There are many reasons why a woman might require an abortion, and the moralising of individuals within a publicly funded organisation is repugnant and misogynistic in the extreme.
I agree with these people in principle, but in practice I imagine if doctors opposed to abortion were forced to perform them, they’d be more likely to stall or try to sway the woman’s decision than if they can refer to another doctor.
In this case, though, it seems that the possibility of opting out is making it more difficult for women to get an abortion if that’s what they want. What if a young woman living with her parents didn’t want them to know she had had an abortion? Wouldn’t it be much more difficult if she’d had to get the procedure done in London? A common-sense solution would be to make sure that in teaching hospitals there are enough non-student doctors able to perform the procedure that they can guarantee they’ll be able to cater for people in situations where they require the procedure done locally. Maybe this is already the case - doesn’t seem a complicated idea and the concept of planning should not be alien to the NHS!
Oh, and this seems to mirror exactly the case of the schoolteacher who wouldn’t remove her head covering. It was argued that she was working in a public service job and her exercising religious conscience prevented her from doing aspects of her job. (I disagree that it stopped her being a good teacher, but that’s what was claimed.) She was sacked. Exactly the same argument applies here, except this time it’s Christianity so doctors get away with it.
Ultimately I think the test is in both cases if allowing workers to exercise their conscience freely has any impact on public service users. If so, it’s not acceptable. If a way can possibly be found that it doesn’t (and it’s the employer’s responsibility to find that way if it exists) then the worker should be given as much freedom as possible.
“Exactly the same argument applies here, except this time it’s Christianity so doctors get away with it.”
Erm, to a significant extent the growth in conscience objectors is due to a steadily increasing number of Muslim doctors.
I’d also disagree that there’s an ‘exact mirror’ between being prevented from wearing religious dress, and being required to undertake acts your religion defines as murder, but hey ho.
Do you think there would be an opt-out if no Christians opposed abortion?
I’d also dispute the idea that Christianity defines abortion as murder & I’d love to see you provide biblical evidence for that.
Well, it would generally be a combination of the Old Testament language which is fairly clear about when life starts, and therefore what ending one is, and the more modern ethicists (much easier for Catholics, point at the Pope having said it and that’s the message of Christianity).
If you’re looking for a specific Jesus statement, you won’t get one, but then you won’t get one on many ethical issues. There’s plenty of text indicating the concept was strongly frowned upon by the early church as soon as the early 2nd Century, though. Since 1st Century BC Jewish ethicists said much the same thing, it would seem odd to believe there was a hundred year change of heart which was then reversed.
You’ll find it difficult to find an OT passage about when life begins without taking it pretty far out of context. There are three verses usually quoted and they all speak about God’s omniscience NOT about when life begins - ie the implication is God knows us before we’re even conceived, when it’s clear we cannot be a person. If God knows us before we’re even conceived, of course He knows us when we’re in the womb too, but that doesn’t mean very much.
Before abortion became a political hot potato, OT scholars were fairly united in agreeing that the Hebrew understanding of when life began was at first breath - therefore at birth. Look up the word “nephesh”, also Gen 2:7, 1 Kings 17: 17-24 & Ezekiel 37: 8-10. (Romans 8: 9-11 and James 2: 26 play on this concept,too.)
Also bear in mind that if people were fighting and caused a fetus to miscarry, the punishment was a fine, whereas if a woman was killed the penalty was death. Yet despite this evidence some people are keen to take tiny passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Psalms out of context to claim that a fetus and human being are direct equivalents. If a fetus was a person, wouldn’t “a life for a life” apply here too?
It’s also worth noting that there are thousands of laws in the OT but nothing specifically about abortion. And abortion was certainly practiced back in them days. The Assyrians, who after all lived right next to the Israelites and had a bit of a set-to with them on a few occasions, had a law dating from the 12th century BC. With other serious offences (and I would think if abortion was equivalent to murder then it’d count as serious) there is a provision forbidding it even if it is something not even practised by the Israelites but only by their neighbours.
Personally, as a Christian I’m sick of prosperity-gospel-spouting Americans claiming ownership of the Bible then distorting it to support their prejudices and lifestyles.
I think pragmatically we have to accept that no sane person would do something they considered to be taking a life and causing harm, even if they were paid.
Whether it’s correct to assume performing an abortion is taking a life and causing harm is a difficult question of personal conscience.
If a given doctor rationalizes abortion as wrong and they object because they would rather do other medical work, we have to respect their decision in that instance.
Perhaps the NHS should implement a system whereby trainee doctors can express that preference early on, and then not work in an area of medicine in a role where they would be asked to perform abortions. I think there is plenty of room for accommodation, and I would not like to see doctors compelled to compromise their morals or risk losing their job, because that will lead to a stressed and unhappy workforce.
It’s not the role of the government or the NHS to dictate a given morality to either the doctors or the patients who they treat.
As long as there are some doctors who will perform abortions, the patients will have to travel to them, though it would also make sense for the NHS to manage their staff such that they have a team of doctors willing to perform abortions at each hospital with the technical facilities to perform the procedure.
Hmm, I don’t buy that explanation - I know at least some of the O&G consultants at the JR aren’t keen on abortion anyway - although some, particularly Filipino, theatre staff are opposed to abortion they always seem able to get enough people (it doesn’t take long) - I reckon there’s some institutional inertia going on - why bother providing a service if you don’t have to and some senior members of staff aren’t keen.
In terms of new doctors, most junior doctors don’t get anywhere near the theatre so it is only registrars that you need - and if you can’t get enough O&G registrars prepared to carry out abortions then the whole NHS service provision is in trouble.
Just thinking - it’d be worth your while in a professional capacity having a word with the family planning people in Oxford - they tell me they are not impressed by the long delays from referral to procedure for abortions and this might explain part of it - speed of referral is very important both early on in pregancy when the method used very much depends on the gestation, and in the limited period after foetal anomaly scanning at around 20wks when there is a limited window before the time limit on abortion (I seem to recall that Oxford has quite an early limit, something like 16wks and everyone else must be referred straight to Marie Stopes).
I don’t know if people are for or against abortion on here, but what I do know is, it is not FOR a fact murder, that is extremely ridiculous! It’s just a mass of cells until it is fully developed by at which stage a doctor would not perform the abortion! It also does not say in the bible anywhere that abortion is against the law! Who are you to judge a women or young girl for that matter! You’re so quick to judge and point a finger, but do you actually have any idea what they’re going through? Do you think they actually enjoy having to go through it? It doesn’t help when you have people who think they’re so perfect saying “keep the baby” “give it up for adoption” “abortion is murder” well I don’t see any of you voting to look after they baby, cloth it, feed it for the next 18 years! So just why don’t you just skip the part where you pretend to be righteous!
Oh to add on that, I’ve been brought up in a Chrisitain family, and abortion came after the bible was written, so how can God say it’s murder? You people shouldn’t make up crap!