1. Comment #260725 by Laurie Fraser on October 6, 2008 at 12:32 am

They'll stop at nothing.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

2. Comment #260744 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 6, 2008 at 1:43 am

How is requiring a doctor to inform a patient of their own condition (e.g. pregnant with a horribly deformed child) a breach of human rights? How is requiring them to tell patients that a service is available a breach?

The can still have their view, and even express them.

For example:

Dr: Madam, your baby has condition X and will be horribly deformed when born. Chances are he or she won't live long after birth, but there's a chance and we'll do our very best.

Mother: Deformed, how? Brain damaged?

Dr: Yes, probably. Probably very severely.

Mother: Oh my God. Is there nothing we can do?

Dr: No. Although, and I find this uncomfortable, I do have to tell you that you do have the option of what is euphemistically called "termination": You can kill the baby before he or she is born.

Mother: You mean, an abortion?

Dr: Yes, that's what some people call it. Clearly, I have strong views on this. I'm more than happy to talk about why I don't think you should even think about doing such a thing. But not all doctors take the same view. There's a list of doctors at my reception and, if you want to pursue that, um, option, you should try any of the one's that aren't listed as part of a Catholic institution.

Mother: How long do I have to decide?

Dr: Um, this makes me really uncomfortable. I'm biased - I'd say I'm biased in favour of being moral and against murder, but I have to tell you there are other doctors who'd take a different view. All I'll say is that it's, well, "easy" in the first trimester, harder in the second and really hard in the thrid. You're half way through the second trimester. I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss that further, I think you'd better see one of those other doctors. It's your business of course, but I'd really urge you to talk to your husband and your priest as well.

This doctor clearly has views that piss me off. And he's clearly putting his view. But he's also clearly declared his bias, given her the relevant information. Surely that's fair?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

3. Comment #260746 by Quetzalcoatl on October 6, 2008 at 1:48 am

He said one doctor withheld ultrasounds showing a foetal abnormality until it was too late for an abortion. The child was born and died a slow, unpleasant death, the doctor said.

This is precisely why doctors' "consciences" should not overrule the rights of the patient. He withheld them probably because he knew the mother would abort. How much more agonising must it have been for the mother to watch her child die slowly and painfully? But it's okay. The doctor followed his conscience, and did as God would want. Right?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

4. Comment #260748 by stephenray on October 6, 2008 at 2:02 am

atticus:

Your attitude is more than fair.

I would go further, however. If any individual chooses to practise a calling/profession such as medicine, then they must forego their right to exercise their freedom of conscience, religion blah blah in that practise. As a society it is reasonable of us to require that of him or her.

A doctor may exercise all those rights while acting as a private individual. If the doctor finds that his or her conscience conflicts with the profession he or she practises, then the ONLY acceptable resolution of that conflict is for the doctor to find alternative employment. It is simply immoral and unethical for the patient's interests to be prejudiced by a single iota.

Other Comments by stephenray

5. Comment #260750 by Ian (South Africa) on October 6, 2008 at 2:07 am

CHA has threatened to close its maternity services in Victoria if the bill were passed, because Catholic hospitals do not refer women for abortion.

They should be required to close their maternity services as they are not providing information on the full range of services available in the medical pantheon.

The catholic lobby and their church are a shameful lot and as deserving of contempt and despite as Islam.

Other Comments by Ian (South Africa)

6. Comment #260751 by theantitheist on October 6, 2008 at 2:08 am

They are a fuckin nightmare

I'm going to write to the Premier of Victoria congratulating him.

I'm going to write to the managing director of Phillips Fox and inform him that I will no longer use there service due to my understanding that they are stretching the meaning of a human rights bill to support a nasty position.

And I will write again to the Archbishop Hart to tell him he's a fuckwit

Other Comments by theantitheist

7. Comment #260765 by J04NN4 on October 6, 2008 at 2:47 am

So let me get this straight. If I became a vegetarian, then CHOSE to go and work in McDonalds, could I refuse to serve anything with meat in it on moral or ethical grounds?!
This is just ridiculous. If you can't provide a patient with the MEDICAL services available, don't go into MEDICINE. They can believe whatever nonsense they want at home, but the Catholics won't be satisfied until they've dragged every last woman back into the dark ages kicking and screaming.

Other Comments by J04NN4

8. Comment #260788 by Swordmaiden on October 6, 2008 at 3:32 am

"The child was born and died a slow, unpleasant death, the doctor said. "

well they don't mind that cos God killed the child....that's ok then. Loving, benevolent God my arse!

Its only a matter of time before the Pope says that pain relief for childbirth should be banned cos its against the will of God....the more it hurts the nearer you are to God....
STOP THE MADNESS!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

9. Comment #260789 by mordacious1 on October 6, 2008 at 3:32 am

In 1959, my mother-in-law was pregnant with her 5th child, my wife as it turns out. She was a catholic and checked into a catholic hospital. The doctors said that if she gave birth, there was a 90% chance she would die. They would not give her any options because the church always chose the life of the baby over that of the mother. That would have left my father-in-law with 5 young girls to raise on his own. My wife popped out early and it was touch and go for a long time, but both survived. My mother-in-law quit being a catholic the day she left the hospital. I guess if the bastards try to kill you, you can lose your faith rather quickly.

Other Comments by mordacious1

10. Comment #260791 by J04NN4 on October 6, 2008 at 3:34 am

EDIT #260765:- Could I refuse to serve anything with meat in it and EXPECT TO STILL GET PAID?! Because no doubt these 'doctors' won't have any of their considerable salaries docked for refusing to treat people...and isn't that the point of being a doctor?

Other Comments by J04NN4

11. Comment #260795 by Mayhemm on October 6, 2008 at 3:38 am

I do hope they brought the doctor with the "crisis of conscience" up on malpractice charges. But, this is religion we're talking about, so they probably got away with it.

In fact, if he/she was aware of the baby's terminal condition early on, yet withheld information to ensure it was born, only to die shortly after, they should be charged with 1st degree murder.

Ensuring that terminally ill babies are allowed to fully develop before they die. I guess this is what they mean by "Life: What a beautiful choice."

Other Comments by Mayhemm

12. Comment #260800 by rod-the-farmer on October 6, 2008 at 3:49 am

Catholic Health Australia

What ???

Is there also a Jewish Health Australia ? Hindu Health ? Muslim Health ? Why would there be a need for such a group ? To try to force practitioners of the same faith to adhere to beliefs that contradict the rules of their profession ? Good grief.

Suppose I am opposed to capital punishment. If I see someone committing a terrible crime that will likely lead (if apprehended) to the death penalty, then it is OK for me to ignore it and not report the individual to the authorities ? Because I don't like the death penalty ? Even back it down for those areas where there is no death penalty.

I don't believe incarceration is the proper way to deal with teenage yahoos. So that one kid who is always stealing cars, and is now breaking into another, I am not going to report him as they will only throw him in jail.

We need something stronger than verbal arguments for these folks. Apiece of wood, say a baseball or cricket bat, firmly applied with moderate speed, to some point on their person.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

13. Comment #260810 by ukvillafan on October 6, 2008 at 4:07 am

J04NN4

Except, of course, by turning vegetarian, which is usually (though not exclusively) done for ethical reasons, you wouldn't touch a job at McDonalds. Ethics - McDonalds - not really a match.

Other Comments by ukvillafan

14. Comment #260835 by theantitheist on October 6, 2008 at 5:02 am

Well I wrote a quick one to the Victorian government.

I'm up in Qld but what you guys do also has an affect on us up here. I want to say congratulations for forcing Doctors to be doctors and provide the best health care possible, free from their personal beliefs and superstitions.

Ignore the whole argument that it's against human rights, as it's not. They can leave the profession if they wish and take up a job suitable to their narrow minds that will not force their (outdated) moral code on others, in the process, possible harming that person. At the moment it is the christians but this will lead to Jehosive Witness Doctors refusing to even discuss blood transfusions to their 'beliefs and morals'. Nonsense. Once again please go through with this for the sake of us all and especially those people in small communities that may only have one doctor and cannot afford to have that one doctors im/morals forced upon them. "

If any one else wishes to write to them in support heres the link
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/component/option,com_forme/Itemid,99999999/func,details

Other Comments by theantitheist

15. Comment #260850 by Swordmaiden on October 6, 2008 at 5:32 am

Comment #260800 by rod-the-farmer
"Is there also a Jewish Health Australia ? Hindu Health ? Muslim Health ? Why would there be a need for such a group ? "

...only if they own hospitals I guess. This is what happens when religion gets mixed up in public facilities like hospitals and schools....it just shouldn't be allowed!
Do any religions own banks yet? Does the Vatica own any via Opus Dei?
It's a bit of a worry!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

16. Comment #260885 by Edouard Pernod on October 6, 2008 at 6:38 am

I wouldn't have much confidence in the judgment of any doctor who believes a blob like embryo with with less neurological function than the chicken he ate for lunch is a "child".

I suppose these "conscientiously objecting" doctors would also happily go along with a Jehovah's Witness family who refuses a blood transfusion to their dying child on religious grounds?

And what on earth would these supposedly moral doctors do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, which always necessitates an abortion, otherwise the mother will likely die?

They may still be a competent health care provider, but would you want a doctor who was prone to delusional thinking?

Medicine should be about applied biology, not about applied superstition.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

17. Comment #260918 by MikeBike on October 6, 2008 at 7:16 am

It is odd that not a single one of the commentators is on the side of secular rights of freedom. I happen to be an atheist who also favors the rights of a doctor - and indeed a hospital - to act in accordance with the values of their conscience, political views or indeed mythological ones. I actually believe this is a strong manifestation of secular and not religious politics.

The rights of (wo)men amount to nothing if we disallow people the right to actually manifest their particular set of beliefs in the world. Now, we should, in the spirit of secular democracy, try to convince them of the error of their ways but actually legislating to enforce conformity of behaviour ... Isn't this what religious nutcrackers want?

Any hospital (if not the actual doctors; they are after all employees bound contractually to the opinion of their employer) should be afforded the right to set their own standards. Any pharmacist should be afforded this right as well. If you disagree ... shop somewhere else or organise a protest against the hospital or any of the other means afforded you in a free society.

Freedom, baby, is a messy thing.

Other Comments by MikeBike

18. Comment #260925 by Border Collie on October 6, 2008 at 7:32 am

As before, I simply see this as only a communication problem among people who don't seem to know how to or want to communicate, people who'd rather sit in their polarized positions and bicker. Why not provide patients lists of doctors who will and doctors who won't and let the patient decide. How difficult is that?

Other Comments by Border Collie

19. Comment #260941 by notsobad on October 6, 2008 at 7:55 am

Dear catholics,

how about we took care about the living people first?

Other Comments by notsobad

20. Comment #260957 by antcowan on October 6, 2008 at 8:22 am

We have a battle here in N.Ireland to get the 1967 abortion act extended to here and there is an online petition for and against the motion and at the moment pro choice is behind. I would request that anyone here to complete the on-line petition to no 10 which can be found at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=557.

Thank you all assistance with the campaign is greatly appreciated.

Other Comments by antcowan

21. Comment #260959 by Dinah on October 6, 2008 at 8:24 am

Re: Comment #260918 by MikeBike

It is odd that not a single one of the commentators is on the side of secular rights of freedom. I happen to be an atheist who also favors the rights of a doctor - and indeed a hospital - to act in accordance with the values of their conscience, political views or indeed mythological ones. I actually believe this is a strong manifestation of secular and not religious politics.

My problem with this argument is that in a situation where the pregnant woman's life was in danger from continuing the pregnancy, and she was in a Catholic hospital and unable to access a secular one the doctors would in effect be sentencing her to death by refusing her a termination. Not only would this be against their Hippocratic oath, they would also be putting their 'rights' to act in accordance with their consciences above her right to life.

Other Comments by Dinah

22. Comment #260981 by MikeBike on October 6, 2008 at 9:02 am

Re: Dinah (comment #26918)

"My problem with this argument is that in a situation where the pregnant woman's life was in danger from continuing the pregnancy, and she was in a Catholic hospital and unable to access a secular one the doctors would in effect be sentencing her to death by refusing her a termination. Not only would this be against their Hippocratic oath, they would also be putting their 'rights' to act in accordance with their consciences above her right to life."

I completely agree that the actions of doctors in this case would be immoral. However, is it really likely that the woman would not be able to transfer to a secular hospital?

This particular woman may be ignorant of the alternatives to catholic health care. This would likely imply that she herself is a catholic - and thus it is her own beliefs (and not strictly the beliefs of her doctors) that spells her doom.

That to the side: Is a really reasonable to restrict the liberties of everyone of us based on these kinds of made-up situations where we can imagine the horrors of religious doctors? I would argue that we ought to accept that people in fact hold these strange beliefs to be true and - very occasionally - act on them - and from this beginning we should try to convince them that they are simply wrong in some extreme cases where there is a danger to the mother.

Now, I don't happen to favor abortion in general (meaning I would never accept abortion as a morally responsible action in an otherwise healthy pregnancy - where I'm involved; I can't and won't speak for other people). As a matter of principle, however, I won't argue to restrict the freedoms of my fellow citizens - I perfectly accept that for some people apparently the horror of abortion is a viable alternative to a healthy pregnancy; and I perfectly accept the rights of some doctors to feel as I do, whatever their reasons.

Now, the only way for a woman to be "coerced" into not having an abortion - and ending up dead - is if she and her entire family were to be completely unaware that there are clinics and hospitals performing abortions. Unless they happen to be religious ignoramuses, I sincerely doubt that this would ever be the case. A situation where a woman is dying from a botched pregnancy is really no different from a situation where a person is dying from something else: You should seek treatment in a place where they actually have the treatment on offer that you want.

Other Comments by MikeBike

23. Comment #261022 by bigvolcano on October 6, 2008 at 10:39 am

this is what victorian catholics are like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMWjV2zRD3w

Other Comments by bigvolcano

24. Comment #261092 by godsbelow on October 6, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Love that Catholic logic: if laws are passed in favour of women who don't want to have babies, we'll punish the women who do want babies by closing maternity wards. Nice. Catholic church, caring as usual.

I must have missed the Beatitude that says 'blessed are the extortionists...'

Other Comments by godsbelow

25. Comment #261133 by liberalartist on October 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm

MikeBike - you are assuming someone has access to healthcare alternatives besides a Catholic-run hospital, but many people don't without driving a long distance. Most people don't "choose" their hospital because it is secular or catholic, most probably don't even think about it. they assume that anything calling itself a "hospital" is providing the same care as any other.

You also assume that people have the information they need to have to make informed decisions. At least in the US, this is rarely the case. I have a friend who works with an AIDS clinic and had to inform a young man that a Wal-Mart bag is not equivalent to a condom. 1 in 4 young women have STD's today - This is all due to the misorformation campaign of the religious right, including the Catholic church.

And abortion is just the starting issue. In the US they have already started to equate birth control with abortion, allowing Pharmacists the "right" to refuse to prescribe birth control or day after pills due to their consciences. If that is allowed, where does it stop? And how on earth did we get here?

Other Comments by liberalartist

26. Comment #261264 by Mosquito on October 6, 2008 at 3:11 pm

To MikeBike:

"I completely agree that the actions of doctors in this case would be immoral. However, is it really likely that the woman would not be able to transfer to a secular hospital?"

Perhaps you are unaware of the existence of small towns? In the tri-city area where I live, there are 3 hospitals, approximately one hour distance from each other. Two of these three are Catholic; I am fortunate to live in the town that DOES NOT have a Catholic hospital, and people here can get the treatment they need; however, a woman who has just gone into some sort of emergency situation in one of the other two towns might not have the ability to be moved to our town, even if the hospital is willing to move her. And I have to agree with those who recognize that when a person chooses to go into a profession, they are (or should be) bound by the ethics and principles of that profession. Perhaps being an auto mechanic you can maintain your Christian ethics, but once you become a doctor (or pharmacist), you have many other ethical rules you are bound by, as well.

As another example, in a town I recently lived in, a pharmacist was handed a perfectly legal prescription for the morning after pill by a woman who had been raped. This was not a Catholic pharmacy, it was a secular pharmacy, but the pharmacist was religious right, and refused to fill the prescription. He also refused to give her back her perfectly legal prescription, so she could exercise her choice to go somewhere else. He also served her up a nice little lecture on promiscuity and proper morals.

Doctors and pharmacists entering a particular field are aware of the possible issues, and should make their decisions accordingly.

Or, perhaps they should be given the freedom to perform like the doctor who delivered my mother's fifth child? She had to go to the only doctor available, because it was a military base. He was Catholic, so he refused to tie her tubes. A couple of years later, when she presented to him, pregnant again, he told her she shouldn't be having another child. She told him she had desired her tubes be tied, and he wouldn't tie them. From time to time, contraception fails, after all. She and the baby nearly died from diabetic complications that arose during the pregnancy, which would have left my father to raise five small children on his own, without the slightest clue how to go about it. After this child, the doctor acquiesed, and tied her tubes, as he should have done when she requested it earlier.

Many people have to make decisions about whether they wish to follow their job or their conscience. That is why I left my job in air quality control, because my conscience would not allow me to work for a place that was selling our state to the highest bidding polluter. When our conscience conflicts with our job, if we are not prepared to violate our conscience, it might be time to change our job.

Also, in reference to this comment:

"Now, the only way for a woman to be "coerced" into not having an abortion - and ending up dead - is if she and her entire family were to be completely unaware that there are clinics and hospitals performing abortions. Unless they happen to be religious ignoramuses, I sincerely doubt that this would ever be the case. A situation where a woman is dying from a botched pregnancy is really no different from a situation where a person is dying from something else: You should seek treatment in a place where they actually have the treatment on offer that you want"

I invite you, wherever you are from, to come to the United States and visit Mississippi. Although abortion is legal in Mississippi, thanks to our Supreme Court, they have essentially removed it from the options by having only one abortion clinic in the entire state, which most women who find themselves in need of an abortion are unable to afford to get to. Obtaining information in this country can be tricky, because many ordinary looking pregnancy clinics are actually run by churches who staff them with medically ignorant but theologically devoted individuals who diligently feed the woman who has innocently walked into their clinic a boatload of scientific sounding misinformation, and a whole bunch of sweet sounding codswallop. For those who think they are immune from this because they live in the US, look carefully behind you, because these folks aren't focusing only on the US, and I used to think it couldn't happen here. After all, we have a constitution that says you have to keep religion out of politics. It did happen here, it is happening elsewhere, and I have little doubt that it will keep happening.

Other Comments by Mosquito

27. Comment #261286 by MikeBike on October 6, 2008 at 4:04 pm

On liberalartist and Mosquito:

Your arguments seem to be similar: Some people are living in circumstances that make them particularly vulnerable when a doctor will not make available to them a treatment that is accepted elsewhere - in this case abortion.

I concur, of course. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, though, to submit that you can't always force people to act as you would like (case in point: Religion). The fact that Mississippi has only one abortion clinic is apparently either reason to move, or - not knowing the particulars of that state - open your own abortion clinic. The affirmative action argument - that some people are just too poor, too stupid, or living in the wrong place - is not to me justification enough to take away anyone's right to practice their profession to their employer's satisfaction and with all the freedom that the employer grants them. Mind you, I'm not saying that doctors should be allowed right of refusal, as such. I'm saying that privately funded hospitals should be able to set their own policies in this regard. That goes for pharmacies, as well. If the product is not in stock - and that must be the owner's decision - then you can't buy it.

Some times people just get a tough break. Would it really help forcing doctors to perform or arrange procedures that they are not willing to perform? I can imagine perfectly valid secular reasons for not wanting to perform abortions or facilitating them - and I can imagine perfectly valid secular reasons for not wanting to partake in euthanasia, for instance. Would you not accept a no from a doctor just because you and your grandmother is of the opinion that he ought to kill her? Would you force him to facilitate this? (This may be a somewhat strecthed argument but just to get the point across).

Other Comments by MikeBike

28. Comment #261297 by Mosquito on October 6, 2008 at 4:28 pm

"Would it really help forcing doctors to perform or arrange procedures that they are not willing to perform?"

The problem with this, MikeBike, is that no one is forcing the doctors to perform or arrange procedures. They are only telling the doctors that they have to inform the patient of all the alternatives. In the case of pharmacists, it is not a matter of whether you approve of a medicine or not, but whether it is a legal prescription. If your conscience conflicts with the demands of your job, then it is not up to those who might be afflicted by your conscience to move to another state; it is up to you to decide not to take a job which conflicts with your conscience.

As for whether a private hospital should have the courage of its conscience, I would agree with you - but ONLY if they are not holding a monopoly. In many places now, the Catholic hospitals have managed to purchase the hospitals in the area, and get a monopoly. If a procedure is not illegal, then the hospital should be required to either perform it, or not gain a monopoly in that area. I am not a Catholic, and should not be held to the dictates of the "conscience" of a Catholic. Many people cannot claim any procedure, whether abortion, tubal, or even simple wart removals, on their insurance unless their doctor refers them for it. If I wish a procedure that my doctor feels is against his conscience, yes, I can change doctors. If the doctors who don't want to refer me for a legal procedure hold a monopoly, I have no options. And when I go into a private, secular pharmacy, I should not be subjected to being unable to fill a legal prescription just because the pharmacist who happens to be on duty that shift feels that it is in violation of his/her ethical code. This is not a simple case of some people getting a tough break. This is a case of a powerful church with a medieval philosophy trying to make sure all other people follow their conscience. They are tying up the medical care in many areas precisely for this reason, and now they are pouting because someone is trying to put the kibosh on their party.

It is not the position of a physician to make a moral decision for me, regardless of his conscience, even if a secular argument can be made for taking that position. If a secular argument can be made for that position, he is free to make that argument, or even the religious one, but he should not be free to make the choice for me by refusing information. That is all this boils down to. He is free to have as much conscience as he wishes; he is not free to be my conscience.

Other Comments by Mosquito

29. Comment #261543 by MikeBike on October 7, 2008 at 2:49 am

If there is one thing, the global atheist community needs, its a political discussion. I like this - perhaps we could be a bit more like gibbering rats than cats.

Just to clarify my position: The protection that I am afforded in a strong constitutional democracy against religion is exactly the protection that is undermined in legislating that privately held businesses, monopolies or not, should conform to a moral standard set by a parliamentary majority. That is as simple as I can state my point of view - and I personally think that it is crucial to the cause of ridding public affairs of the god nutters. Because it goes the other way as well - it affords me in my private endeavours the full right of conscience.

Now, there is a technical issue raised by you, Mosquito. The issue of a legal prescription is easily solved to my mind: Either a pharmacist agrees to certain contractual stipulations and receives a benefit (the ability to profit from the sale of prescription medicine) or he does not. But that is a negotiation between the pharmacist and the governmental bodies regulating prescription medicine - it does not strictly involve a parliament. No one customer should be able to demand of any particular pharmacist that they have certain products in stock - it is the pharmacist's decision entirely whether or not he wishes to reap the benefits inherent to the prescription and regulation system.

On (quote) "It is not the position of a physician to make a moral decision for me, regardless of his conscience, even if a secular argument can be made for taking that position." Well ... Why doesn't that go the other way as well?

Other Comments by MikeBike

30. Comment #261551 by MikeBike on October 7, 2008 at 3:09 am

I'll try to open a new thread in an appropriate forum under the heading "Constitutional democracy, Rights, and Atheism". Continue this fascinating discussion there?

Other Comments by MikeBike

31. Comment #261577 by lazarus on October 7, 2008 at 4:26 am

"Yesterday, more than 2000 protesters converged on the steps of the Victorian Parliament to voice their opposition to the bill. Earlier, 2500 packed St Patrick's Cathedral for a service, led by Archbishop Denis Hart, urging the bill's defeat."

Why can't they just pray for the Bill's defeat? Has their god stopped listening to them or something?

Other Comments by lazarus

32. Comment #261862 by skip on October 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm

If you are interested the Catholic Medical association is doing the same thing in Canada. Here is an excerpt from an article I recently wrote about this topic.

Saturday, September 20, 2008
Catholic Medical Association Is Tampering in Canadian Medical Ethics

Many of us think that the debate over medical ethics is a quiet and rational debate, when in reality the religious community, including the Catholic Church, is running full force at Canadian Laws in an attempt to ensure that their own biblical views are upheld. The Conservative Party of Canada seems to be helping.

A recent article in TheStar.com explains the problem with faith when it impinges on the rights of others. The story focuses on a Catholic Doctor who has refused to prescribe a single birth control pill or refer a single patient seeking an abortion during his 20 year career. Dr David McCann is quoted as saying, "Referring a patient for a procedure that violates my conscience also violates my conscience," McCann says. "That's a form of co-operation with evil."

You can read the whole article here: http://jeffolsson.blogspot.com/2008/09/catholic-medical-association-is.html

Other Comments by skip

33. Comment #263008 by fides_et_ratio on October 10, 2008 at 4:14 am

If the proposition were put to us explicitly, as a matter of principle, we would not consider for a moment that people may have a licence to kill those who stand in the way of their education or the advancement of their careers.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio