Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors
by National Post
Thanks to Brian Burgess for the link.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726616
Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors
Ontario physicians could be stripped of their right to exercise religious or moral conscience if a new set of guidelines is accepted by their regulating body next month, critics say.
Doctors across Canada are now allowed to opt out of such things as prescribing birth control or morning-after pills or doing abortions when it goes against their conscience. Physicians are also allowed to refuse to do referrals in such cases.
But a new draft proposal from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario could change that for doctors in the province.
"I'm really concerned with the new principle that the college is promulgating and that is that doctors do not have the right to be guided in the conduct of the practice by their conscience," said Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Centre for Policy Studies, an Ottawa-based think tank. "That's a sweeping broad principle to establish -- and once you've established it the field is wide open for further changes."
For example, he said a doctor might refuse to help a same-sex couple to use reproductive technology to have a child.
"There are a lot of doctors who feel uncomfortable with this and think it's detrimental to the child's welfare down the road. The way were reading this draft document is a doctor could be hit with a misconduct" if the new rules are adopted.
Some of the provisions included in the draft document are:
• [A] physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services the require."
• "Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered ... or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code and/or constitute professional misconduct."
• "Tell patients about their right to see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure they have sufficient information to exercise that right. If patients or potential patients cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor, physicians must ensure arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over the case."
Rene Leiva, a Catholic family doctor in Ottawa, and a former board member of the Canadian Physicians for Life, said if the new rules were adopted it would make it nearly impossible for him to operate in the province.
"This would put a burden on physicians like myself to conform to a view that basically puts my conscience under somebody's else's power," said Dr. Leiva. "And the key aspect is moral integrity and the right of physicians to act in a way that does not harm the patient.
Jill Hefley, a spokeswoman for the college, said the reason for the draft was because of changes being made to the Ontario human rights system that could see doctors facing more complaints from patients who feel they are being discriminated against.
She said the draft document was a way of alerting doctors that they could be facing more legal issues from the human rights system.
But Mr. Ben-Ami said that explanation makes no sense.
"If this was just a matter of cautioning members of the college that there may be some problems in exercising their conscience that would be fair," he said. "They seem to go from that into a discussion about professional misconduct and then setting out guidelines about what is misconduct and that becomes very problematic to us because I don't think you can make a sweeping declaration that a doctor or any professional has to ignore matters of conscience in the conduct of their affairs. I don't think this has been thought through."
The Ontario Medical Association, the professional group that represents doctors, would not comment but said they are sending a submission to the college next week.
It is believed that Ontario would be the only province to change its conscience guidelines if the new rules are adopted.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726616
Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors
Ontario physicians could be stripped of their right to exercise religious or moral conscience if a new set of guidelines is accepted by their regulating body next month, critics say.
Doctors across Canada are now allowed to opt out of such things as prescribing birth control or morning-after pills or doing abortions when it goes against their conscience. Physicians are also allowed to refuse to do referrals in such cases.
But a new draft proposal from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario could change that for doctors in the province.
"I'm really concerned with the new principle that the college is promulgating and that is that doctors do not have the right to be guided in the conduct of the practice by their conscience," said Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Centre for Policy Studies, an Ottawa-based think tank. "That's a sweeping broad principle to establish -- and once you've established it the field is wide open for further changes."
For example, he said a doctor might refuse to help a same-sex couple to use reproductive technology to have a child.
"There are a lot of doctors who feel uncomfortable with this and think it's detrimental to the child's welfare down the road. The way were reading this draft document is a doctor could be hit with a misconduct" if the new rules are adopted.
Some of the provisions included in the draft document are:
• [A] physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services the require."
• "Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered ... or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code and/or constitute professional misconduct."
• "Tell patients about their right to see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure they have sufficient information to exercise that right. If patients or potential patients cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor, physicians must ensure arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over the case."
Rene Leiva, a Catholic family doctor in Ottawa, and a former board member of the Canadian Physicians for Life, said if the new rules were adopted it would make it nearly impossible for him to operate in the province.
"This would put a burden on physicians like myself to conform to a view that basically puts my conscience under somebody's else's power," said Dr. Leiva. "And the key aspect is moral integrity and the right of physicians to act in a way that does not harm the patient.
Jill Hefley, a spokeswoman for the college, said the reason for the draft was because of changes being made to the Ontario human rights system that could see doctors facing more complaints from patients who feel they are being discriminated against.
She said the draft document was a way of alerting doctors that they could be facing more legal issues from the human rights system.
But Mr. Ben-Ami said that explanation makes no sense.
"If this was just a matter of cautioning members of the college that there may be some problems in exercising their conscience that would be fair," he said. "They seem to go from that into a discussion about professional misconduct and then setting out guidelines about what is misconduct and that becomes very problematic to us because I don't think you can make a sweeping declaration that a doctor or any professional has to ignore matters of conscience in the conduct of their affairs. I don't think this has been thought through."
The Ontario Medical Association, the professional group that represents doctors, would not comment but said they are sending a submission to the college next week.
It is believed that Ontario would be the only province to change its conscience guidelines if the new rules are adopted.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2008 | PermalinkComments 151 - 200 of 234 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers152. Comment #234363 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 8:56 am
Comment #234353 by irate_atheistYou really do talk a load of bollocks sometimes, you know.
*Ahem*. You've just discovered the "true bollocks" phenomenon.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
153. Comment #234368 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 9:07 am
Moistly suits you well. 'Moderation in all things', eh? So, if we are faced with evil, it's okay if it's only a 'moderate' evil? Or if we know something to be virtuous, we should only pursue it 'moderately'?I realize that I am being unfair. I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard. Further, it is this failure - the failure to be able to defend morality consistently - that has lead to religion's persistence.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
154. Comment #234372 by Sciros on August 21, 2008 at 9:12 am
I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard.
Uh, no there isn't.
I agree that based on the society of the times, some things are ok in moderation, some things are better when in "more than" moderation, and some things are best abandoned altogether.
Other Comments by Sciros
155. Comment #234379 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 9:18 am
Really, Sciros? Then how can you say that the rape of nine-year old girls is wrong? How can you say that the Holocaust was wrong - or the Gulag? How can you say that anything - at all - is worthwhile then?Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
156. Comment #234381 by J Mac on August 21, 2008 at 9:22 am
Wow, he can sure put the DIC in Dichotomy.Why must it be an absolute moral standard or no morals at all?
Other Comments by J Mac
157. Comment #234382 by Sciros on August 21, 2008 at 9:24 am
Whatever our moral values are, even if they stay consistent for millennia across 99% of the population, it is not because there is an "absolute truth" to their "correctness."
We are not "more moral" beings today than humanity was 2000 years ago; the morality of the times has merely changed. Do you think we are closer to the "absolutely correct morality" today than 2000 years ago? What is this "absolutely correct morality" and how is it determined?
I don't know what the "how is anything worthwhile" bit is about. The morality of the times isn't alone in influencing how much one values his/her life or the lives of others, etc.
Basically, Fanusi, you start to sound something like a theist when you start claiming being privy to absolute truths of this nature... just calling it as I see it.
Other Comments by Sciros
158. Comment #234383 by Quetzalcoatl on August 21, 2008 at 9:27 am
Fanusi-
I realize that I am being unfair. I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard.
Are you playing devil's advocate?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
159. Comment #234393 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 9:44 am
Fanusi wrote-Moistly suits you well.
It does indeed.
'Moderation in all things', eh? So, if we are faced with evil, it's okay if it's only a 'moderate' evil? Or if we know something to be virtuous, we should only pursue it 'moderately'?
Yep.
Edit: 'moderate' evil is not exactly "ok", but should be dealt with moderately...
Other Comments by Steve Zara
160. Comment #234403 by Sciros on August 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
What about "thinking rationally in moderation," making sure to add God here and there so as not to overdo the whole rationality bit :-P Other Comments by Sciros
161. Comment #234408 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 10:12 am
"I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard. "
No such thing except in the minds of ideological bigots who claim to know the answer to everything.
As I have long said, religious fundamentalists are exactly the same as the fans of Adolf Hitler, Maoism, Pol Pot, Trotsky, et all - all birds of a feather screaching to the same tune.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
162. Comment #234541 by Nairb on August 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Whether the doctor practices in a private or public context does not change anything.
He is espected to leave his conscience at the door and apply his medical skills only.
This is nothing new. It applies to all professions. I think we would be unimpressed if a plumber refused to fix a leak flooding your house because he cannot tolerate pipes made in North Africa.
As Fanusi said a long time back. If you dont like it you resign and do some other job.
I still dont see this big issue with the state. Jesus' poem on corruption and lack of responsability applies to any large organisation not just public ones. At least we have some control of the public ones.
If we dont like the state, their is not a lot we can do - other than vote differently. Perhaps you could suggest something.
We cannot just deport it to Saudia Arabia :-) Because in the end the state is you.
Other Comments by Nairb
163. Comment #234545 by Goldy on August 21, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Comment #234383 by Quetzalcoatl
Maybe he's the Messiah! ;-)
Other Comments by Goldy
164. Comment #234549 by Quetzalcoatl on August 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Goldy-
Maybe he's the Messiah! ;-)
Probably not. But just to be safe, I'll advance-order a giant cross from Amazon. Can you find some nails? :)
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
165. Comment #234575 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 3:53 pm
What is this "absolutely correct morality" and how is it determined?
Sciros that is a really excellent question, so, if it's okay, I'll reply in depth tomorrow? I'm about to hit the hay, and I thought I'd take a few well-aimed pot-shots at the more ridiculous comments before I hammer out my rather extensive discussion of the subject of ethics.
No such thing except in the minds of ideological bigots who claim to know the answer to everything.
As I have long said, religious fundamentalists are exactly the same as the fans of Adolf Hitler, Maoism, Pol Pot, Trotsky, et all - all birds of a feather screaching to the same tune.
Oh? Well, if there's no absolute morality - then by what standard do you consider these men evil? Why do you use their names as though it were pejorative?
Incidentally, you are right, though, about the similarities between the theocrats and the totalitarians. See if you can spot why. Here's a hint: both the priests and the totalitarians all marched for three values that are identical and always form the basis of any major horror.
The common denominator is not, btw, total conviction, or fanaticism. Fanaticism is ethically neutral. The suicide bomber is a fanatic; so is the soldier who throws himself over a grenade to save his troop. Adolf Hitler was a fanatic; so was Winston Churchill. The Jihadis are, and always have been, fanatics; so was Charles Martel who prevented Europe from falling to Islam. Which brings me to this:
Steve
Yep.
Edit: 'moderate' evil is not exactly "ok", but should be dealt with moderately...
Here's the problem. Evil is always capable of marshalling tremendous ruthlessness behind it. Unless you are capable of bringing ruthlessness to the fight, better be prepared to loose. And unless you have the strength of profound moral conviction, you'll never stand against it.
When Giordano Bruno decided he would sooner die than recant his beliefs, he wasn't behaving 'moderately'. Nor was Nelson Mandela, when he chose to live like a fugitive and risk death, and eventually gain twenty-seven years in prison for his convictions, he wasn't being particularly moderate either.
In any great struggle, the moderates are worthlees; they are, at best, cannon fodder for one side or another. It is those capable of true dedication that direct the way things go.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
166. Comment #234578 by J Mac on August 21, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Fanusi,Do you suffer from dyslexia? There is a clear difference between "no absolute morals" and "absolutely no morals". Read them slowly to yourself and think it over.
Claiming that someone who doesn't agree precisely with YOUR moral system does not mean they don't have one of their own.
Other Comments by J Mac
167. Comment #234582 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Do you suffer from dyslexia? There is a clear difference between "no absolute morals" and "absolutely no morals". Read them slowly to yourself and think it over.
Claiming that someone who doesn't agree precisely with YOUR moral system does not mean they don't have one of their own.
J Mac I never claimed otherwise. But take a look at these posts:
Roger Stanyard:
"I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard. "
No such thing
Sciros:
We are not "more moral" beings today than humanity was 2000 years ago; the morality of the times has merely changed.
Sorry, but all of this sounds to me like relativism - cultural relativism in the case of Sciros. Help me out if I'm missing something here.
For the record J Mac, I don't think anyone here really is a relativist; they all understand the difference between a culture that brings up little girls in safety, and one that condemns them to rape. I'm just pointing out what's wrong with these statements.
I 'm also unsure of your statement that 'no absolute morality' doesn't translate into 'absolutely no morality'. But doesn morality, by it's very nature, have to be absolute? If murder - taking innocent life - is wrong, then that's an absolute. And if there are situations in which taking innocent life isn't morally evil, then that would be an absolute, too.
Sorry, the point I'm trying to get at is that 'moderation' is meaningless if it isn't anchored to non-moderate absolutes. Sorry if I'm being unclear.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
168. Comment #234589 by Goldy on August 21, 2008 at 4:48 pm
But just to be safe, I'll advance-order a giant cross from Amazon. Can you find some nails? :)
Couldn't find suitable ones - got screws insted as they are much easier to extract if we find we've crucified the wrong guy :-)
Fanusi
I 'm also unsure of your statement that 'no absolute morality' doesn't translate into 'absolutely no morality'. But doesn morality, by it's very nature, have to be absolute? If murder - taking innocent life - is wrong, then that's an absolute. And if there are situations in which taking innocent life isn't morally evil, then that would be an absolute, too.
If taking a life had an absolute morality, then we'd have no problems - there would be an absolute. As it is, sometimes it is really, really, bad and sometimes it's OK - no absolutes as everyone can decide if killing is bad or not according to religous conviction and other factors. Killing someone might be good to one person and bad to another - same killing, different moral outlook. This leads to...
Well, if there's no absolute morality - then by what standard do you consider these men evil?By our standards (and the fact they were "against us" as it were). Mao is not seen that badly in China (my wife still can say she loves Mao), neither is Stalin by many in Russia. So again, there's no absolutes :-)
Morality is, I find, pretty much all about relativism...
Other Comments by Goldy
169. Comment #234697 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Fanusi-And unless you have the strength of profound moral conviction, you'll never stand against it.
I actually have a very strong moral conviction that one should be moderate.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
170. Comment #234698 by Brian English on August 21, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Steve, I think it's your fundamentalist moderation that leads you to be so damn middle of the road. It'll be the perdition of all of us who value taking and extreme viewpoint. You're the non-extreme, reasonable devil I tell you! Other Comments by Brian English
171. Comment #234699 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Comment #234698 by Brian EnglishIt's fortunate your aren't British, else I would have to (moderately) expel you for the mild evil of disagreeing with me.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
172. Comment #234700 by Brian English on August 21, 2008 at 11:46 pm
You have the power to expel someone from Britain? That's seems a tad immoderate for someone of your renown clemency. Other Comments by Brian English
173. Comment #234703 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Comment #234700 by Brian EnglishI would only expel them moderately. Perhaps suggest they go visit Disneyland for a week or something.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
174. Comment #234704 by Brian English on August 21, 2008 at 11:51 pm
How does one expel moderately? With a gentle kick in the behind? A caressing firearm gently jammed between the shoulder blades? A tender fist to the nose? Other Comments by Brian English
175. Comment #234706 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Comment #234704 by Brian EnglishYou have got me there.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
176. Comment #234707 by Brian English on August 21, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Aha! So you are immoderate then! It's all a sham. Jackboot Steve has been unmasked! Other Comments by Brian English
177. Comment #234708 by Brian English on August 21, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I'm probably derailing another thread. Oh well, it's hometime in a minute. Other Comments by Brian English
178. Comment #234713 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 12:09 am
Comment #234708 by Brian EnglishI'll get things back on track:
Nairb -
If we dont like the state, their is not a lot we can do - other than vote differently. Perhaps you could suggest something.
There can also be local campaigns for better services, and also health authorities can monitor patient satisfaction.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
179. Comment #234801 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 3:37 am
"Oh? Well, if there's no absolute morality - then by what standard do you consider these men evil?"
1. My moral compass is based on the pragmatic and universal idea of doing to others as I would have done to myself.
2. It reflects the culture and times I live in. (Dunn- No man is an island to himself.)
3. Moral absolutes are full of contractions and are unworkable guides to behaviour.
4. Moral absolutes themselves inevitably lead to evil.
In the words (crie de cour, if you like) of Monty Python's Life of Brian, we are all individuals and have to work it out for ourselves.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
180. Comment #234805 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 3:59 am
"Oh? Well, if there's no absolute morality - then by what standard do you consider these men evil?" I am pretty amazed that this issue is being raised by someone who regularly reads this site. The problems of absolute morality have been discussed in depth many times.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
181. Comment #234806 by hungarianelephant on August 22, 2008 at 4:00 am
162. Comment #234541 by Nairb on August 21, 2008 at 2:24 pmWhether the doctor practices in a private or public context does not change anything.
He is espected to leave his conscience at the door and apply his medical skills only.
This is nothing new. It applies to all professions. I think we would be unimpressed if a plumber refused to fix a leak flooding your house because he cannot tolerate pipes made in North Africa.
There's a bit of a difference, surely, between being "unimpressed" and mandating particular conduct by law?
This notion that "if you don't want to do the job, resign and do something else" is a great soundbite, but I wonder how many people would be happy if it were applied with full rigour to their own jobs? Clearly, it's quite inappropriate that someone should apply for a job in a family planning clinic and refuse to hand out contraceptives. It's also a sensible principle that doctors should apply their skills without fear or favour. But it seems quite a different matter to expect them to perform particular treatments regardless of their personal feelings about it - especially when the rules are simply being changed without their agreement.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
182. Comment #234816 by Jesus86 on August 22, 2008 at 4:28 am
The Hippocratic Oath goes like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it -without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
Is that really what you favour? Note, by the way, the use of the word "judgment" in the above.
Other Comments by Jesus86
183. Comment #234817 by Jesus86 on August 22, 2008 at 4:28 am
It is perfectly OK for doctors to choose not to perform abortions at all. But as soon as they hang out a sign saying "Abortionist," they are now required to leave their consciences at home and subject themselves to the conscience of the CPSO which says that they may not discriminate in the provision of this service.But what does that mean? Bear in mind that there is no abortion law in Canada. It is legal to perform an elective abortion a day before delivery, even a sex-selection abortion. So does that mean every abortionist in Canada is duty-bound to perform an elective abortion on anyone who asks, for any reason whatsoever? That anything short of anything goes is "discriminatory"? If not, where does the CPSO draw the moral lines, and why?
I don't think there is a single doctor in Canada who would perform an elective abortion a day before delivery, much less a sex-selection abortion. I understand that Henry Morgentaler, who was recently awarded the Order of Canada for challenging and over-throwing abortion laws in Canada, won't even perform an elective abortion in the third trimester. Some abortion doctors are hesitant to perform abortions on 12-year-old girls without the consent of their legal guardian(s). They think that the legal guardian has a right to make serious medical decisions on behalf of minor children, or at least provide their guidance before the girl chooses. (That's a tough one. I'm torn both ways and am not sure where I stand on that issue. But I do know that I wouldn't want to impose my own morality on anyone else in those circumstances.)
If Dr. A chooses not to perform sex-selection abortions, or third-trimester abortions, or abortions on 12-year-olds without the consent or guidance of their legal guardian(s), for "religious reasons," while Dr. B makes the same choices for non-religious moral reasons, is one of them guilty of prohibited discrimination but the other not? Morgentaler's own moral views on elective abortions might not be based in religion, but he employs hundreds of other doctors and nurses in his medical clinics, all of whom follow their consciences, and some of whom are surely religious.
Now consider that some non-religious theories of morality are just as ridiculous as some religious ones are. Why should what the CPSO thinks about the ethics of abortion be over-riding? Where does their privilege come from? Why shouldn't this be strictly between a doctor and patient, based on fully informed consent?
If you don't perform sex-selection abortions for moral reasons, why should you be required to refer a person to someone who does? If you don't do eye surgery, why do you have to refer a prospective eye-surgery patient to someone else if they come to your office by mistake? Why can't you tell them, "Sorry, I'm not in that line of work. You will have to look around."?
Why would anyone want to get a medical procedure done by someone who finds it morally abhorrent, anyway? Wouldn't that affect their competence, or at least their bedside manner?
Other Comments by Jesus86
184. Comment #234822 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 4:41 am
Comment #234817 by Jesus86So does that mean every abortionist in Canada is duty-bound to perform an elective abortion on anyone who asks, for any reason whatsoever?
Yes. If you don't like the legal status of abortion, don't become an abortionist, or stop practicing. If you advertise as providing a service, you have to provide that service as commonly understood, not how you wish to interpret it.
(By the way, I am not in favour of unconditional abortion. But that is not my chosen career)
Where does their privilege come from?
Democracy. The CPSO is given legal power by government.
Why would anyone want to get a medical procedure done by someone who finds it morally abhorrent, anyway? Wouldn't that affect their competence, or at least their bedside manner?
Someone who finds well-known and widespread medical procedures morally abhorrent should not practise medicine in situations where they will be aksed to perform such procedures.
Why shouldn't this be strictly between a doctor and patient, based on fully informed consent?
Because it may mean that a patient is refused a procedure.
This is about ensuring an agreed standard of medical care for everyone, not a lottery based on which doctor you have.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
185. Comment #234826 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 4:50 am
Jesus86: "The Hippocratic Oath goes like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath"
it's a pity that you didn't have the integrity to point out that the Hypocratic Oath today is not the same as the ancient document that you claim it to be.
Is this another fundamentalist example of "lying for Jesus"?
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
186. Comment #234917 by Nairb on August 22, 2008 at 8:18 am
But it seems quite a different matter to expect them to perform particular treatments regardless of their personal feelings about it - especially when the rules are simply being changed without their agreement.
Hungrian Elephant
Of course personal feelings are important, but their needs to be a Professional basis for a refusal to carry out the service you are employed to do.Perhaps you original christianity is influencing your view on this?
Imagine if the doctor looked into his crystal ball and said he could not do the abortion because he sees a wonderful future for the baby.
Should we accept this?
Regarding the rules being changed - I think they are simply clarifying what should have always been expected. But even if rules change - thats life- what employee has never encountered this. Ask the waiter in the local cafe or restaurant.
Other Comments by Nairb
187. Comment #234921 by Nairb on August 22, 2008 at 8:26 am
I have to say I am a bit astonished about the discussion on this. I really am at a bit of a loss to understand where this is coming from.But I think there is a basic principle here. Religous/personal views should not modify our secular professional conduct when it affects others in the professional context.
I mean what next? Suppose I decide to join cult X and so I cannot work on Thursdays or I must be abusive to muslims. Should my employer (private or public) be forced to accept? It seems like the extreme end of multiculturalist thinking to me.
Steve
Agreed, I was tired. There is lots of things one can do to influence government.
Other Comments by Nairb
188. Comment #234922 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 8:32 am
187. Comment #234921 by Nairb on August 22, 2008 at 8:26 am
I have to say I am a bit astonished about the discussion on this. I really am at a bit of a loss to understand where this is coming from.
I don't find the discussion at all surprising. We want doctors to put aside their own moral judgements and yet there may be many people that might feel extremely uncomfortable performing medicine that seems wrong. FGM has already been mentioned. How about aborting a phoetus not because the parent doesn't want a child, but because they desperately want a child and their own culture means they want a boy and not the "wretched" female inside of them? How about an operation to remove a perfectly good limb because the patient feels that the limb is in some way not their limb and it is causing them extreme mental anguish? How about unneccessary cosmetic surgery that ultimately carries a risk of killing the patient.
There are a lot of difficult decisions to make involving medicine, and if I were a doctor I'd hate to have all scenarios forced on me, and where my conscience counts for nothing.
Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus
189. Comment #234926 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 8:48 am
Fanusi, you continue to create false dichotomies:"But doesn morality, by it's very nature, have to be absolute?"
No, absolutely not. :o)
As an aside what you scornfully call moral relativism is not the only option to an absolute objective morality.
You can defend your views on morality, I'd be disappointed if you didn't. And while I see absolute morality as dangerous it is not my current purpose to try to convince you of that. What I'd like you to realize is that there ARE other systems of morality other than the one you choose.
If everyone realizes that there are different options we can open discussion into exploring which one is best. If you remain in denial that any moral system other than your absolute system can exist then there is no purpose in discussing morality.
Other Comments by J Mac
190. Comment #234938 by hungarianelephant on August 22, 2008 at 9:20 am
186. Comment #234917 by Nairb on August 22, 2008 at 8:18 amOf course personal feelings are important, but their needs to be a Professional basis for a refusal to carry out the service you are employed to do.Perhaps you original christianity is influencing your view on this?
I think you are missing my point, perhaps because I'm not expressing it well enough. In an ideal world, there should be a professional basis for every decision of every professional everywhere. But it's a bigger step to say that we should compel this by law.
My original Christianity, which I abandoned while still a child, has no bearing on this that I can see. If a plumber didn't want to be involved in connecting up the drains for the local BNP office, I'd take a similar line. There's an issue of personal conscience here. I think the doctors who oppose all abortions are wrong, but my personal views on the matter are irrelevant, as are yours.
There is something deeply troubling about a governmental fiat to force changes on people that are likely to trouble their conscience, particularly where the govt is the monopsonist employer. Even if the government is right and the religious are wrong.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
191. Comment #234943 by Steve Zara on August 22, 2008 at 9:34 am
Comment #234938 by hungarianelephantThere is something deeply troubling about a governmental fiat to force changes on people that are likely to trouble their conscience, particularly where the govt is the monopsonist employer. Even if the government is right and the religious are wrong.
You write very thought-provoking posts on this. However, I would like to disagree.
Doctors employed by national institutions are supposed to provide a service required by the public. The service that they are supposed to provide is hopefully decided by democratically elected bodies using good advice from experts. They aren't forced to work against their conciences - they are free to resign from either their jobs, or that area of work. What they should not be free to do is impose their views on others.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
192. Comment #234956 by severalspeciesof on August 22, 2008 at 9:55 am
Damn, late to this party (the party of 'absolute morality' that is).I'm kinda with Fanusi on this topic. And here's why... There seems to be confusion over the definition of moral here. Something can only have morals within a context, a situation. For example: the ten commandments are NOT the ten morals, though it would seem that many people view them as such. They are just commandments. Morals are situational, and here is where it gets dicey. It would seem that saying morals are situational is the same as saying morals are relative. But it is not. Given enough information on the situation or context, I believe we can find an absolute moral right/wrong within that situation/context. The problem is determining what information is pertinent/correct to the situation/context.
In this regard religion is not very good at determining what the right information is. And, unfortunately we may never know what the right information is, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there to get at.
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
193. Comment #234959 by severalspeciesof on August 22, 2008 at 9:57 am
I must go now, feel free to rip my above comment to shreds, or to just go "HUH?" Other Comments by severalspeciesof
194. Comment #234993 by Sciros on August 22, 2008 at 10:43 am
Given enough information on the situation or context, I believe we can find an absolute moral right/wrong within that situation/context.
In practice, part of that context is the moral outlook of the times. The thing is, for a situation/context to be completely independent of a moral outlook to begin with, it would have to be "morally neutral" as we see it (say, an asteroid crashing into Earth), and in that case it falls outside what we would consider as moral issues (a hidden point there being that nobody gets to decide what are "moral issues" but us).
If you are saying, just look at objective facts and derive "moral right/wrong" from there -- that is actually insufficient. Given objective facts and a moral otulook, you can decide what is morally "right/wrong" based on those facts and that outlook. You need both pieces of the puzzle. Otherwise there is no way to arbitrate what is "right" or "wrong" in the first place.
The problem is determining what information is pertinent/correct to the situation/context.To repeat, that's only part of the puzzle. And even considering this gathering of information, whether something is indeed "pertinent" or "correct" to consider can be argued is a question dependent on the moral outlook of the times in itself.
And, unfortunately we may never know what the right information is, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there to get at.So you're saying there may be an "absolute moral right/wrong" that is beyond our grasp? That sounds rather theistic if you ask me. And to say "it's out there but we'll never know it" is a complete non-starter. Totally meaningless.
The fact is, the moral outlook of humanity is produced by humanity. Who decides whether a collective moral outlook is "right" or "wrong"? The collective decides it themselves.
There is no evidence for a source of "absolute moral truth" or an ultimate arbiter of "right and wrong," the way there is no evidence for an interventionist god.
Other Comments by Sciros
195. Comment #234998 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 10:50 am
Aw crap. I just realized I better clarify my own post before Fanusi, or another intelligent supporter of objective morals tears it apart:If everyone realizes that there are different options we can open discussion into exploring which one is best.
I can almost hear someone arguing "How is it we could decide which one is best unless there is an absolute guide to make that determination." This would be a fair criticism of my post as it currently stands.
I'd say the "best" system is the one that intelligent and informed people involved in the discussion can agree upon. But if that discussion happened in a different culture or a different time, or with different people, what is determined as "best" could and likely would be very different.
Other Comments by J Mac
196. Comment #234999 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 10:52 am
J Mac-It's driving me crazy.
What shape/flavor of macaroni is your handle an abbreviation for?
Other Comments by Diacanu
197. Comment #235002 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 10:58 am
Ha,I suppose it could be another name for elbow macaroni.
But it's short for my name.
-Jesse M.
Other Comments by J Mac
198. Comment #235030 by Jesus86 on August 22, 2008 at 11:20 am
Zara: "What they should not be free to do is impose their views on others."If 'they' = CPSO, and 'others' = Ontario physicians, you are absolutely right. Otherwise, your remark is beside the point.
If 'they' = doctors, and 'others' = patients, then you don't have a grasp of the issue. Nobody is claiming that doctors should be able to "impose" their views on patients - unless you think tht choosing not to do something is an "imposition." By that standard, you "impose" your views on all the potential abortion patients in the world by choosing not to do abortions at all. How DARE you!
As for "democracy" being the answer: I thought it was precisely NOT the answer whenever religious fundamentalists were in the majority. What is your answer when a majority on the relevant committee of the CPSO becomes a religious majority again?
Henry Morgentaler was a conscientious objector to the abortion laws prior to 1988. He performed abortions in his private clinics in clear contravention of the democratic laws of the day. He did so out of a moral conviction that the laws were wrong. If you sheeple were on the juries that decided his fate, he would have been thrown in jail instead of becoming the Canadian hero and icon of politically correct medicine he is today.
Yes, the Hippocratic Oath changes from time to time. Why do you think the current version is written on stone tablets somewhere, and should be genuflected to?
As Hungarianelephant says, "There is something deeply troubling about a governmental fiat to force changes on people that are likely to trouble their conscience, particularly where the govt is the monopsonist employer." That is the exact point I have been making from day one. It doesn't suddenly become more thoughtworthy just because it is submitted by someone whose moniker is not prone to being misinterpreted by having false assumptions attributed to him.
You guys need to take your fingers off the trigger and give an issue some thought before beaking off. Your rote chanting on moral issues is unbecoming a site devoted to "clear thinking."
Other Comments by Jesus86
199. Comment #235044 by Diacanu on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am
J Mac-Ah, thanks. :)
Other Comments by Diacanu
200. Comment #235070 by Nairb on August 22, 2008 at 11:54 am
How about aborting a phoetus not because the parent doesn't want a child, but because they desperately want a child and their own culture means they want a boy and not the "wretched" female inside of them?
Would you find it morally correct that all doctors respond in the same way to this?
Or would you prefer a marketplace on this moral decision. Voodoo doctors some who prefer girls, some boys etc.?
I think you would prefer uniformity.
For me the key principles/questions are
1 who decides
2 Should it be applied universally
Universality
In the above example and in many others (eg abortion) we would like the guidance or rules to be applied by all doctors in a Uniform way throughout society. If there is no universal option then there are universal rules that are expected to be applied to make a specific decision.
Who decides
The reason we permit a designated authority ( usually a commitee eg CPSO) to decide on such matters is because it is more reliable then having a random single person decide.
We expect the designated autority to decide only after extensive due diligence and analysis of scientific evidence.
When a doctor practices medicine he/she abides by this authority. The doctor accepts these rules or campaigns to change them or leaves the profession.
Other Comments by Nairb
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
151. Comment #234362 by Steve Zara on August 21, 2008 at 8:54 am
*moistly* Piffle.
I support moderation in all things. I don't support the rights of extreme people to do extreme and nasty things. But neither do I support total libertarian freedoms.
No! That is why you have BOTH private and public medicine, but you also have laws to prevent even dangerous quacks operating privately.
You have a very strange and selective kind of libertarianism. Let's just call it "free if you agree with me"...
Other Comments by Steve Zara