The Victorian parliament voted against the right of healthcare workers not to participate in abortion or refer for abortion. [VicHansard 4245-4264]
A woman walks into a doctors office and asks for an abortion. The doctor replies I don't perform abortions, you will have to go somewhere else.
Is this unreasonable? The woman is not dying. The doctor is not denying lifesaving treatment. He or is simply telling the woman he does not perform the procedure she wants done.
Victorian law requires doctors to perform the abortion themselves or refer to a doctor who will do it. This law has prevented pro-life healthcare workers from being hired by the woman's hospital. "Dr Mark Durie, minister of St Mary's Caulfield, said staff were finding it hard to cope with a reported six-fold increase in late-term abortions at the Women's since abortion was decriminalised in Victoria two years ago. He said because conscientious objection by medical staff was now illegal, the hospital could employ only people who endorsed late-term abortions."[1]
What's the big deal you may ask? The doctor is not forced to perform an abortion, just refer the patient on. What right does a doctor have to impose his beliefs on a patient. This sounds reasonable, but, put another way we see that in forcing a doctor to refer the patient on the doctor becomes complicit in the abortion procedure, he becomes part of the process, and the life of the baby is on his conscience.
Is it really right to force a healthcare worker to be involved in abortion if it is again their beliefs? Is it so hard for a woman to find a pro-choice doctor on her own?
Parliamentarians were given a conscience vote on the issue of abortion. In this matter of life and death our law makers are released from party policy and given the option to vote according to their conscience. And they voted that healthcare workers would not be allowed to exercise their consciences when dealing with matters of abortion.
A woman walks into a doctors office and asks for an abortion. The doctor replies I don't perform abortions, you will have to go somewhere else.
Is this unreasonable? The woman is not dying. The doctor is not denying lifesaving treatment. He or is simply telling the woman he does not perform the procedure she wants done.
Victorian law requires doctors to perform the abortion themselves or refer to a doctor who will do it. This law has prevented pro-life healthcare workers from being hired by the woman's hospital. "Dr Mark Durie, minister of St Mary's Caulfield, said staff were finding it hard to cope with a reported six-fold increase in late-term abortions at the Women's since abortion was decriminalised in Victoria two years ago. He said because conscientious objection by medical staff was now illegal, the hospital could employ only people who endorsed late-term abortions."[1]
What's the big deal you may ask? The doctor is not forced to perform an abortion, just refer the patient on. What right does a doctor have to impose his beliefs on a patient. This sounds reasonable, but, put another way we see that in forcing a doctor to refer the patient on the doctor becomes complicit in the abortion procedure, he becomes part of the process, and the life of the baby is on his conscience.
Is it really right to force a healthcare worker to be involved in abortion if it is again their beliefs? Is it so hard for a woman to find a pro-choice doctor on her own?
Parliamentarians were given a conscience vote on the issue of abortion. In this matter of life and death our law makers are released from party policy and given the option to vote according to their conscience. And they voted that healthcare workers would not be allowed to exercise their consciences when dealing with matters of abortion.
Do you think healthcare workers should have the right to exercise their conscience in regards to abortion?
Then let the politicians know:
http://www.lifevote.org.au/
Then let the politicians know:
http://www.lifevote.org.au/
Next Post: The Victorian parliament voted Against banning late-term and partial-birth abortion. [VicHansard 3498-3506]
No comments:
Post a Comment