I recently attended a Seminar through work - it was around whether or not people should be able to Conscientiously Object to providing (or not providing) healthcare to patients. There were two professors giving their side of the coin and I found myself leaning towards the "No, it doesn't have a place" but, as you do, when I thought more on it I remain on the fence.
Edit: I blanked the below out, as I can't find any reference to what the Professor was talking about online - I don't want to misinform people, so ignore it. Kept it up for posterity, but it is likely inaccurate.
For example, in New Zealand currently (pending citation!) - we have some staff who object to providing healthcare for patients who have just undergone an abortion. The Hospital will shift rosters to make this doable and so the patients can still be taken care of. Legally, they are allowed to object and for the most part things continue as normal.
Another example however, is in rural New Zealand - often times in such isolated areas, a single Dr will provide healthcare for an entire catchment or town. If that Dr chose to, they could object from providing contraceptive options for patients, limiting that area's choices dramatically. There has been at least one reported example of this refusal happening.
On the other hand, should we be forcing people perform acts they deem incorrect from a moral standpoint? If they refuse based on a belief system, should we refuse their refusal and are they then being punished for holding their beliefs?
Obviously this question isn't just about NZ, but I wanted to see what other people thought of the idea of Conscientious Objection in Medicine. Was a fascinating Seminar and I could easily see the points of both sides.
A lot of people in my family are in healthcare and I put them on a pedestal for what they sacrifice. For that reason alone I’ll always look down on healthcare workers who can’t put aside their own feelings about somebodies personal history and provide care. It’s never been about life, it’s about judgement. Not wanting to perform an abortion is one thing but to refuse to provide care for somebody because they just had an abortion is ridiculous. Would they refuse to care for somebody who needed medical attention due to a gunshot wound had that person started it by shooting/killing someone else ? Why isn’t this argument about not wanting to provide medical care to somebody who just literally killed a real autonomous person instead of a clump of cells ? Pro-birth people don’t have morals, they have a desire to pat themselves on the back. That kind of self-serving bs has no place in the health care industry.
I had a similar example in my head - we would provide healthcare for someone who had killed someone, and been subsequently injured themselves. The professionals might not feel too great about helping someone they dislike but they get the job done regardless. Learning there were staff who refuse to work with post-abortion patients was surprising to me. I'm impressed we have found some kind of a work around but it seems like a pretty big flaw in ones work capabilities where they are suddenly rendered incapable when presented with a patient like this. I wonder how far it extends, if a patient entered into an emergency state post-abortion and said staff was the only person available - surely they would just have to provide the help.
Those are the people I had to roll my eyes at because that's when you realize it's not about objecting to doing something wrong, it's about feeling morally superior. Like voluntourism, it's never about the African children getting a nice new school, it's about the instagram picture that makes you feel good about yourself. My friend actually spent time in a country were this is common while studying for a bachelor of international development and told me about how the local men would go every night to fix what the kids did during that day. Like, okay you don't want to perform abortions or assisted dying fine, I'm not going to view you as highly as I view other healthcare workers, but it's whatever. The other stuff is just silly, because they totally would provide care to somebody who was injured after killing somebody. It's also not discrimination for a small community to need somebody who can handle these things. When a community needs a cardiologist it's not discrimination to not hire a pediatrician for the job. The community has a need and it needs to be filled. That's like me applying to be an editor, and saying it's discrimination to write me off for being dyslexic. The only accommodation that would help me complete that job is having an editor of my own and then there's really no point in hiring me. I also think it's an issue that in places were this is a thing there's no way to know easily what doctors are capable of. I don't have a family doctor and I definitely don't have time to interview doctors to make sure that after I build a rapport with them they'll actually be there for me through whatever comes up. Patients have a right to make an informed decision about their healthcare and healthcare workers have a duty to provide information so that choice can be made. I could see a nurse being fired for refusing care in this situation and then suing. It wouldn't even be the craziest thing in the news these days. Learning there were staff who refuse to work with post-abortion patients was surprising to me
I wonder how far it extends, if a patient entered into an emergency state post-abortion and said staff was the only person available - surely they would just have to provide the help.
>I also think it's an issue that in places were this is a thing there's no way to know easily what doctors are capable of. Apologies for my formatting, I don't know how to highlight what you've said. But I agree, my current Dr just happens to be the first person I saw when I moved back to this city. Turns out, my partner had her as a Dr and she left after feeling.. less than happy about her interest in patient health. I feel the same about her, I've had some inner ear balance problems for the past 9 weeks straight and she essentially just told me to keep waiting, so I've had to go and organize a specialist appointment myself as it's affecting everything around me - soon as I start walking the world shifts and I feel like I'm toppling sideways. Not conducive to me being productive 2 months down the track! BUT I am not too keen to leave the practice as I don't know if any other place will be any better. She at the very least knows my history. Sorry, bit of a ramble, I'm a little bitter about how long I've had to wait only to take action myself - point being I agree with you.
Who's forcing people to be doctors? If you don't want to do part of a job, don't take the job. Conscientious objector status is for being forced to go kill people because of a draft or military service requirement.On the other hand, should we be forcing people perform acts they deem incorrect from a moral standpoint?
No. Obviously no. The Hippocratic Oath is 2500 years old and the example held is "I choose to refuse you care because of actions you have taken outside of our bonds of healthcare." Show me the law that allows Kiwis to do this because fucking hell I'm mad now.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0112/latest/DLM18538.html It's a part of it, I'll try and find a more all-encompassing link! Edit: And an article around the nurses refusing to perform abortions http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10555056 Although I am trying to find the links on the nurses refusing to work with post-abortion patients. It was the first case in the Seminar and the professor provided some articles, will try and find those. And here - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html From what I gathered from the seminar, people will utilize the Conscientious Objection law and apply it to the Bill of Rights, particularly section 13. Will keep hunting for you.
Yeah it is a stretch, I will hunt it out - it was in Wellington, and is currently still happening according to the speaker. It's actually what made me question the idea of it in the first place, I can see performing abortions being difficult for some, but a nurse not providing care after the fact shouldn't be an option. If I can't find anything I'll edit the text post - the question remains the same but that example can't be used if it doesn't exist - apologies if I've misled everyone!
It gets sticky exactly where you say: you're in a rural town, you're constitutionally eligible to have a medical procedure, and there's a law on the books permitting trained medical professionals to refuse you that procedure. This is happening to abortion clinics across the rural South of the USA; make the act of running an abortion clinic onerous and abortions become de facto illegal in that state because you cant get one. It also doesn't get covered by the Hippocratic Oath: primum non nocere doesn't say "first, perform elective procedures." But that whole "I don't like your politics, I'm not going to give you medical care" is quite clearly on the other side of a very clear black line.