rob_just_rob
Sexy Member
baseball99 said:I'll answer your question succintly. There is a huge difference between a procedure and a person of ethnic background. You can be against abortion and not want to perform them but you hold that belief for white, black, asian etc. It is wrong to deny a specific group of people medical treatment. It would be wrong to offer them different standards of care. Denying someone complete medical care because of an ethnic background or sexual orientation is wrong.
Very well, but this contradicts what you said here:
(Italics added)If anything comes in the way of that the next best thing to do is refer to someone who can take over. This goes for everything including not being able to treat some old guy because he looks like your abusive father, etc.
So why can't racist doctors refuse patients?
Or - what about a white supremacist doctor who refuses to perform abortions on white women, but will happily perform the procedure on hispanic, asian, or black women?
My point is, when an individual goes to medical school, he or she is no doubt aware that a) abortion is legal and b) women sometimes have abortions. So, he/she knows that he/she may be called upon to do it - it's part of the job. If I refused to do the parts of my job I don't like (and there are a few of them :tongue: ), I would be strongly encouraged by my organization to find a new career. Why is it that doctors don't face that obligation? Or for that matter - why would someone who has strong anti-choice convictions go into a branch of the medical profession that might bring this conflict into play?
I take your point that if there are other doctors available to do the procedure, an objecting doctor should be allowed to step aside. But unfortunately, there are places where there are few qualified doctors, and allowing some of those few to step aside will often mean that the procedure isn't available for those who need it. This makes the patient a hostage of the doctor's version of morality.