I can’t see what the problem with that approach is – especially in country areas where the next doctor might be a few villages away.

The Age’s reportage fails to note that the referral requirement in the Bill only applies to lifethreatening emergencies.

I would consider it just as wrong to force a doctor to refer patients for a treatment to which they are opposed as to force a journalist to leave out certain details of a story unfavourable to government.

Would you see it as wrong for a journalist to leave out certain details of a story unfavourable to government because they ideologically supported that government? Should journalists be able to write a story that promotes their ideological beliefs or their institutions at the expense of the ‘truth’–is that fine?

Of course that is happening in the media, but it is a bad example for you to use. What you are talking about is censorship ‘from above’ and yes, that’s undemocratic. What is being talked about here is whether a professional or their institution has a write to ‘censor’ a women’s reproductive rights based on their personal beliefs. Your example would be the same as saying that you endorse media institutions or journalists being able to write stories that fit their ideological positions regardless of whether that means censoring the truth or misrepresenting things. Who would argue for that? What’s democratic about that?

Do you then think a defence lawyer has the right to undermine a client’s case, or refuse to defend that case, or refuse to defend it to the best of their ability, or refuse to refer them etc. if they didn’t agree with the crime committed? Again, what’s democratic about that?

The doctor/patient dynamic means for most people the doctors are the ones with power, expertise and knowledge, and the patient must inevitable trust that the doctor is giving them all of the information available to them so that the patient can make an informed decision. You seem to be endorsing the fact that doctors should be allowed to withhold information in certain circumstances, even if that information is in the patient’s best interests, and even if that means the patient cannot make an informed decision. That’s an abuse of power. Professionals, particularly those such as doctors, do not have the right to put their interests (in this case, their personal beliefs) ahead of the patient’s interests. Do you really want a medical system in which this is the case?

If a patient wants an abortion, all they have to do is have a doctor who will refer them, as with just about any other medical procedure. I find it hard to believe that there won’t be *any* doctors around who wouldn’t refer them, since I’m pretty sure the Church is a minority in doctors, like everything else.

We live in a country where a lot of people live in rural communities in which their access to medical choices are severely limited if non-existent. If you have ever experienced medical care in a rural environment you would know that your example is laughable. It is also one of the reasons why access to RU486 is so essential.

Nevertheless, I think it is really unethical to argue that a patient seeking an abortion under the circumstances discussed above (and provided that they have been informed of that need) should have to seek to arrange access to that themselves in a stressful time in which they would undoubtedly like to act swiftly, and in which many women wouldn’t know where to begin, just so their treating doctor doesn’t have to have to do something they would prefer to not have to do (as simple as a reference). In the case of an emergency, it is inexcusable, to say the least, that you could possibly think that a doctor has the right to withhold the procedure from a women where it could save her life, therefore increasing her chance of dying, so that they do not have to perform a procedure that would make them uncomfortable.

We have legal rights to access abortion safely in this country. While these vary, each State at least has legal rights that a women may have access to an abortion if her health or life are compromised, which is what is being discussed on this thread. This is just a way for the Catholic church to debate abortion again. But if you are a practicing doctor in a country which has these rights, you should be legally obliged to follow them, and that means referring a patient to ensure access to this right, or performing the procedure yourself in an emergency. I can’t think of a single instance in our society where your personal religious beliefs should allow you to break the law AND deny other citizens their legal rights. These rights were hard fought for and won, and must be defended.

Given that legal status of a right to an abortion under such circumstances, it is the equivalent of saying that a doctor has a right to refuse to refer a patient for any other medical treatment, such as for cancer etc, or to refuse to perform any life saving emergency surgery. These are all legal rights.