Conscience Schmoncience! Who cares what you believe?

talaxandra · May 22, 2011

it's easy to argue about abortion because it's hard to see a few cells as a human being. but how about euthanasia? say you've got a sick old person, or a handicapped young person lying in your bed and some law was passed that permits mds to euthanize such people. would you as a nurse have a right to refuse to administer the meds based on your conscience? from what i read in this forum, most people would say that it's your job to kill 'em and if you don't want to do it you should be fired. it's the same argument and it has happened before in germany in the 30s and 40s.

i've often wondered where slippery slope arguments wound up before the third reich.

here's a hypothetical - what if i have an ideological position that pain relief, by diminishing the suffering of the dying, takes these people further from god? in other words, what if i believe that suffering is good for the soul, and that the pain of the terminally ill mirrors the suffering of christ on the cross? do i get to withhold prescribed prn analgesia from these patients? giving them this medication interferes with my conscience!

think that's a straw man position? it was mother theresa's belief, provided the patients suffering were poot. and not her - she had treatment in western hospitals with full medical care, but the dying in her hospices "promoted suffering... by placing as her ideal the notion that the highest point to which one could aspire would be through matching the suffering of the supposed jesus of nazareth in their dying moments." (source, italics in original)

talaxandra · May 22, 2011

As far as our abortion laws, I think we could study and learn from some European countries.

Interesting. Did you have any specific European countries in mind? Because some of them are considerably more liberal than the US.

mcleanl · May 22, 2011

In my reading of this string (and you can... will... correct me if I'm wrong) I cannot find one instance where a the pro-rights respondent is advocating/approving the active obstruction of a person's access to a drug. I see pro-freedom nurses affirming that they WILL provide information to patients, and when possible facilitate referrals.
This is the meme people are using, the straw man they are slaying. The charge is that pro-personal-rights people want to keep patients ignorant and see to it they CAN NEVER get the morning after pill or an abortion.
You understand, I hope that there are people that are completely consistent, thorough-going pro-choice advocates who vote against social conservatives because they believe the Bill of Rights applies to everyone. These would be your natural allies... with this one exception. When they say pro-choice they mean, pro-choice for everyone.
This is foolish from a strategic standpoint. Polling indicates almost all demographics in America no longer approve of all-abortion, all-of-the-time-regardless-of-viabilitiy. You're losing that argument.
So, to add to your difficulties in the realm of popular perception, now you want to highlight health care professionals being barred from their jobs and being threatened with the loss of their licenses. Oh, yeah... that's going to win you LOTS of votes. The 20% of Americans who have lost their jobs in the last couple of years are really going to admire your political purity.
If you cannot compromise on this, you risk being perceived (rightfully, in my view) as the shrill, inflexible fundamentalists demanding that everyone bow before the shrine of abortion rights OR ELSE! Think about it. Every substantive step in your direction has been via the courts, or executive fiat. You can't win... with these tactics...in the court of popular opinion.[/
Uggh....should have seen this lecture coming.

talaxandra · May 22, 2011

Polling indicates almost all demographics in America no longer approve of all-abortion, all-of-the-time-regardless-of-viabilitiy.

I believe that the potential life of a fetus has intrinsic value. I believe that abortion is morally wrong. I believe that using abortion as a form of birth control in unconscionable, provided other forms of birth control (including education) are available.

I also believe that compelling a woman to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want, for whatever reason, is a far greater moral wrong.

I believe that the majority of women who consider abortion, regardless of their decision, think about the knowable consequences of all their options.

I believe that these womens are the best positioned to determine whether or not proceeding with pregnancy is the best choice for them and for their potential child/ren.

And I believe that once anyone, including me, starts limiting the circumstances under which a woman can have a termination, the likelihood increases that the circumstances under which I agree abortion is acceptable are threatened.

jmqphd · May 22, 2011

The United Kingdom passed what is now called "the 1967 act" which made abortion legal. They don't impose it on Northern Ireland where it remains illegal. (I don't think we can extrapolate that as a parallel to federalism and the 50 states. Nothing about Northern Ireland is simple.)

In the UK, except to preserve the life of the mother, you cannot do an abortion after 24 weeks gestation.

That would be a step in the right direction. The public is queasy about very late term abortions. The pro-choice side could take that off the table and seem magnanimous in doing so.

jmqphd · May 22, 2011

Are we supposed to be talking about hypothetical cases here, or focusing on facts in evidence? There's no move to mandate the compulsory administration of abortofacients and I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that any such law could pass in the US; it's this kind of whipping up of hypothetical slippery slopes that causes irrational responses to sensible solutions.

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2266

GHGoonette, BSN, RN · May 23, 2011

This assumes that you know about every termination every woman you know has had, which is not necessarily the case; I would certainly have some reservations talking with people I knew to be pro-life about a termination I'd chosen to have. However, talk of abortion pulls this topic away from the point - as has been stated several times, the medications in question prevent implantation but do not cause an implanted fetus to abort.

Don't recall implying that I knew every woman who ever underwent an abortion...:)

The abortion law was passed in SA in 1996, with the strict rule that counseling had to be provided prior to the procedure; this hardly ever takes place, and frequently the procedure itself is not explained to the patient, nor expected outcomes.

No, my reference was solely to my own experiences with women, one of whom is a family member, who decided on an abortion. I do not judge, criticise or condemn anyone who takes this step, I merely grieve for the social conditions which force them to it.

And I see the OP was not referring to the so-called "abortion drugs", you'll have to excuse the differences in trade names for my mistake. The morning-after drug was, as I remember it, called Ovral here, but that was one of the standard, high-dose birth control meds.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · May 23, 2011

I don't get this...a Government decision can force doctors to prescribe certain drugs? Just as a matter of interest, is the Government forced to provide full, comprehensive counseling and advice for women contemplating abortion? Every woman I've known who has deliberately had her baby aborted has been wracked with guilt afterwards - and I know some who had illegal abortions almost fifty years ago. They have never got over it.

That's interesting.

I know a few that regretted having to make that decision, but having recognized the pros and cons have come to deal with it. I also know women that have given children up for adoption, and suffer a great deal of remorse and continual stress of dealing with them finding her later.

I have sister who is adopted, who ran away many times, to find her birth mother. Yet adoption papers remain closed, despite the issue that she has severe illness and several genetically cared hem disorders known to be prominent in the area in which she was adopted.

We can debate stories all we want. All outcomes are going to varied. I do suspect if ones friends know you to be biased for or against abortion, that affects what they tell you. One is unlikely to get an unbiased story.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · May 23, 2011

I think most people with particular sensitivities will avoid situations that they know will put them in moral conflict. The problem with the abortifacients is that the federal rule effects every pharmacist. Every single dispensing pharmacists. So it is a bigger deal than the fact that I need to avoid jobs at Planned Parenthood. There are people who are devout Mormons, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and serious Muslims who are or would like to go to pharmacy school but are giving it second thoughts. T
Somehow, I don't think enforcing this rule makes medications more readily available to Americans. I think it does the opposite.

It actually does not affect ALL pharmacists. ALL pharmacies do not and are not required to stock ALL legal meds.

There are many independant pharmacies. They are fully permitted to stock the drugs that they wish to provide. Some provide a greater variety than others depending on what clientele that they gave and what they feel makes money.

No one REQUIRES a business carry a particular product.

The problem occurs when a pharmacist chooses to work for a business that sells this med, and then decides that he will not sell it.

It would be like working all Walmart yet refusing to check out a customer buying guns, ammo, beer and junk food. If you don't like selling those things, go work at the place that does not sell them or start your own store.

And for your info, per most Talmudic scholars, while abortion is disliked by Jews, it is not forbidden. Birth control in the Orthodox setting is permitted in certain circumstances, though one is supposed to be fruitful, depending on health. In some cases, the Rabbi could actually be required to recommend it, given the particulars of the situation. And as far as selling birth control and plan B to a stranger, it would not be appropriate to judge them as we do not know their beliefs or situation. Thus selling BCs or Plan B would be permitted.

There are plenty of places that do not sell plan B, just as there are pharmacies that do not stock meds like codeine (minus tylenol), thalidomide, avastin/tarceva, onsite compounded meds, cytoxan, epogen, neulasta for various reasons - cost, lack of demand, high rate of robbery, or lack of equipment to properly compound, inability to work with more hazardous drugs.

Just as not all MDs can do abortion safely, just as not all clinics can safely provide abortion and therefore do not provide it, not all pharmacies carry Plan B or BCs, and I am doubtful that the government can force any of the above to change.

floridanurse1983 · May 23, 2011

So the theory that the person gets referred to someone else is flawed. You have 72 hours to get Plan B. For everyday that goes by the risk of implantation goes up. So the patient goes to one pharmacy and is turned away. So patient goes to next pharmacy and that pharmacist who dispenses it is not on that shift. Patient is referred to another. By the time the patient gets Plan B, egg is implanted. Now patient decides to get a "real" abortion. Does this really make it morally better??????

FLmomof5 · May 25, 2011

I remember reading articles where the author was against women having an ultrasound before aborting because a woman "is not in her right mind and it would be too traumatic".

I also remember being instructed in school that in early pregnancy, it is just a bunch of cells dividing.....

So the uneducated want to rush to correct "the mistake" while it still isn't a child. It is easier to abort a bunch of meaningless cells that are dividing than it is to realize that bunch of cells already has a head, body, arms and legs and a heartbeat. (I understand that is not so for the morning after pills.)

One poster stated that the drugs describes made the endometrium 'inhospitable' but didn't actually destroy the fetus. Really? I guess expelling this 'live' process to let it die is not destroying it. Whatever.

Another poster committed adultery and got pregnant as a result. While grateful for abortion that would allow her to save her marriage without a living legacy of her mistake was good in her opinion....IMHO, that innocent life was sentenced to death for the sins of the parents.

The Oath of MDs is "first - do no harm". Well, if you kill the fetus, that is harm....at least to the fetus.

Another poster had an abortion because she couldn't bring a child into that abusive relationship. I brought 3 into mine. The youngest of those three graduates from College next year majoring in Criminal Justice. She is married to a future USMC officer and is carrying my first grandchild! Being abused is horrible. Leaving a challenge. Raising the children without child support tough. No one ever said life would be easy. Praise GOD, my children live.

Leonardo DaVinci was the "bastard child of peasants". Imagine if abortion were legal then.

I supported a woman's right to choose when I was young. Then at a church service a man talked to the congregation and said that it was ALWAYS wrong. I went to afterwards and asked him how could he say that! What about the poor victims of rape and incest. (less than 2% of abortions) He responded that the child didn't do anything wrong and that we cannot know God's plan for this child.....he, a man of God, leading others to Christ, was the product of rape. Wow.

Other empty arms were made full of love by the selfless decision of a woman who couldn't or wouldn't keep an unwanted child.

Every action, every choice has consequences. Don't wear a helmet and suffer irreparable brain injury or death. Smoke and get cancer. Do illicit drugs and lose your career, your family, your home and ultimately your health. Have sex outside of marriage and get pregnant.

The biggest dichotomy out there is Pro-life folks for the death penalty while on the opposite end of the spectrum is pro-abortion/choice and being against the death penalty.

We will NEVER know what those aborted children may have become or may have created. We will also never know if that "horrific" issue that plagued the young women wouldn't have turned out to ultimately be their greatest joy. We never gave that a chance.

One bumper sticker that I loved said: "Unborn women should have choice too!"

We are a democratic society that holds freedom of religion to be one of our founding principles. While a majority here support that "right to choose", I support the right of them to also choose an a-religious provider. The Lord requires that we live our whole life for Him, not just Sunday service. Our freedom of religion means that the government should never force the faithful to commit an act against their faith. How many here would support a Muslim nurse's right to wear a head scarf? It is the same on the religion playing field. If a Christian physician/pharmacist will not prescribe or perform what you want, you have the freedom in this country to go to someone who will.

talaxandra · May 25, 2011

I was serious when I asked what people think is morally acceptable for me to do if:

I have an ideological position that pain relief, by diminishing the suffering of the dying, takes these people further from God... that suffering is good for the soul, and that the pain of the terminally ill mirrors the suffering of Christ on the cross - do I get to withhold prescribed PRN analgesia from these patients? Giving them this medication interferes with my conscience