Are nurses forced to assist abortions? - page 2

Hello, I'm looking into a career as an RN and I am just curious - Are nurses forced to assist abortions? I've heard recently of several nurses being forced to assist or they lose their job. Is this... Read More

  1. by   pockunit
    Nevermind, I can't read. *sigh*
  2. by   Quickbeam
    I think it is a legitimate question. I have deeply held personal and religious views on a particular form of elective adult surgery (I prefer not to specify). My school of nursing made it very clear that it was my job to avoid any position where that would be an issue. In 25 years of full time nursing employment, no problem.
  3. by   pockunit
    PS, hospitals are not governmental agencies and so would be exempt from this, *if it were enacted*. Hey, look, a Catholic newspaper even agrees with me.
  4. by   pockunit
    But wait! There's more.

    Listen, I do not disparage anyone for being anti-abortion or pro-choice. That's none of my business. But *get the facts* before putting that kind of stuff out there. I have friends and family firmly on both sides of the issues, and if EITHER side comes at me with unsubstantiated or patently false propoganda like the above, I exercise my abdominals by laughing hysterically. People are passionate about the issue on both sides. That doesn't excuse spreading lies.

    But back to the OP, no, you cannot be forced to assist in an abortion. You CAN be forced to care for a pt who is s/p abortion, and you should do so without the incentive of keeping your job. It's just plain ethical.
  5. by   lookingintoRN
    Thank you all for your answers. Very helpful.
  6. by   Munch
    It's kind of like the same idea of the certain pharmacists that refuse to fill birth control pills because of their beliefs.

    Also are the same nurses that don't assist in performing abortions because of their beliefs, does the same thing apply in assisting patients that come in with an ectopic pregnancy? I am just curious.
  7. by   pockunit
    I suspect not because you really can't argue that the health of the mother isn't in danger here. The Catholic church once would have said that if it were possible for the mother to carry to term but would have died during delivery, then she should, but I think that's been reversed. And since there have been successful ectopic pregnancies, there is some precedent for it. But. A tubal? No question it's a necessary medical procedure since it cannot produce a live fetus or mother.
  8. by   fromtheseaRN
    the major catholic chain here (CHW / st. joe's in phoenix) lost their catholic affiliation 2 years ago after performing an abortion to *save the mother's life*.
    so, i don't think that's actually been reversed.
  9. by   pockunit
    I don't mean they've reversed their stance on abortion, just that previously, if the child were expected to live, they'd have said she should carry to term and sacrifice herself. I suspect in this case, the fetus wouldn't have survived, either. Hey, looks like ectopics abortions ARE sanctioned: "An ectopic pregnancy is one of the only cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI writes that "the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology."

    Seems Olmsted would have been okay with a hysterectomy, though: "Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.[68] In Catholic theology, it is never permissible to evacuate the fetus using methotrexate or to incise the Fallopian tube to extract the fetus (salpingostomy), as these procedures are considered to be direct abortions."
  10. by   fromtheseaRN
    so if st joes had just made sure this woman could never have children again, they could've kept their affiliation. ridiculous.
  11. by   pockunit
    That's the impression I get. Hello, immovable object!
  12. by   33762FL
    If you don't want to deal with abortion, don't work in area where you can reasonably expect to come across the issue (OB, surgery, actual abortion clinics). Most areas of health & nursing have nothing to do with reproduction. Just pick one of those.
  13. by   pockunit
    Quote from Munch
    It's kind of like the same idea of the certain pharmacists that refuse to fill birth control pills because of their beliefs.
    I would argue it's not the same thing because BC can be used for more than preventing pregnancy. Some people actually use it to GET pregnant. It's not the pharmacist's job to second-guess what the med is prescribed for.