Abortion hating doctors to flee Calvary?

Given the oft-noted nexus between those in favour of forced birth also being in favour of the death penalty, the regard for human life claim is tenuous.

Jim Jones said :

To be honest, I don’t think I’d want someone who really believes in a magical sky god to be performing complex medical procedures anyway.

Yeah, i’d much rather have a person with little regard for human life cutting me open.

To be honest, I don’t think I’d want someone who really believes in a magical sky god to be performing complex medical procedures anyway.

Interesting – left out the ‘s’

I honestly did not know that – thanks Iggle Piggle. I would hope that if a procedure is medically necesary, then the vast majority of doctors would step up? Intereting term that ‘ social termination’ ….

Please be aware that terminations of pregnancy in the public sector are for serious fetal anomaly or threat to maternal health or wellbeing. Social terminations are entirely conducted in private clinics.

gun street girl said :

They are humans, not automatons. As such, if they lack the sufficient objectivity required in order to deliver professional care, they are ethically required to pass on service. I have strong objections to doctors who refuse to refer patients on (I see this as obstructive, unprofessional, intrusive and “preachy”, as you say), but I have no objections to doctors refusing to participate in certain services based on their own beliefs.

Absolutely – I know plenty of doctors who refuse to circumcise baby boys because they don’t believe that this is right, and I accept that standpoint. I also feel that doctors shouldn’t be forced to perform procedures that they aren’t comfortable with from a medical or ethical standpoint. As long as they can refer the patient on – then no problemo. If some OBs believe that aborting a healthy fetus growing in a healthy mother is tantamount to murder, then why should they be forced to commit that act?

They are humans, not automatons. As such, if they lack the sufficient objectivity required in order to deliver professional care, they are ethically required to pass on service. I have strong objections to doctors who refuse to refer patients on (I see this as obstructive, unprofessional, intrusive and “preachy”, as you say), but I have no objections to doctors refusing to participate in certain services based on their own beliefs.

I don’t feel that medical practitioners should have the right to force their beliefs onto their patients. Either they are professionals or they are preachers. Take your pick.

Regrettably this won’t change and they will still be able to refuse after the takeover. Fire them quick smart and tell them to take a lower paying job elsewhere, or move overseas to a religious dictatorship somewhere and practice there.

What an objective tagline for this story

monomania said :

I-filed said :

As long as the services are available at another hospital I see no problem with having a place for these people to work without having their consciences being bent to the will of the majority. And Iggle, there might be more than you think.

I am well aware that there is a diversity of opinion amongst the medical profession, as there is in the wider community. However, many of these people choose to practice in another branch of health care where their personal beliefs are less influenced/challenged by their daily work. Advocacy and belief in the rights of women runs strongly amongst the O&G practitioners even when the choices those women make are not the same as their own. And as GSG stated, this issue is about far more than just termination of pregnancy. The inability to discuss post-natal contraception to women prior to discharge from hospital after having a baby for instance- a standard part of post-natal care… and so many other issues.

The tubal ligation issue is one that is quite relevant. Currently you can’t have one done in a private hospital in Canberra, as they are both run by LCM. This also means you cna’t have one done as part of a caesarian.

And not being able to get emergency contraception in the case of sexual assault – well – I am speechless.

shiny flu said :

Whilst I am pro-abortion and generally believe that everyone else believing in religion makes as much sense as believing everything you read, abortions aren’t a thing where an immediate operation is required (hence the ability to head to Woden).

It’s not just abortions we’re talking about – the umbrella issues include many pertaining to family planning and fertility: hence, access to emergency contraception (even in cases of sexual assault), assisted fertility, including IVF, tubal ligation, D&C, elective hysterectomy and vasectomy are all casemixes restricted under the rules of the LCM.

Apologies, all, by the way, for continuously butting into this thread!

I can’t believe we have to drive all the way to Woden.

Whilst I am pro-abortion and generally believe that everyone else believing in religion makes as much sense as believing everything you read, abortions aren’t a thing where an immediate operation is required (hence the ability to head to Woden).

All of these calls for separation of ‘God’ and state are all well and good until a large voting population remains white and say “I believe in (the christian) God”.

monomania said :

Many Christian and other religious charitable organisations perform a valuable service in the community. They receive government assistance as well as private donation.

Thing is, management aside, many of those working at Calvary are not doing on behalf of the Catholic church. They are employed by ACT Health. Long gone are the days wherein the nursing staff of Catholic run hospitals were nuns.

I’m not anti-abortion but a significant proportion of the community are, including people in the health services area. As long as the services are available at another hospital I see no problem with having a place for these people to work without having their consciences being bent to the will of the majority. And Iggle, there might be more than you think.

No doctor has their consciences bent – it has always been acceptable for a doctor to refuse to do something on moral/ethical/religious grounds. I actually think the intended takeover of Calvary has much more to do with just a question of religion, but I am aware that the fact that the LCM had almost cornered the market on elective surgical procedures did give rise to concerns of a (near) monopoly that was controlled by religious beliefs.

I-filed said :

We need much more separation between church and state throughout Australia. INcluding religion-based education. Why are we paying for Catholic schools? France doesn’t. America doesn’t. Britain doesn’t.

And Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, Montasorrian, Quaker, Morman, Greek Orthodox, Scientologist, Christian (born again) Non Denominational Christian, Hindi, Springerian, Salvation Army, Buddhist, Seventh Day Adventists, Steiner and the list goes on.

Many Christian and other religious charitable organisations perform a valuable service in the community. They receive government assistance as well as private donation.

I’m not anti-abortion but a significant proportion of the community are, including people in the health services area. As long as the services are available at another hospital I see no problem with having a place for these people to work without having their consciences being bent to the will of the majority. And Iggle, there might be more than you think.

Igglepiggle said :

And I wouldn’t say the management at Calvary were so great- just look at the holes in the medical staff rosters… Perhaps the expensive locum bill would reduce when the hospital is run by ACT health?

Yes, I daresay the cost of employing locums, CMOs and VMOs was a large factor in the Government’s decision to look into taking over Calvary.

And I wouldn’t say the management at Calvary were so great- just look at the holes in the medical staff rosters… Perhaps the expensive locum bill would reduce when the hospital is run by ACT health?

I have to say GSG that your comments could have been mine completely. I would also add that those VMOs who currently provide O&G services at Clavary almost all have visiting rights at TCH where those aspects of care which are unfortunately but occasionally neccessary as part of O&G practice (eg terminations) are performe, often by those same practitioners. There are only a very small proportion of practitioners in gthe ACT who hold pwrsonal moral/ethical/religious objections to this party of the job, and they all know where to refer those pateints of theirs who are in need. My guess will be that the sum total of resignations over this issue will be nil, and that those pratitioners who currently offer this service will continue to do so , and those who don’t, won’t. The big winners will be the women of Canberra who currently make a choice as to where to receive their health care only to have that option removed from them when the care they need is inaccessible in their institution of choice due to religious reasons.

And the number fo staff who work at both institutions is large, and secondments are a common part of the employment policy of ACT health.

daddy said :

GSG, a lot of the reason that Calvary is good IS actually due to the fact that the management are good. Those at the coal face are quality, dedicated people at both locations. Therefore, the difference is the management.

Actually, a lot of that staff is one and the same. I have worked at both institutions, but only as an employee of ACT Health. TCH seconds a significant amount of staff across to Calvary. My impressions of Calvary as a hospital is that it was a lot friendlier, but that is in keeping with it being a much smaller hospital – small hospitals tend to have that feel about them, wherever you go. TCH is without a doubt more disorganised and far more beset with administrative problems, but again, it’s a heck of a lot bigger, and offers a greater diversity of services, so this naturally leads to more significant politics and bureaucratic nonsense. I am in no way saying that TCH is well run (far from it), but conversely, I don’t think Calvary is an analgous comparator, nor do I believe the LCM is without its share of problems as a management entity.

GSG, a lot of the reason that Calvary is good IS actually due to the fact that the management are good. Those at the coal face are quality, dedicated people at both locations. Therefore, the difference is the management.

Ant, I thought Calvary was being paid to provide a service, not being propped up by government.

The LCM do run fully private hospitals in other regions (my sister is associated with Calvary in Wagga) and they are spectacular.

Exactly, and they are good hospitals. So good luck to them building and running another private hospital where they can do what they like, and refuse to do what tehy like. Having no non=religious hospital on the northside was not a desirable situation.

Let the LCM run a fully private hospital

They already do: they own Lydia Perin and the John James Hospital.

Well said, Gun Street Girl. Cogent stuff. The catholics can run good hospitals and I support their doing so, but for the government to prop up a facility that denies certain medical procedures to patients, based on religous rules is against what we in our secular state expect.

Let the LCM run a fully private hospital, i’m sure it will be a good hospital, but if they must impose their religious laws on patients, let there be a non-religious alternative for people.

I think it’s important to point out that a lot of the reason that Calvary is “good” is due to the efforts and skills of those who work there, rather than the management per se. Similarly, for all its administrative and logistical shambles, TCH is a “good” hospital, because by and large, the people who work at the coal face are good at what they do. I doubt any “essential services” will be lost if the LCM ceased to manage Calvary – certainly, they may be distributed differently, but we’re hardly in peril of losing anything.

Ian said :

Calvary is a good hospital. While I think their refusal to carry out abortions and related procedures is an imposition of Catholic values on the rest of the community, I’m not convinced that screwing up the quality of the hospital by putting it under the control of Katy and her minions is worth it for the sake of ideological purity.

Agreed. All the Catholic bashing has yet again managed to dilute thos fact that some essential services (after the fact of abortion etc) may be lost and there seems to be very little being done to stem a potential loss of vital services.

Calvary is a good hospital. While I think their refusal to carry out abortions and related procedures is an imposition of Catholic values on the rest of the community, I’m not convinced that screwing up the quality of the hospital by putting it under the control of Katy and her minions is worth it for the sake of ideological purity.

Have just read the article in full. I’d be interested to hear the names of the “many” O&G specialists that Foote claims are morally against abortion, if only for being completely transparent, allowing the public to be aware of potential objections their clinician may have, and select services accordingly. I am also dubious as to whether he speaks officially on behalf of a group,or merely on behalf of himself. Whilst I am not against the idea of clinicians having the right to refuse to perform a procedure to which they have personal or moral objections, I do object to doctors not being totally upfront about where they stand. Certainly, one’s moral stance should not be used as a tool to manipulate public policy.

I was also interested to read that the LCM intends to build a new private hospital on a site near the existing Calvary hospital, should the latter be purchased and taken over by ACT Health. I will be more interested to see how this new private hospital will run without the benefit of being able to skim services off the public, as it does at present.

Agreed. One of the most shocking things I’ve found since my arriving, green an naive, in Aus, is the size and influence of the cathlolic church here. It’s an organisation I find contemptible and vile.

We need much more separation between church and state throughout Australia. INcluding religion-based education. Why are we paying for Catholic schools? France doesn’t. America doesn’t. Britain doesn’t.

*applause*

I’m yet to read the whole article (will comment accordingly once I have), but I must say, I’ve been utterly disgusted by the way Little Company of Mary Healthcare has put its hand out for public funding, whilst simultaneously refusing to administer LEGAL medical interventions and procedures (particularly in view of the significantly large elective surgery, O&G and urology casemixes seen at Calvary, plus Lidia Perin, which is also run by the LCM). The sooner this hypocrisy is brought to an end, the better.

feel Calvary?

Ummm …flee perhaps?