2 July 2013

Katy Gallagher, the misogyny card and abortion rights

2 July 2013 | Masquara

In the context of the new RU480 legislation, The Project on Channel 10 has just screened the story of a young Canberra woman who was recently refused medical treatment (morning after pill) by publicly funded Calvary Hospital. She was also refused a referral to an alternative doctor.

Katy Gallagher has been playing the “Gillard sisterhood” card for a while now (including playing the “victim of misogyny” card herself on 7.30 last week). As she is a paid-up member of the Gillard “abortion rights” sisterhood, isn’t it time Katie stood up for reproductive rights, and insisted that publicly funded hospitals offer contraception and abortion services?

So, now that RU480 is on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will Calvary be required to prescribe it?

Katy?

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

jennybel758:45 am 03 Jul 13

Ainslie,

For your future reference and for the reference of everyone else as well, Postinor-1 and Postinor-2 (the morning after pills, which has correctly been pointed out by Ainslie herself is not RU486) are available over the counter from pharmacies, i.e., you can get them without a script, but you do need to talk to a pharmacist.

FioBla11:43 pm 02 Jul 13

Not directed to anyone in particular:

Any doctor working in the Calvary set of hospitals (of which there are many in Australia) should understand the Little Company of Mary philosophies. It’s in the job application (look at the job listings/description). You can find these philosophies on http://www.calvarycare.org.au/assets/docs/common/our-philosophy/ or http://www.cha.org.au/code-of-ethical-standards.html

I’m sure the various state/territory governments around Australia knew this when signing whatever agreements they have with the Little Company of Mary to run public services in essentially private facilities. Unless they are idiots (in which case, paging Masquara).

The religious beliefs of individual employed doctors themselves therefore do not directly come into play, aside from agreeing to train/work in under those conditions. And I’m quite sure I’ve seen female doctors wearing Muslim headwear there; so they don’t only employ Catholics.

So… look at the Little Company of Mary and the state government (and voters), with regards to the lack of contraception services at the local Calvary Hospitals.

Reading the original post again 12 hours later, I still do not know what RU486 being put on the PBS has to do with this event. The first third of the first sentence, and the next 2, 3, and 4 paragraphs are off-topic. But it looks like I was the first to mention RU486 in the thread, so apologies to the female involved.

sepi10:29 pm 02 Jul 13

howeph said :

“I am very much pro choice, but just because an institution is receiving significant public funding it does not follow that the institution should be forced to give treatment that it rejects on ethical grounds (whether I, or anyone else, agree with those ethical grounds or not).”

This is very relevant – there are only 3 hospitals in Canberra to have a baby at. Now at 2 of the 3 (central and northside) and both of the private options you cannot get contraceptive advice after having a baby. You also cannot get your tubes tied as part of a caesarian, but have to book a separate operation later – this is not good practice). why should northsiders have to put up with this substandard moralistic religious wierdness.

Minz9:42 pm 02 Jul 13

The thing is, as a doctor you are obliged (legally) to comply by the Medical Board of Australia code of conduct, which requires doctors to not impede access to legal treatments, and to not allow moral or religious views to deny access to medical care (although they may decline to personally provide that care).

IMO, any doctor in the ACT who declines to at least refer a patient to another doctor for abortion is acting at least unethically (by causing at least psychological harm to the patient) and is likely also acting illegally by acting outside of their mandated code of conduct. Any cases should be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and, hopefully (!) action.

howeph8:40 pm 02 Jul 13

howeph said :

fabforty said :

Monomyth said :

Hi guys. My name is Ainslie, the girl who was in The Project’s story. I would like to clarify that I was after the Morning After Pill and not the abortion pill. I was unaware my story would be used in conjunction with a political action (RU486). I was not after a ‘termination of pregnancy’ as stated in the news piece, I was after not falling pregnant and I believe the distinction should be made.

My position was, and always has been, that if you have decided to pursue the medical profession you should NOT be allowed to decide who you do, and do not, treat.

…

Ainslie, I sincerely hope you eventually got the proper care you needed and am sorry you were put through that trauma.

++1

Hi Monomyth,

Upon reflection I don’t feel that my simple +1 is a suitable response to your post given that I hold a position, that whilst not completely opposed, is different to your statement:

Monomyth said :

My position was, and always has been, that if you have decided to pursue the medical profession you should NOT be allowed to decide who you do, and do not, treat.

I didn’t see the story on The Project. I am only going on the information provided here in this thread.

I don’t think that you were discriminated against based on who you are. That is, the hospital did not decide who to, and who not to treat. If you had presented with a broken leg they would have provided you with treatment.

They did discriminate against you based upon the treatment being sort. The hospital has an ethical objection (incorrect in my personal opinion) to providing the treatment that you required. Whilst I don’t like their objection, I support the hospital’s right to discriminate based upon that objection.

I would like to reiterate fabforty’s sentiments that I hope you were able to get the legitimate care that you needed.

I also want to congratulate you on having the strength and courage to publicly raise this issue. It is through your example and others like it that change to the opinion of such institutions as the Calvary Hospital and the Catholic Church will be brought about.

justin heywood8:24 pm 02 Jul 13

I think too many of you see this is a feminist or political issue, not a moral one, which it is for some doctors.

I don’t know the doctor or the circumstances surrounding the OP, but I do know that Catholics believe that life begins at conception. That being the case, it should come as no surprise that a doctor who is a practising, faithful Catholic may regard facilitating the termination of a foetus the same as taking a life.

Thus these doctors aren’t ‘imposing their moral values’ but protecting life as they see it, as yet unborn. I don’t personally share their views but I reckon they’re entitled to hold them.

I would suggest that if you are specifically looking for the ‘Morning After Pill’ or a termination, common sense would suggest avoiding hospitals with names like Calvary and driving the extra 20 minutes to TCH.

Queen_of_the_Bun8:19 pm 02 Jul 13

Given that the young woman involved has said she was not asking for the abortion pill RU486, just the morning after pill which is available over the counter from any pharmacist, what is the point of this post?

Except maybe to alert young women in her position that they do not need to see a doctor to get the morning after pill, they can just go to Priceline or Chemist’s Warehouse or their local pharmacy.

p17:21 pm 02 Jul 13

howeph said :

p1 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

I still find it insane, that any doktor, who now days has a profession that is based on science, can be religious or a pro lifer. Makes zero sense.

Yup. I kind of feel they should never have been issued with a licence to practice medicine since they fail the most basic test of the scientific method.

Medical practitioners are not scientists. They practice applied science.

A doctor practices applied biology, chemistry, immunology, etc mixed in with a significant dose of psychology (which is not a science), in the same way a structural engineer practices applied physics and chemistry.

All of medicine must be practised within a strong ethical frame work.

In contrast the scientific method, to be free from bias, must be ethically neutral.

Research ethics constrains the areas of scientific exploration and is the reason why psychology isn’t a science; because most human experimentation is unethical.

You make a good arguement that doctors are not scientists.

I counter with the suggestion that if you understand the scientific method, accept the results of people using the scientific method to discover the best health options/drugs/technologies/etc, and then decide to not provide such an option because of traditions involving ghosts and ritualistic symbolic consumption of human flesh – then you are neither a scientist nor an applied scientist.

c_c™7:18 pm 02 Jul 13

I am pro choice, however I am not for forcing medical practitioners to become atheists, no matter how different their moral judgement may be to mine.

People on here are already going off on the predictable tangents, muslims, emergency room wait times, blah blah.

Fact is the women in the story had plenty of alternative options and 72hrs to use them, including SHFP and CSHC, the former which advertises on the radio frequently, the latter part of the Canberra Hospital complex provided by ACT Health.

There is a lesson from her story and that is there need’s to be more education and sense, because there growing evidence that despite the most life skills education the curriculum has ever had, a lot of folks are still doing dumb things.

nazasaurus7:17 pm 02 Jul 13

The morning after pill is readily available over the counter from any pharmacy without a prescription.. costs around 20-30 dollars. Lots of people get if no fuss from there. If I need paracetamol or cough mixture I cant just turn up to the hospital expecting to receive it.. how is this any different to your treatment.

howeph3:15 pm 02 Jul 13

chewy14 said :

FioBla said :

What a grab bag of arguments. The morning after pill has little to do with RU486 (even “in the context of“). Or misogyny. You’re really reaching here.

Affirmative Action Man said :

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

So… lemme get this straight. Right wingers are usually going on and on about abortion being legal. God forbid it’s tax-payer-subsidised through Medicare. But… a hospital that *refuses* to participate in these subsidised-by-government services, is criticised because… it “receives buckets of public $”. Oh wait.

>So, now that RU480 is on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will Calvary be required to prescribe it?

No. Just means that it’s subsidised.

Face it… Calvary doesn’t provided a lot of services. No orthopaedics, no neurosurgery, not a trauma hospital. Until recently no MRI. No ERCP. No cardiac catheterisation. No paediatric admissions. Oh yea, no contraceptive/termination services. Whoa. Everyone get on the free misogyny bus.

What does this have to do with Calvary anyway? There are plenty of doctors out there who do not work for Calvary. Some who choose not to participate in various subsidised programs. e.g. the methadone program.

(Atheist, not a Calvary employee, safe-legal-rare).

Masquara return to form!

+1. There’s no reason that accepting public money to perform certain medical procedures means that you automatically have to provide all medical procedures.

+1 From me too.

I am very much pro choice, but just because an institution is receiving significant public funding it does not follow that the institution should be forced to give treatment that it rejects on ethical grounds (whether I, or anyone else, agree with those ethical grounds or not).

It would be a different story if there wasn’t free and readily available access to these services elsewhere. In such a hypothetical case it would be the governments fault for not making those services available either in the contract that it negotiated with the hospital or via some other means.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Podiatrists

The Walking Clinic

The Walking Clinic has perpetuated an attitude of excellence in foot health provision. The experienced Podiatric team provide current and innovative care to all patients.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more