Conflict in Medicine – Reflections on the Abortion Bill

Conflict in Medicine – Reflections on the Abortion Bill

That such a bill could be approved by MPs in Australia really stretches credibility e.g. a doctor must perform an emergency abortion when the mother’s life is in danger.  As has been said by others, this situation is a “clinical fiction” but why not just induce labour?  Why does the baby have to be killed first?

Well-presented arguments were made by doctors in Victoria and across Australia, yet the medical voice was ignored.

The single-mindedness and power of the pro-abortion lobby and the role of Emily’s List is now more apparent “women in all areas of Victoria will be able to access safe, legal terminations free from persecution; and medical practitioners provide vital reproductive health services to women free from harassment”.

Hippocrates has been dug up, drawn and quartered and the remains burnt but the echoes remain:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

Until it is reversed, the refusal of doctor’s right of conscience has paved the way for compulsory participation in other processes e.g. euthanasia.

The belief statement of Medicine With Morality includes:

We assert our right and obligation to practice medicine according to our conscience. We will not engage in or facilitate procedures or practices that we believe are inconsistent with the above manifesto.

This is now head-to-head conflict.  It is only a matter of time before doctors are charged under this law.  Will Medical Boards forced to uphold the law exclude them from practice?  Will they be denied medical insurance because of the risk to funds? The future of medicine is at stake as was highlighted in the letter sent from Medicine With Morality to MPs in Victoria.

Lachlan Dunjey. October 2008.

Also see: by Michael Cook by Margaret Somerville

Hi, Stranger! Leave Your Comment...

Name (required)
Email (required)