• cjvg

    So why are the conscientious objectors deliberately choosing a field where their “conscience ” pits them in direct conflict with a woman’s conscience and beliefs and rights? Especially since they are assured that their conscience has the power position in that dynamic and is much more likely to prevail.?

    There are numerous medical specialties from which these conscientious objectors can choose without ever being placed in this position. The woman patient has no such deliberate and freely made choice, no one choices to have medical complications or the need for a medical procedure and/or medications. It seems to me that these so called medical “professionals” are deliberately and willingly seeking this conflict of their own making.

    Not buying the arguments made in this article and think it is a dishonest position to take

    • Arekushieru

      CJVG, WELL put, as usual. (This is also a shout-out to Lady_Black, as well, btw.) THIS is my main contention with Archbishops like Thomas Collins who protest that their freedom of conscience is limited when Justin Trudeau argued that he will only accept candidates for the Liberal party who will support Pro-Choice legislation. I had to ask, why does ANYONE’s but the pregnant woman’s conscience matter? Ugh.

      • BJ Survivor

        Agreed!

  • lady_black

    Look Wendy, it’s just TOO EASY to be a “conscientious objector” when someone else pays the price. I have nothing against conscientious objection and might do it myself in certain circumstances. For example, I would sooner sit in jail than be forced to participate in any way, in war where the USA is the aggressor. I am willing to pay that price. If a doctor, nurse, or other practitioner wishes not to participate in abortion, choose to work in a different specialty. Be an ophthalmologist or radiologist instead of an OB/GYN. Pharmacists are a different story. If you have serious issues with dispensing any drug that’s ordered, don’t enter that field or be willing to hire someone else to dispense the medication. COs are those who are willing to break laws, engage in civil disobedience, risk jail, etc. for their beliefs. It’s a hard road, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES is it OK to lay the consequences of your beliefs on the shoulders of anyone but yourself. When I was a nursing student, this was drummed into us from day one. We are there to advocate for the patient, not ourselves.

    • Shan

      I can’t vote this up enough times.

      I’d also add this: I think that employers should take this into account and be able to accommodate CO employees but only if they can make arrangements that don’t dis-accommodate the patient/customer in any way. Otherwise, the CO employee should just look elsewhere.

    • BJ Survivor

      Exactly! No need to add to this. No more needs to be said.

      What busts my craw is that this medical “conscientious objection” only ever applies to medical issues specific to women. But, somehow, this is considered to be okay, even with self-professed allies. There is simply no defense of this, as it is clearly discrimination against women. Would we even consider allowing conscientious objection against providing blood transfusion? No, we absolutely would not, because men need blood transfusions, too.

      Wendy, you really need to address this glaring hole in your argument for allowing such egregious religious discrimination against women.

  • purrtriarchy

    What cjvg and lady black said.

  • fiona64

    It is awfully easy to raise a “conscientious objection” to something that doesn’t affect you: writing a script for hormonal contraception, for example, doesn’t mean that the clinician is being forced to use it. Ditto filling said script.

    Maybe those people with”conscientious objections” to such things should find a different line of work.

  • colleen2

    The notion I find galling is the idea that these people are motivated by their conscience. In this case you are insisting that we accept a situation in which the patients are doing the sacrificing (and paying for it!) . How much integrity is contained in THAT stance? I think that Global Doctors for Choice needs to solve their staffing issues another way.
    The problem with the ‘consciences’ of the religious right is that women don’t WANT to have 15 kids and we don’t WANT to pay for proselytizing when we go in for reproductive healthcare. Women should not have to negotiate the religious beliefs of healthcare providers in order to receive the care they need.

  • colleen2

    Here is an example of actual ‘Conscientious Objection’:
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/02/catholic-school-teachers-in-ohio-leaving-their-jobs-rather-than-sign-anti-lgbt-morality-clause/

    Notice how the person with a conscience is quitting her job? Rather than trying to force her religious beliefs down the throats of women who are paying for reproductive healthcare? I am hoping that Global Doctors for Choice will understand the difference.

  • Suba gunawardana

    A doctor is duty bound to protect his/her patient. They should not put the interests of any other individual (including invaders/parasites in the patient’s body) before those of their patient, for conscience or any other reason.

    A doctor who puts their patients’ safety & well being second to ANYTHING (including his/her own belief system) is not fit to be a doctor and should find a different job.

Mobile Theme