Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[TGHusker]

Thats fine as long as there is a hospital in that same community that offers all services and is equidistant from every potential patient in town that works.  As long as you don’t have a contract ambulance service that works.
 

You cant decide that patients in a certain region are only worthy of certain procedures because of who owns the institution.  

I would say that a Catholic or other faith based institution should not be forced to provide elective abortions - which is outside of their value system.  They should provide for all other life saving (even if it is an abortion) services and other medical services they are equipped and staff for.  If they don't have the proper staff/equipment, they should refer to another hospital after any critical care has been administered.  They shouldn't refuse anyone for treatment. 

 

[RedDenver]

I would say that a Catholic or other faith based institution should not be forced to provide elective abortions - which is outside of their value system.  They should provide for all other life saving (even if it is an abortion) services and other medical services they are equipped and staff for.  If they don't have the proper staff/equipment, they should refer to another hospital after any critical care has been administered.  They shouldn't refuse anyone for treatment. 

I mostly agree except I'd also add: If the institution receives tax money, then that institution agrees to provide additional services as dictated by the community. If the institution causes other institutions to close or not be built, then they also must provide other services as dictated by the community.

 

[Landlord]

I am an xray technologist, if I say to

my employer, this person is gay and I am christian so I dont want to take care of this person because its against my religion, I would and should be fired

Hardly the same as believing that you are helping someone commit an actual murder.

Thats fine as long as there is a hospital in that same community that offers all services and is equidistant from every potential patient in town that works.

You keep making reference to things like this; all hospitals should be equally expected to offer all the services everyone would need. You know not all hospitals are the same, or have as nice of technology, or as skilled of surgeons, right? 

Methodist's Women's Hospital in Elkhorn does not compare or offer nearly as much (including some things that would be considered urgent and life saving) as Mayo Clinic in Phoenix or Massachussets General.

 

[NM11046]

Hardly the same as believing that you are helping someone commit an actual murder.

You keep making reference to things like this; all hospitals should be equally expected to offer all the services everyone would need. You know not all hospitals are the same, or have as nice of technology, or as skilled of surgeons, right? 

Methodist's Women's Hospital in Elkhorn does not compare or offer nearly as much (including some things that would be considered urgent and life saving) as Mayo Clinic in Phoenix or Massachussets General.

No but there are "levels" of hospitals that have to provide certain services.  If you are a "Level 1" you have to be able to meet that need.  I'm assuming that Methodist isn't that tier.  There are established partnerships - so a Level 4 may connect with a Level 1 for those issues - which now that I think of it may provide an option if those smaller institutions are not able/willing to do certain procedures they can get someone to a larger institution that can.  The next question would be, if the morals/ethics clause of Level 4 Catholic Institution XYZ said no pregnancy terminations, will they partner with an institution that does those procedures?  I'd guess that would cross their line, but I don't know the answer to that.

This explains it:  https://www.amtrauma.org/page/traumalevels

 

[Danny Bateman]

[No message]

 

[TGHusker]

Would this not be informed consent??

 

[NM11046]

I believe this goes beyond that - would have to see the proposed script, but the “detailed description” is what has stepped over the bounds in the past - as well as heartbeat listening requirement etc.  

informed consent would be discussing risks and potential benefit to the patient having the procedure.  if you think about this as a tumor or a fatty liver you arent required to explore detailed pictures before you sign off on surgery.  You discuss what risk there is to the surgery, healing time etc.   

 

[teachercd]

What if she is deaf?

People are a$$h@!es.  Let women pick what they want to do.  If you have a d!(k, shut up.

 

[NM11046]

I believe this goes beyond that - would have to see the proposed script, but the “detailed description” is what has stepped over the bounds in the past - as well as heartbeat listening requirement etc.  

informed consent would be discussing risks and potential benefit to the patient having the procedure.  if you think about this as a tumor or a fatty liver you arent required to explore detailed pictures before you sign off on surgery.  You discuss what risk there is to the surgery, healing time etc.   

Ironically was with a physician this morning and spoke about this.  
 

in order to provide Informed Consent to a patient it must be presented by an unbiased professional.  And she said that there would be no reason to have a different consent in any state.  The procedure is what it is regardless of where you have it done so the language should be the same in every US state.  

 

[Mierin]

2018 had the lowest number of abortions reported since 1973 and the lowest abortion rate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/27/birthrates-us-are-falling-abortions-have-also-hit-an-all-time-low/?fbclid=IwAR2_vr9eabT3jWDb_THI0VEl25lTl6VvpD2dChjLGCqmJNPDD3n0ljk9TAI&linkId=77835725

 

[Landlord]

informed consent would be discussing risks and potential benefit to the patient having the procedure. 

It would not be unreasonable and I think maybe even is right for that discussion to include psychological/anthropological elements. I don't know to what extent, and I don't support trying to guilt trip parents, but there should be a professional element of the discussion being centered around the emotional/relational/etc. benefits of having a child vs not. 

 

[funhusker]

It would not be unreasonable and I think maybe even is right for that discussion to include psychological/anthropological elements. I don't know to what extent, and I don't support trying to guilt trip parents, but there should be a professional element of the discussion being centered around the emotional/relational/etc. benefits of having a child vs not. 

What if the abortion is to terminate a pregnancy of a fetus that has abnormalities that are not compatible with life.  

Should that mother have to listen to why having a baby might be good for her psychologically?  Should she be forced to listen to a heartbeat that she knows isn't going to make it outside of the womb?

 

[teachercd]

It would not be unreasonable and I think maybe even is right for that discussion to include psychological/anthropological elements. I don't know to what extent, and I don't support trying to guilt trip parents, but there should be a professional element of the discussion being centered around the emotional/relational/etc. benefits of having a child vs not. 

But that part has already been done.  It isn't like the women is driving to get some food...sees the abortion place and thinks "Hmmm, maybe I will do that instead"

 

[NM11046]

It would not be unreasonable and I think maybe even is right for that discussion to include psychological/anthropological elements. I don't know to what extent, and I don't support trying to guilt trip parents, but there should be a professional element of the discussion being centered around the emotional/relational/etc. benefits of having a child vs not. 

When you have open heart surgery is part of the discussion on consent also how you're going to feel having plaque in your vessels vs. not?

Not the best example - but if informed consent is getting into the perceived emotional benefits than it should/is with all surgical procedures.  It should also be had on the flip side - for those having a full term delivery,  is there a component on the emotional/relational benefits and the negative aspects of having a child?

It shouldn't be part of consent - if you think pysch counseling should be included that's separate - it's also inappropriate and crosses the line of what is up for being checked off a list prior to a procedure.  I assume you'd support the same discussion would be part of a vascetomy?

 

[Landlord]

What if the abortion is to terminate a pregnancy of a fetus that has abnormalities that are not compatible with life.  

Well, contextually that would be different, so no.

When you have open heart surgery is part of the discussion on consent also how you're going to feel having plaque in your vessels vs. not?

Not the best example

Actually a really terrible example imo. 

When you have open heart surgery is part of the discussion on consent also how you're going to feel having plaque in your vessels vs. not?

Not the best example - but if informed consent is getting into the perceived emotional benefits than it should/is with all surgical procedures.  It should also be had on the flip side - for those having a full term delivery,  is there a component on the emotional/relational benefits and the negative aspects of having a child?

It shouldn't be part of consent - if you think pysch counseling should be included that's separate - it's also inappropriate and crosses the line of what is up for being checked off a list prior to a procedure.  I assume you'd support the same discussion would be part of a vascetomy?

Not all surgical procedures involve an elective ending of the potential of another life. What's your reasoning that if abortion procedures have this type of informed consent then all other procedures should have the same type of informed consent? I don't see why that would need or should be the case?

Yes, there would be a component of the negative aspects. That would be part of informed consent. I feel like that was already clear in my post with the "vs not" end of the sentence.

And yes, the same spirit of discussion would be part of a vasectomy, but again, not the exact same discussion because a vasectomy isn't necessarily permanent and irreversible.