People on both sides of the abortion/ pro-life debate hold their views with a great deal of passion. But in the state of Victoria, the current law makes not even the slightest concession or allowance for the pro-life stance which is so important to so many of us.
Under this law, doctors who object to abortion must refer patients to practitioners who hold no such objections. This is obviously an extreme violation of conscience.
Now Susie O'Brien has written an opinion piece in the Herald Sun (December 3rd 2013) in which she suggests that, if anything, the current law doesn't go far enough.
Coming to her conclusion, she writes:
"As far as I am concerned, doctors who have conscientious objections to abortion should put their professional ethics first and their beliefs second. They should not be practising medicine if they cannot put the needs of their patients first."
Really?
Since when are beliefs and ethics mutually exclusive things? Isn't the ethical basis of medicine all about healing rather than harming? And isn't it true that doctors who refuse to participate in abortions are precisely following what they see as professional ethics?
God's Word, the Bible, is very clear that human life is precious, even in its early stages in the womb.
Perhaps Ms O'Brien is not familiar with the research about the dangers of abortion for the women who have them. Or the fact that a human life is snuffed out in the process.
To claim that doctors who refuse to recommend abortions are not considering the needs of their patients is certainly a classic example of audacious journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment