[GA - DEFEATED] Conscientious Objection to Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jedinsto

Registered
ga.jpg

Conscientious Objection to Abortion
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Recognising that it would be immoral to force a health care provider to perform an abortion if that medical provider has a bona fide conscientious objection to abortion,

Believing that forcing a medical provider to do so against his or her will would be counterproductive at ensuring safe and quality care, and

Confident that access to abortion is sufficiently provided by GA 499 'Access to Abortion' and requirements therein for member nations to provide affirmative access to abortion services at national expense, hereby enacts as follows:

  1. No health care provider in any member nation who expresses a bona fide conscientious or religious objection to abortion may be required to perform or assist in any abortion, provided that such objection is communicated publicly in advance and that such objection does not impose a substantial burden on access of necessary treatment to preserve life or prevent severe permanent injury.

  2. Health care providers, when exercising rights under section 1, must refer persons seeking an abortion to appropriate resources to access such services.

  3. Assistance, in section 1, does not include the sale of, purchase of, or transacting in goods used in abortion services.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD]Against[/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]1[/TD][TD]16[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
This aims to grant healthcare providers the right to not perform or assist with abortion procedures, save for in regards to "the sale of, purchase of, or transacting in goods used in abortion services," or if such a procedure is necessary to preserve life or prevent severe permanent injury. The proposal also requires that such healthcare providers refer individuals seeking abortion procedures to "appropriate resources to access such [abortion-facilitating] services."

Recommendation
In nearly all cases, the only health care providers that would be performing or assisting with abortion procedures would be those that specialize in gynecology and/or obstetrics. It is illogical for individuals and providers to go through the effort of specializing in such fields only to then refuse to perform or assist with abortion procedures, especially considering that such procedures are widely considered one of the core elements of women's reproductive health. The fact that this proposal covers abortion and only abortion is odd in itself, as it would logically follow that if healthcare providers ought to be able to refuse to perform abortion procedures, they ought to be able to refuse to perform other procedures not critical to preserving the life of a patient.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Conscientious Objection To Abortion."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Praetor:
Against.

Don't sign up for a job you don't want to do.
Click to expand...
While this would be my reason for opposing it, I sympathize with the argument made in the resolution that a doctor who is otherwise well-meaning might go into a field where they believe they could do the most good/are passionate about and find themselves referring patients for procedures like an abortion that they find personally objectionable. I sympathize too with the notion that any person self-aware enough to go into, say, gynecology or obstetrics (don’t quote me on this, could be wrong on the who) would know that they would might have to do this procedure and should stay away from said specialty if they consciously object to abortions.

That being said, turning away good physicians from participation in a field because of a philosophical objection over a medical procedure is not something I believe we should be in the practice of doing. As such, I’ll be casting my vote as a Delegate for this proposal, even though I largely agree with your comment-this proposal’s mandates are more than fair. For (Non-WA).
 
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Assuming that the proposal ahead of it is not withdrawn or marked illegal before heading to vote, this proposal will take the floor for voting at next Saturday (July 17)’s Major Update.

EDIT: since the above proposal ahead of it has been drawn, this proposal will instead take the floor for voting at Tuesday’s Major Update.
 
Last edited:
Against. I actually also oppose the statement that "access to abortion is sufficiently provided by GA 499 'Access to Abortion'".
 
I'm going to be entering the medical field in a few years; one of the few things that health professionals generally must respect are the needs of the patient (rather than their own), provided those needs are legal.

With that in mind, I think I'll vote Against. The patient is the most important aspect of healthcare.
 
DGES:
I'm going to be entering the medical field in a few years; one of the few things that health professionals generally must respect are the needs of the patient (rather than their own), provided those needs are legal.

With that in mind, I think I'll vote Against. The patient is the most important aspect of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Can I suggest scrapping the requirement for misoprostol to be a prescription drug and turn it into an OTC instead? Costs US$2 a dose anyway as a generic. Then give them away at the local convenience store.
 
We apologize that the IFV dispatches, TGs, etc. didn’t come out on time. My laptop will (still) not let me use the spellcaster for reasons I do not know (though it didn’t spit an error this time, so progress?) and Cretox was away. When a Ministry staffer with access to our secret elixir can send it out, they will do so. We apologize for the delay and any inconvenience this may have caused.

Edit: Thanks to the ever-gracious Elu, all things were sent around 12:25 AM EDT.
 
Last edited:
simone_republic:
Can I suggest scrapping the requirement for misoprostol to be a prescription drug and turn it into an OTC instead? Costs US$2 a dose anyway as a generic. Then give them away at the local convenience store.
Click to expand...
I did it already, if this drug is safe. GA 499 s 5(b). It would be distributed by post, however, rather than at a specific pharmacy.
 
DGES:
I'm going to be entering the medical field in a few years; one of the few things that health professionals generally must respect are the needs of the patient (rather than their own), provided those needs are legal.

With that in mind, I think I'll vote Against. The patient is the most important aspect of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Legality and morality are related by very different matters. I would hope that my medical caregivers use their reason and conscience to inform their decisions rather than merely a list of laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top