![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sense from Scalzi
John Scalzi with some thoughts on Sarah Palin and her daughter's pregnancy.
The post, with which I agree almost in its entirety, can be summed up thusly:
1. The rumors about Sarah Palin's youngest child should have been beneath our notice, but boy was this a stupid way to deflect public attention from them.
2. We should follow Barack Obama's lead (scroll down to the first question and Obama's answer) and leave Bristol Palin herself out of the public discourse (although let's not pretend that the Republicans would extend the same courtesy if the situation was reversed).
3. I'll turn it over to Mr. Scalzi now:
It's a fuzzy line, to be sure, but I think it's worth trying to walk it. Even if the GOP attack dogs wouldn't do the same for us. We're supposed to be better than them, after all.
The post, with which I agree almost in its entirety, can be summed up thusly:
1. The rumors about Sarah Palin's youngest child should have been beneath our notice, but boy was this a stupid way to deflect public attention from them.
2. We should follow Barack Obama's lead (scroll down to the first question and Obama's answer) and leave Bristol Palin herself out of the public discourse (although let's not pretend that the Republicans would extend the same courtesy if the situation was reversed).
3. I'll turn it over to Mr. Scalzi now:
...things that are up for continuing discussion include: Gov. Palin’s positions on abstinence-only education, women’s control of their bodies, birth control, Roe v. Wade, whether medical professionals can refuse on religious grounds to give treatment to women, and all other manner of topics relating to sex, women’s bodies, and choice. If Gov. Palin and the McCain campaign try to use Miss Palin’s pregnancy like they use Senator McCain’s former POW status — i.e., a cheap and easy trope to trot out in order to avoid answering reasonable questions — that’s well worth calling them on.
It's a fuzzy line, to be sure, but I think it's worth trying to walk it. Even if the GOP attack dogs wouldn't do the same for us. We're supposed to be better than them, after all.
no subject
1. The doctors presumably knew when they chose their profession that they could be asked to do things (perform abortions, prescribe birth control, treat people they don't like, etc.) in conflict with their religious beliefs. The time to think about that is *before* they decided to go into medicine, not when there's a patient in front of them who needs medical care. If someone thinks they might have that sort of conflict, they should pick another profession, or at least find a speciality where it's not likely to be an issue.
2. "Just finding another doctor" is not always that simple, particularly when the medical procedure in question is an abortion. In some states, physicians who will provide abortions are few and far between; a woman may have spent all her available resources to get to the closest doctor, who could be 100 miles away. If that doctor then refuses to provide the treatment, she may not have another opportunity.
In most cases, when a situation is not immediately life-threatening, physicians *are* allowed to refuse to give treatment that they morally oppose, but they also have to refer the patient to someone who will help them. I think this is a reasonable compromise. The problem with the new "conscience" rule that's been in the news, is that a doctor who refuses to provide treatment has no further obligation to the patient whatsoever. This is the change that has so many people, including myself, up in arms. It's playing games with people's lives for the sake of politics, and I do not approve.
no subject
But telling someone who wants to go out there to learn how to save people's lives, an admirable choice of profession I think we can all agree, that they shouldn't be a doctor in the first place just comes back to the whole idea of infringing on their freedom of choice, surely?
I agree that we can tell them they shouldn't be, but we can't nor should we actually enforce that. Also, isn't refusing treatment of a patient due to the doctor's point of view a form of conscientious objection? Another freedom we should be allowed to exercise?
And coming off of that last point, whilst I agree that it's very harsh to the patient that the doctor is no longer obliged to refer the patient to another doctor, doesn't forcing them to refer the patient to another doctor who will treat them negate the whole idea of allowing them to protest in the first place?
Isn't politics such a minefield? I love it sometimes.
no subject
And if you're going to prioritize choice over everything else, don't forget that the patient's freedom of choice is just as important as the doctor's. A patient should be able to choose the treatments they want/need. This new rule change gives all the choice to the doctor and none to the patient.
no subject
Oh yes, I understand the patients right to choice, and I was thinking about this in the car a couple of hours ago, this is how much I’m loving this little tête-à-tête we're having here, I’m thinking about it outside lj :-)
Going back to something you said earlier about the difficulties of trying to find a doctor who will carry out an abortion. I initially thought, why not make a database of doctors that the public can access to find out who does and doesn't do abortions? Then I realised that 'pro-lifers' would use it as their own online hit-list, so instead of a computerised one, each hospital in the US must have a hard copy database based on the same idea, that can only be accessed upon request, by a pregnant female explicitly seeking an abortion. Also she must show proof that she is pregnant, none of that 'I’m only in my first week, so I'm not showing' rubbish that could be used by a female pro-lifer to gain access to the database; no men are allowed to access the database, end of story...
Well, I think it's a good idea!
no subject
That's the whole point of the new rule, though; it gives doctors carte blanche to refuse treatment, not provide a referral, and without consequences.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/21/national/w110141D23.DTL&feed=rss.news
no subject
I still like my private database idea...