PAs and Religion

[sk732]

I'm hoping the quote comes up, but Rev, the folks I've been seeing up here that don't prescribe contraception due to religious beliefs are in fact in primary care medicine. 

 

I remember having long discussions with my last SP about some of these issues - the guy is a devout Roman Catholic, however religion is left at the door when it comes to patient care.  His policy was/is always go back to "First do no harm" principles.  Since I was practicing in a town of 900 people with 7 very active churches within the town limits, religion often came up in discussions...however it didn't affect care or influence how I went about business.

 

Every single one of us here have prejudices - we're human.  What defines us as professionals is how we deal with those prejudices in the run of our day to day work.

 

SK 

[rev ronin]

You would see a rise hotel room and back alley abortion, ultimately resulting in more maternal death.

This is likely going to be the single most offensive thing I've ever posted, but logical and comprehensive discourse means it needs to be said, and I'd avoid saying it if I could and still be consistent.  So, before I say it, I want to reemphasize that any unnecessary loss of human life is tragic, and, to all the providers of faith, regardless of belief system, with whom I've discussed religion, a consequence to be avoided with every bit of art and skill at their disposal.  Likewise, suffering of any sort is to be minimized... but not at the expense of human life.

 

Having said that, from a life-begins-conception standpoint, is it wrong that when 'murder' is taken off the table, 'murder-suicide' becomes the only viable option?  That is, when we're talking about air-breathing humans, if person A tries to kill B, succeeds, but in the process or shortly thereafter person A tries to kill him/herself, we call that murder-suicide, and person A is usually reviled by society for such a cowardly act.  Of course the way that usually plays out is male romantic partner stalking and killing female former romantic partner, so there's definitely a lot of emotions surrounding that particular type of murder suicide--to be blunt, revulsion at the evil which would take a life rather than allow it to go its own way--that do not apply to mother-unborn interactions, so the analogy is clearly imperfect.  Nor is there a general recognition of an unborn child's personhood by the mother, and confronting her with the images supporting that connection is the intent of state laws compelling women contemplating abortion to view ultrasounds, of course. 

 

But still, when you boil it right down, if person A kills person B and then dies in the process, we call it a crime if person B is an air-breathing human being, but a barbaric shame if person B is  an unborn child, when they are ethically similar acts from a personhood-begins-at-conception standpoint.

None of this should be seen to minimize the very real emotional turmoil a woman with an unexpected pregnancy faces, but no amount of emotional turmoil justifies ending another human life--so for abortion to be a viable ethical option, the 'tissue' to be aborted cannot be considered a human life yet.  So, if an unborn child is really a human, then two wrongs don't make a right, and our conversation should focus less on right-to-abort or access-to-abort, and more on ways to support affected women's healing without ending innocent nascent lives in the process.

[JohnnyM2]

Rev, I don't find that offensive at all. It is simply politically incorrect. You are right to point out the inconsistencies both in law and social thought. Remember that guy Scott Peterson who is now on death row for killing his wife and her unborn baby? He got the death penalty because it was a case of multiple homicides. If she had elected to get an abortion a week earlier, he would have just gotten life. I have never understood, for example, why a guy stealing a woman's purse, who pushes her down, resulting in the (accidental) death of her fetus, could be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, whereas there is no crime committed if that same woman has an abortion. The same life is terminated in both cases. In the first case, however, the fetus is considered a person. In the second case, it apparently isn't. Political correctness contributes in all kinds of ridiculous inconsistencies in law and social behavior.

 

Sent from my KFAPWI using Tapatalk

 

[PACdan]

Rev, I don't find that offensive at all. It is simply politically incorrect. You are right to point out the inconsistencies both in law and social thought. Remember that guy Scott Peterson who is now on death row for killing his wife and her unborn baby? He got the death penalty because it was a case of multiple homicides. If she had elected to get an abortion a week earlier, he would have just gotten life. I have never understood, for example, why a guy stealing a woman's purse, who pushes her down, resulting in the (accidental) death of her fetus, could be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, whereas there is no crime committed if that same woman has an abortion. The same life is terminated in both cases. In the first case, however, the fetus is considered a person. In the second case, it apparently isn't. Political correctness contributes in all kinds of ridiculous inconsistencies in law and social behavior. Sent from my KFAPWI using Tapatalk

 

The difference is the acting, or perpetrating force. If you cut off my arm, or in the commission of a crime against me, cause my arm to become severed, you're charged with malicious wounding, grave bodily harm, assault, etc, etc. But if I cut off my own arm, even on purpose, there is no charge (maybe a psych eval.) Outside vs. inside perpetrating force. We assign ownership to our physical bodies. Even if you consider a newly fertilized egg a separate human life-form, it cannot exist without its host. So indeed it is not (yet) an entirely separate life, but a dependent part of the host. We expect control of our physical bodies. In fact, after we master the functions of our bodies, it is gravely disturbing when we lose that control later on. But whereas men have no unique constraints on our bodily control, separate from women, totally prohibiting a woman from having an abortion reduces the control inherent to her own body. Again, I really, really don't want abortions. But I feel that there are horrible cases and circumstances where they must be available to a girl or woman if that is what she chooses. http://news.vice.com/article/10-year-old-girl-raped-by-stepfather-is-refused-an-abortion-in-paraguay

 

A problem with our discussion is that very few (none?) of us here have uteruses. It is simply impossible for any of us commenting to be directly affected, i.e. become pregnant. And I think that matters.

[JohnnyM2]

PACdan, in your counter-example it's an arm either way and the actions of the mugger cause you to lose that arm and he should, clearly, be prosecuted. So, I agree with you on that, but in my example, the fetus is a person when the mugger kills it, however unintentionally. In your counter- example, you are crazy if you cut off your own arm. In mine, you aren't consisted crazy if you have an abortion and the fetus isn't considered to be a person . So I don't think your counter-example applies, though your analysis is very good with respect to the arm.

Note that I am making no judgements here, so it doesn't matter that I'm not a woman. I am simply pointing out the legal confusion that occurs with political correctness.

[PACdan]

You are correct that the arm does not change in definition. I was looking at it as a crime in one instance and not a crime in the other. It's a crime when someone takes a part of your body, but you are essentially free to do the same and it is not a crime. It's not a perfect parallel, but I think it goes to "control" or "domain" of our bodies. When we act on ourselves, we are free to do as we will. Others are not free to act on our bodies in the same fashion.

 

The charge or murder/manslaughter does imply a separate life has been taken. It's certainly a paradox. But I can only assume that they felt an assault on the host resulting in loss of fetus changes the dynamic compared to the host taking action on themselves. In my state, the commission of an armed crime while wearing body armor drastically alters the charges leveled, even if the crime has exactly the same result as one committed without. I guess they are saying that the intent changes when an outsider kills the fetus (rises to the level of murder), versus the insider (does not rise to that level), even though the outcomes are the same. I agree that it is not well resolved legal ground, with as much emotion guiding it as logic.

[rev ronin]

A problem with our discussion is that very few (none?) of us here have uteruses. It is simply impossible for any of us commenting to be directly affected, i.e. become pregnant. And I think that matters.

Not in the least. Life and death are not issues where the answer depends on who you are or what your background is.

 

The parts where having appropriate reproductive organs might better inform the discussion participants simply aren't relevant to the medical ethics discussion.

[JohnnyM2]

 

 

I agree that it is not well resolved legal ground, with as much emotion guiding it as logic.

Then we are in agreement on this point. I have enjoyed this conversation with you and appreciate the professionalism of your post.

 

[JohnnyM2]

 

 

Religious folks have the biggest victim complexes.

Chris, I generally enjoy your posts and think you have a lot to contribute. (And, btw, I congratulate you on the progression of your career. ) In this case, though, not so much. I would have given your post a thumbs down because I think you are using the kind of polarizing narrative PACdan refers to and making unsupported generalizations. I am a conservative that almost always votes Republican but I would really prefer the federal government leave abortion issues (and many other issues such as education) to the states. Also, though I believe abortion is the termination of a person's life, I would not vote for legislation that prohibits abortion in the first trimester. I think it's impractical and largely unenforceable so it fails two of my tests for good law. Finally, as a religious person, I have no victim complex, nor do any of my family, friends or fellow parishioners. Just thought you should know that.

[gleannfia]

I see some angry white males on this thread.  Sorry, boatsie, until you can physically get pregnant, you have no right to decide what is right for a woman.  I think what is going on in this country is that there are a lot of Angry White Males who are scared to death of : women, Asians, Hispanics, blacks and gays. Sorry, guys, but your days of dominance are coming to an end.  You are outnumbered, and that trend will continue.  I truly feel pity for men like you, because I know that you are very, very, insecure.

[gleannfia]

To all the men here:  you have NO say about abortion.  Except, perhaps, if it is your wife or girlfriend.  Even then, it is HER decision, not yours.  Sorry.

[gleannfia]

When absolute terrorism comes to the US, it will be carrying a cross and draped in the American flag.

[gleannfia]

I think all of you men who are opposed to abortion would do well to read the biography of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who was a devout Roman Catholic who nonetheless wrote the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade.  This was a man who could separate the law from his religion, sadly missing today.  I wonder how many of you morally righteous men have any regrets about W/Cheney's sending of our brave men and women off to an immoral, illegal war?  I see the results of this travesty daily in my work.  It amazes me that so many of you who claim to be prolife turn a blind eye to the suffering of our veterans and the social injustice in our society of the police state against minorities.   Sad.  By the way, I am a woman who *hates* abortion.  But I realize that only God can judge, and I have NO right to make life decisions for others.

[rev ronin]

To all the men here:  you have NO say about abortion.  Except, perhaps, if it is your wife or girlfriend.  Even then, it is HER decision, not yours.  Sorry.

So, a male provider can't refuse to refer for abortion because he's male, regardless of his belief systems, but a female provider is not so-restricted?  Just trying to understand how what you're saying here interfaces with the discussion we were having back when the thread was new...

[Maverick87]

.

[JohnnyM2]

Gleannfia, Why did your rant against men take five posts? You rail against insecure, angry white males and all I see is a very angry and totally confused individual. Where did you get that brand of anti-social Kool-aid? The ranks of women attending and graduating from universities is at an all time high. In case you don't read anything but the liberal press, well repected female CEOs of fortune five hundred companies is now common (Pepsico, GM, Yahoo, Dupont, HP, to name a few) and women in all parts of medicine, especially PAs definitely outnumber men. Why do you even bring other minority groups into the discussion? Do you assume they are all as angry and disaffected as you? BTW, I see absolutely no evidence that Boat is insecure but every indication that you are terribly insecure. WRT abortion, your assertion that only someone who can become pregnant has a say reflects your utter failure to understand the right to life issue. It isn't just about you. May I suggest that you get some anger management counseling?

The world is not against you because you are a woman or a member of any other minority group. The problem is that you make unsupported accusations; you are rude. You have no idea what you are talking about and you seem to generally be a PITA.

[Boatswain2PA]

I had several responses to these assinine diatribes....but most are better left unsaid.

[JohnnyM2]

I had several responses to these assinine diatribes....but most are better left unsaid.

Probably wise, but I would love to hear them.

 

Sent from my KFAPWI using Tapatalk

 

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Naaa. Someone THAT ideologically driven will never be convinced. They view anyone with differing opinions as the enemy (in this case, "angry white men") or evil, so as to diminish their point personally without having to discuss the points.

[BruceBanner]

To all the men here:  you have NO say about abortion.  Except, perhaps, if it is your wife or girlfriend.  Even then, it is HER decision, not yours.  Sorry.

 

 

So what you are saying is that a man has no right to decide whether a child with 50% of his genetic material makes it out of utero??

 

Doesn't sound very egalitarian to me....but what do I know, I'm just a privileged white male.

[JohnnyM2]

To all the men here: you have NO say about abortion. Except, perhaps, if it is your wife or girlfriend. Even then, it is HER decision, not yours. Sorry.

You seem really confused. First you state, emphatically, that men have NO say about abortion. Then you modify that assertion by acknowledging that "perhaps" men have some say about their girlfriend or wife having an abortion. Finally, you close by saying, even then, the decision is entirely up to the woman. I.e. the boyfriend or husband actually has no say. Which is it?

I am really curious about this. Where did all your anger come from? Do you hate all men or just white men? What happened to make you so emotionally disposed to treat white men with such vehemence? Why do you care if some providers are religiously opposed to abortion? Isn't abortion readily available its America? Perhaps you should examine these things. You might end up being a happier person.

 

Sent from my KFAPWI using Tapatalk

 

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Naaa People who think like that have been conditioned to believe they are "victims", therefore can blame all their problems on being "held down" by "the man". It absolves themselves of any responsibility. It is what is taught in most of academia today. Look at the Boston University "Black studies" professor in the news.

[db_pavnp]

Get a room, you two.

[Guest JMPA]

You are correct that the arm does not change in definition. I was looking at it as a crime in one instance and not a crime in the other. It's a crime when someone takes a part of your body, but you are essentially free to do the same and it is not a crime. It's not a perfect parallel, but I think it goes to "control" or "domain" of our bodies. When we act on ourselves, we are free to do as we will. Others are not free to act on our bodies in the same fashion.

 

The charge or murder/manslaughter does imply a separate life has been taken. It's certainly a paradox. But I can only assume that they felt an assault on the host resulting in loss of fetus changes the dynamic compared to the host taking action on themselves. In my state, the commission of an armed crime while wearing body armor drastically alters the charges leveled, even if the crime has exactly the same result as one committed without. I guess they are saying that the intent changes when an outsider kills the fetus (rises to the level of murder), versus the insider (does not rise to that level), even though the outcomes are the same. I agree that it is not well resolved legal ground, with as much emotion guiding it as logic.

Bump>>>>>>

when you refer to the "baby" as part of "her" body you are incorrect. they are no as one. the developing child is a completely seperate being and therefor should be considered on. so if the mother decides to abort the child then it should be considered murder. the baby is not one with the mother/part of the same body. a great example is RHO. the childs antibodies can intere act with the mother and cause substantial injury and even death in certain circumstances. a human baby within the womb can not mix with the mother and vice verse. that is why there is a blood/blood barrier (placenta). the placenta is the true evidense that these are two seperate living entities and therefor your argument that "chopping off ones own arm does not constitute a crime" is incorrect. The baby is not "the mothers arm".

[db_pavnp]

Strong pseudoscience with this one...