Conscientious Objection for Abortion Sierra Rubin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries Undergraduate Research Honors Ethical Issues and Life Choices (PHI2630) 2013 Conscientious Objection for Abortion Sierra Rubin Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] Sierra Rubin Conscientious Objection for Abortion Key words: conscientious objection, abortion, Hippocratic oath Abstract: In this paper, I discuss why conscientious objection should not be used in cases of abortion. According to a modern day interpretation of the Hippocratic oath, doctors have the responsibility to do whatever it takes to better the lives of their patients. This includes abortion if that is what the patient requests. I propose a law making abortions more accessible for women, stating that there must be at least one doctor at every hospital who is capable and willing to perform abortions. Introduction Many medical professionals, at some point in their career, may be required to perform a procedure that they may not find ethically or religiously acceptable. Their refusal to perform the procedure or to refer the patient someone who will is called conscientious objection. Physicians can be faced with many moral hurdles in their practice. For example, a trauma surgeon receives a patient in the trauma bay suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. He diligently works on this patient. The surgeon opens up the patient’s belly and discovers that she is pregnant. He realizes that if he is to save the mother, the baby does not have a good chance of survival, but if he is to save the baby, the mother will certainly not survive. He decides to save the life of the mother, but unfortunately the fetus did not make it. Was it right for the surgeon to save his patient’s life? Was it within the surgeon’s oath to let that patient die to save the fetus? If the mother was on death row, would that have made anything different? Should the surgeon have saved his patient’s life anyway, knowing that she was a convicted murderer? Conscientious objection is a very controversial issue especially in cases of women requesting abortions. Currently, some states such as California have a law that allows health care workers to refuse to provide service if they feel that the procedure goes against their morals or their religion. All they would have to do is sign a declaration stating that they are against it (Meyers, 115). This makes it very difficult for some patients to find a doctor that will perform their abortion. The rate at which women are requesting abortions remains constant but the number of doctors who are willing to do them is decreasing. In 1991, only seventeen percent of counties in the US had a physician who was legally allowed and willing to perform abortions (Meyers 115). Since that number keeps decreasing, it is becoming increasingly hard for women to find a physician to provide adequate medical care and perform an abortion if she desires. In the case of RR vs. Poland, a woman was denied prenatal genetic testing. It was believed that the fetus had a genetic abnormality and RR wished to have an abortion if that was true. After six weeks of traveling around Poland and being refused tests from multiple hospitals, she went into an emergency room claiming that she was having a miscarriage. They finally tested her by amniocentesis and had to wait two weeks for the results. By the time she got the results confirming the severe genetic abnormality, it was too late to legally have an abortion under polish law, and she gave birth to a girl with Turner syndrome. The doctors that RR went to used conscientious objection to refuse to give her the necessary information to get an abortion (Westeson, 2). In another case, P and S v. Poland, a 14 year old girl was raped and requested an abortion. She was harassed and humiliated by health professionals and they deliberately gave her misleading information. One hospital that she went to stated that the whole institution was using conscientious objection to refuse to treat her and they even leaked information about her to the press. Finally, she was able to receive an abortion but she had to travel very far from her home and she wasn’t given proper care afterwards (Westeston 3). In both of these cases, women were denied abortions, or information leading to abortion because healthcare workers used conscientious objection. In both cases, the procedure would have been safe and legal, but it was not performed because of the beliefs of the doctors, affecting both of the patients’ lives in a negative way. Doctors should not use conscientious objection in cases of abortion or abortion related care because it is their duty to provide the best care possible for their patients. Medical professionals should provide proper medical care for abortions, even if they find abortion morally or religiously impermissible. In my paper, I start out by outlining the parts of the Hippocratic Oath that are related to the topic. I offer a different analysis of the Hippocratic Oath that can be applied to today’s modern society regarding doctors’ responsibilities to their patients. I show how the oath would be applicable in different situations related to abortion. I also propose a new law that would make abortions more easily accessible to women if doctors still choose to practice conscientious objection. The Hippocratic Oath The Hippocratic Oath is an Oath taken by doctors and medical professionals. When doctors take the oath, they swear to practice medicine honestly and do whatever is in the best interest for the patient. It was originally written by Hippocrates in Greek but there are English translations and many modern day translations that are used today. Health care providers use the Hippocratic Oath to guide them in everything they do in their profession. A modern day interpretation of the oath says, “The Provider shall respect the autonomy of the intact Purchaser, ie the Purchaser’s ability to decide his/her own future and live according to his/her own ethical values” (Rosalki, 154). In this interpretation the “provider” refers to the healthcare provider and the “purchaser” refers to the patient (Rosalki, 154). This means that the doctor should provide whichever services the patient requests because the patient has the right to do whatever he or she wants to his or her own body. If a procedure goes along with the ethical views of the patient, then it is acceptable for the doctor to perform the procedure, whether or not he or she finds it ethical. With regards to abortion, the original text of the Hippocratic oath says, “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” (Hippocrates). Even though the original Hippocratic Oath is against abortion, it was written in ancient times so we must interpret the general meaning to fit modern day medicine and society. Society and the practice of medicine has changed a great deal since then, so we must adapt our ethical standards to fit. This modern day interpretation of the Hippocratic oath states that, “Though the Provider undertakes to maintain and respect the importance of human life from the time of conception until death, he will with the consent of the Purchaser, agree to the abortion of an unborn infant, but only in accordance with the statutory rules currently prevailing. He undertakes in all circumstances to act in the perceived best interests of the mother, whose wishes in the matter (within the statutory limits imposed) shall be overriding” (Rosalki, 155). This means that if a patient requests to have an abortion performed, the health care provider must do it as long as it is in the legal limitations for abortion set by the state or country in which they are. In doing so, the health care provider would be acting in the best interest of his or her patient. Since the Hippocratic Oath guides medical professionals in every aspect of their careers, they should take these points into consideration in regards to conscientious objection. As a health care professional, one has a duty to do whatever is in the patient’s best interest, according to the oath. The patient also has the right to his or her own body, and he or she may do anything to it according to his or her own ethical views. Even if the health care provider has different moral or religious views, he or she must do what the patient requests, if it is in the patient’s best interest. Therefore, if a patient requests an abortion, the health care provider must perform it even if he or she is not personally accepting of it, as long as it is in the legal limits. A hypothetical situation relating to the Hippocratic Oath can be if a physician is the only one within several hundred miles that is capable of performing abortions. She has the skills to perform abortions, but she morally objects to them. A pregnant woman is brought to her urgently. An immediate abortion must be performed within minutes, or the mother and fetus will die. If the abortion is performed, the mother will live. Should the physician just let the woman die because she is against performing abortions? If the physician did not care for the patient to save her life, would that violate the Hippocratic Oath? Legal Abortion In order to provide the best care for the patient, the doctor must perform an abortion legally, according to the guidelines set by the state or country, which he or she is practicing in. The doctor must also provide good medical care before, during, and after the abortion (abortion counselors 22).