The concept of a "conscience vote" is invalid.

Why? Simple. MP's are there to represent their electorates, not themselves.

Their own opinions and feelings are and should be irrelevant as they are elected to represent, not decide for, the people of the electorate.

The arrogance of MP's who choose to push their personal agendas ahead of any wishes from the people they represent should really void their election as they would be opposing what their constituents want. Tony Abbott is a good example of this ignorance with his hypocritical Catholic view of the world.

Of course the other thing this "conscience vote" issue brings to our attention is that MP's never vote other than as directed except on these rare occasions when they place their views above their electorate's. On any vote they should be voting for the wishes of their electorate and never for the Party line.

This issue always exposes the fact that democracy does not exist in our country as MP's do not vote as a representative. They vote as a member of their Party, only deigning to seek our support to get elected. Then forget us for 3 years.

Damn these ignorant and greedy self interested morons for destroying our potential as a real democracy.

I'm a little confused about what the obligation to refer means. Does it mean they actually have a obligation to refer someone over to a clinic or hospital for an abortion, or merely direct them to another doctor to do just that? If someone would clarify, it would be appreciated.

My own feeling is that it would be good for women to have their needs met quickly, and if they have already decided to have an abortion, to be able to go to their doctor and have it sorted quickly. In a practical world that would happen.

The world is not though a practical place. Many doctors of different faiths will regard it as a matter of principle. A doctor close to me had the police visit and station themselves in his waiting room twice during my childhood. He firstly refused to examine for the draught and then refused to take blood samples from the passengers in fatal car accidents. He didn't back down. These cases were somewhat different in that he was defending other people's civil liberties, rather than refusing a service that another could provide, but it gave me a taste of doctors digging their heels in on something he regarded as a matter of conscience.

If doctors are pursued for refusing to refer, then all I can see happening is that a lot of often very fine individuals will find themselves in the courts. There will be stress on them, their families, their patients and maybe chase them out of the profession. Similarly young students thinking of entering medicine may shy away from the profession if they feel they will be compelled to act in away that goes against their deeply ingrained beliefs. So without knowing a great deal about it, I'd instinctively shy away from something that attempts to compel people into something doing something that they probably won't. I don't think the doctors have the equivelent of St. Thomas More. Maybe they might yet get one down in Victoria.

conscience vote is a rarely used parlimentary tool to produce law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_vote...

usual is an 'issue' affecting constituency/state/country identified by peoples-elected-representative and introduced into parliamentary debate...meaning problem should exist and be significantly affecting community to warrant address...

secondly, every issue ever debated to law has a 'conscience' element...so identified 'issue' then given to representatives whom supposed take it back to their people and debate on all the 'materially relevant factors'_this component currently missing...then once where majority lies with each of relevant factors know...parliament resumes and debate identifies where majority lies...and 'bill' drafted...which through senate goes to law then given to 'crown-the-corporation' which runs the government to enforce as 'intended by people'...one can see the inbuilt 'checks and balances' working...circumvent any one of the parts and no longer works as intended...yeah...corrupted... http://dictionary.die.net/corrupted

now abortion...I have not been aware of any parliamentary debate to argue if abortion of unborn_child should be made a 'conscience issue alone'...so removes debate and each representative votes on own personal feelings...to an issue of unborn_child...whom by 12 weeks has identifiable human parts and behaviour identifiable with new_born...to have 'no rights' at all even to if they can live...all moved to women...an impossibility...achieved in parliament...which means...yep...organized vested interests overun the place...

this definitely no conscience vote issue...many relevant issues exist before arriving to terminate/kill or not...womens 'own' choice ends at allowing/preventing pregnancy ie beginning...with all contraception/education/rationality women possess...first question for debate is should there be legal sanction against man/women for unwanted pregnancy...once optimal environment to prevent unexpected pregnancy in place...we almost there...then move on...to final issue is if mother/father/family refuse care of child...then how society cares for child...this is fundamental to any society...a baby/child has always been cared/monitored/reared for at society level and each member of society has duty to...

once pregnant the interested parties become father/family/community...and society in general...paramountly unborn_child itself...and relative value of each debated...we victorians have had none of that...more surprising is why we the community is 'silent without action'...wheres the demonstration outside parliament...nationwide wide strikes by fathers/fathers_to_be?we are talking about open season on the most loving and vulnerable of us...our unborn babies...

Sam

So Lesley, you are saying that even if a doctor sincerely believes that abortion is the taking of the life of a fellow human being, no different in principle to killing you now, that doctor must refer abortion-seeking women to where her child will be killed or will be referred to be killed. To require that of such doctors is to make the notion of freedom of conscience meaningless.

It is equivalent to requiring abolitionists to hand over runaway slaves or those who hid Jews during WWII to turn them in. In both those cases, black-skinned people and Jews were declared to be nonpersons just as preborn human beings are today.

If freedom of conscience is to mean anything then it must be able to be applied completely consistently in matters of absolute importance. The killing of fellow human beings is a matter of absolute importance.

Oh, by the way, abortionist David Grundmann stated in an article in The Age ten years ago (25 April, 1998) that he would be “happy” (his word) to abort babies at 30 weeks gestation. And such abortions, according to his infamous talk at Monash University on 30 August 1994, could be for “minor or doubtful fetal abnormalities” and social reasons such as the desertion of the partner. I guess he will be delighted if the new laws in Victoria are passed as he and a fellow abortionist will be able to agree to abort babies up until birth for just about any reason. And I suppose you regard Grundmann as a health care worker who is “a trusted and respected member of society."

Even the late Brisbane abortionist, Peter Bayliss, when asked on the '7.30 Report', 27 October, 1994, "Do you think it is murder?" (in relation to Grundmann's late-term abortions) replied, "Yep."

The filthy little murder clinics should be left to the godless people without consciences. Trying to ease ones conscience by including people with a conscience is a joke. The fact that the Victorian Government is listening to those with a death culture is a disgrace. Leslie writes that 'With all rights come obligations, ' Surely spreading your legs should also apply.

I would like to remind "runner" that it was "godly" people, (apparantly the only ones with consciences, according to "runner") that were responsible for murdering thousands of women throughout Europe suspected of being "witches", who cause the illness, sufferring and death of millions of men, women and children today by their influence on world leaders and their financial control to the point where AIDS is spreading throughout Africa and Asia like wildfire because condoms are against the churches' teachings, that family planning, contraception and abortion are not funded in aid packages so thousands of women die in childbirth and from botched amateur abortions. That so many "godly" people oppose abortion but support the death penalty! I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

Jenny E

Jenny E

Bringing up your view of history might ease your conscience. We are not talking about what godless men did in the name of Christ hundreds of years ago. We are talking about killing little babies now in 2008 in Australia. Try sticking to the topic instead of pushing your godless propaganda. You and I will be judged by God for our actions now not those of pagans centuries ago!

RobbieH your point would hold if politician's views were known at election time. It's not something they talk about on the hustings and very few are asked about it by the media.

On the other hand, once an elected parliament debates and then passes legislation in favour, anti-euthanasia advocates overturn it - not by themselves, but at the whim of the party in government. All decisions in the matter - for or against - are effectively conscience votes.

Runner - God's on the side of the Murcans in Eeraq. Bush told the world as much, and that he was told by Him to smite the evildoers. I don't recall you saying anything about killing innocent born people. Please, be a little consistent when talking on His behalf.

Could the anti-choice brigade stand up and identify themselves for what they really are?

Theocratic fascists.

Before you start quoting silly old books and sillier old men try thinking for yourself.

Who suffers more an aborted fetus or an unready mother?

The point made by Jenny E is perfectly valid Runner because you "Goddy" folks tend to forget history, especially recent history.
Go to a 3rd world country where religion is still controling society and see how the "professionals" behave over there.
They put their religion first and their profession second and the result is the dog-eat-dog mess that humans have put up with for 20,000 years.
The triumph of Western society is in the secular notion of Truth first, dogma second. If God *really* agrees, then there will be an experiment that all can repeat to prove this.
It is from this that modern medicine arose and this is the philosophy that should guide profesionals. It involves a level of humility that the Goddy folks literally cannot imagine.
[Imagine thinking that the universes architect is taking to *you*, and all other ideas are "wrong"! How amazingly arrogant, (or scared silly which is more often the case and why the Goddy types are so unstable)]
To repeat a point I made eartlier today: Anyone who puts a cluster of cells on par with a talking, breathing human is perversely ignorant of nature, and is just looking for an excuse to behave badly to another person.
BTW. Conscience vote is the only option in our democracy to avoid group-think. Very useful when the "right" thing to do is unpopular.

Unwanted Children or forcing people to have unwanted children is about an inconvenient truth.

IF you think about the unborn child, than think closely about the childs potential life-quality or possible whole life-span (and potential life-struggle), or as life truly is now for many (many, many) unwanted children.

Capitalism for example is not working for the moral health or well-being of whole families and is particularly hostile to the mobility of single (especially young) parents.

Nor does mainstream community structures, religion, governments or the health system itself embrace the economic and emotional historical realities which do impact 'wholesale' on individual unwanted children.

Australia needs to get real serious about how distressing life can be, for the unwanted child.

So many children are conceived in less than suitable moments and circumstances. In these cases they are unplanned and considered (no matter how quietly) an 'accident'; having been conceived in the back a car, under the table, on the bosses office floor, in darkness behind the bushes. For many children, their birth was merely about two people having sex after a drunken party or high night at the pub,

If we want to get ethical on what to do for the rights of all parties on the issue of 'abortion', then it is time to talk openly to those already born 'unwanted', who know (for whatever reason) that they were/are born a inconvenience, an accident, as yet another child, unwanted.

Imagine living through a childhood where you as a child were not celebrated as a gift, and because of it there is aggressions, tension, only mixed-conflict around love.

Where is the truth (among all our mainstream policies and ideals) for that child, a child born unwanted AND without love.

More Below;

This reality is the opposite to what we'd hope for all children, and it is why it is unfair and highly irresponsible to shift the onus toward a unknown born child, to be left struggling, to deal with day to day life, over an entire life-span.

It is we who hope they might find a way to overcome the unbearable sensation, of being "unwanted".

Imagine a life where parents (for what ever reason) act-out their guilt onto this unwanted child. Where (consciously or unconsciously) they treat the child as a burden, hindrance... hassle... destroyer of their cares adult freedoms. With denial.

Where do we go with prevention, or the potential "a kid at risk"?
Consider the common disadvantageous projections ‘the unwanted child cost to much to feed,’ or gets blamed for all things inadequate or bad that occur... .indeed, a (stressful) reality that is happening to unwanted kids in Australia.

Our mindfulness must for this reason be focused on the quality life-span of the potentially (said) unwanted child.

In her extensive work, with people in crisis, toward love and genuine safety, Mother Teresa of Calcutta said “ there is nothing worse in the world than being a unwanted child”. In her call for greater awareness she said” "If you judge people, you have no time to love them."

As a women, I understand the deep sense of grief for a child who is unwanted as clearly as I understand the cost of war, terror and poverty on families.

An unwanted child in mainstream is a displacement equal to the way we treat people who have been displaced as migrant refugees.

For an unwanted child the real crime is their invisibility, a burden that without greater awareness, is by no means, a "two way street" .

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Jenny E you are so right and "Runner" is so wrong, over the centuries Religion and Royalty have always played a big part in wars and killing people, but of course wars are legitimate to them,take George Bush as an example , but if I request an end to my life when suffering severe pain and loss of dignity, the religious come out in force and deny myself that action, I should have the right to decide when to end my life. I do find the remark of "Runner" offensive that non believers are the killing brigade, if you really got to know us better, that remark is far from what you imagine

Welcome to OLO, Jenny E. I can assure you from years of experience that runner is immune to both logic and compassion. He posts here only to justify his fear of the wider world by attacking any line of thought which wasn't issued by the Vatican mothership.

I advise not to frustrate yourself trying to reason with him.

miacat

You might as well argue mass sterilization especially among the indigenous. The vast majority of the fathers and many mothers don't want to take care of their children. By your argument we should also exterminate unwanted oldies instead of shoving them off to expensive old people's homes. The baby boomers could get their inheritance a bit quicker and spend it before they themselves get the chop.

"to refuse treatment they deem morally objectionable, but are silent on their obligations to ensure patients get timely, appropriate care"

But these doctors do not see being involved in taking a human life as "appropriate care" they see it as "morally objectionable".

If you lived in Somalia and the laws were that as a doctor you either had to preform female circumcision (90% prevalence rate in Somalia- very much a part of the culture), or if not refer the girl on so that she could get "appropriate care" would you see this a morally defensible argument?

You are so blinded by your own craze to help as many women get abortions as possible, that you don't realise how you are impeding on the rights and freedoms of others.

netjunkie your arguement is spurious.

In Victoria abortion is permitted under law, but female circumcision is not allowed.

My argument is not spurious. I'm talking about the ethical situation, not the legality.

Laws are made by the people. One would hope they would be based on ethics.

A prolife doctor being forced to refer a patient onto an abortion in Australia is just like an anti-FGM (female genital mutilation) doctor being forced to refer a patient onto an FGM in Somalia. In both cases, the respective procedures are legal. In both cases the procedures go against the doctor's conscience yet are perfectly acceptable ethically and culturally to the rest of society. And in both situations, the docotr should have the autonomy/right to choose not to be involved.

netjunkie

You are a breath of fresh air and the most sensible person to join this forum for a long time. It is great to have people with convictions like yourself going into medicine.

Leslie you are a classic!

Invoking the 'golden rule' - do unto others. It is a bit hard to retrospectively abort someone when you have already been aborted!?

The Ronald Regan quip about not meeting anyone in favour of abortion who had been aborted comes to mind...

Reality check,
What about Gianna Jenson, who survived a saline abortion, but was left with Cystic Fibrosis as a result?
"Who was fighting for my rights as I was being burned alive with salt?"

(And thanks Runner :))