That's actually a good idea... that the patient shouldn't be billed for that sort of consultation.

Doc Holliday
...[Y]ou are quite correct: "a [legal] right is nothing more and nothing less than whatever the State orders".

So if the State says it's okay to own slaves, then you have a 'right' to own slaves?

'And, 'yes': this is the legal and moral right we have accorded them - by election - in a "democratic society".'

Prove it.

Thanks netjunkie! I find it imperative that the criteria of what doctors can/cant do based on their consciences is balanced with a willing compromise to the well-being of the patients- I think a denial of pay is a good step- or otherwise it is an abuse of power.
Although I am still skeptical about allowing a ground of denial of service and pay in a market-like position- but so far I don't see a way around it.

Peter Hume
The problem with rights of any sort is that they are ALWAYS the dictates of one or more individuals, and something that they force onto another or give to themselves at the expense of someone else- no matter how much they think they aren't imposing, they ALWAYS are in some way- be it a government, a voting majority or an individual choosing his own rights.

I would like to see how your 'self-defense' simplification of rights covers freedom of movement and association, contracts, abortions, euthanasia, health, construction/enterprise, purchase, information, legal representation, equality in law, running of infrastructure, acquisition of property, commerce and various other issues which become the basis of conflicts of well-being between two autonomous individuals.

Is somebody entitled to the right to build a lead paint factory next to a school simply because he owns the plot of land? Is a teacher or pupil of the school entitled to use "self defensive" measures against the owner and his factory to preserve their own life against the risk of lead poisoning? Is the owner of that factory entitled to kill that person on the spot for threatening his property?

When making your answer be careful to note any statements you make about what the parties are entiteled to do, or are obligated to do- and consider the question- says who?

Just thinking about it some more, I get the impression maybe wrongly, that some of the people who advocated for the conscience clause are treating medical staff with objections to abortion as somehow 'morally lacking'. Maybe a more positive way to handle it and one that would serve the community better, would be to regard them simply as 'workers' who have been caught up in a change of community standards, and rather than try and ride roughshod all over them and coerce them, would be to simply go around them.

Some of us want to see the end of old growth logging in Victoria and the end to using brown coal and yes, change community standards. But when we advocate for this, we don't paint the workers in the industry as somehow morally lacking, even though some of them almost certainly see us as deluded Greenies. Instead mostly we are at pains to try and reassure the workers that new green jobs are anticipated, and that they won't be penalised, when we retire these industries. Yet somehow it's okay to suggest that doctors and nurses with a moral objection aren't fit to be in the profession.

I'd have no objection to all Catholic hospitals being nationalised if the State needed to do that in order to provide all services to the community. But if it happens, then I think it's only fair that the doctors and nurses affected by such a move, are placed in new positions where their beliefs wouldn't be a problem, or retrained for these new positions. They are after all just 'workers' in a sometimes high stress occupation and some of the nurses at least, are probably paid less than the coal miners and loggers, yet not valued as much it seems to me as those other workers.

netjunkie,
That is precisely why I wrote what I did.
Amanda simply want her cakes and eat it too.

Given it's her problem being involved with the process. Common sense dictates that can simple advertise that she is pro life, anti abortion doctor. i.e. Call her practice “name of suburb Pro life (anti abortion) family Clinic”, have it on her stationery, sign in reception area etc. Refuse the appointment. Don't work in a public hospital. Write op columns. In short let the client/public decide.

Consider this REAL WORLD SCENARIO. You are a crisis intervention counsellor(Dr.) your caller(patient) is a 14-15 suicidal girl who is pregnant. If she has the baby all hell will break out she'll lose her family etc. She's clearly not old enough to survive on her own during and after the baby is born and she wants an abortion . Do you then only offer her the pro-life options? Or give her the name of a Dr that will discuss BOTH and one prepared to give her the support needed is SHE decides the abortion?

If you mention the first she's hung up/ turned off and maybe tomorrow's tragic statistic. She and the POTENTIAL baby have both paid for Amanda's conscience. First do no harm?

Experience shows some one wanting an abortion won't go to a pro life counsellor or vise versa unless they want to be talked around.

In NG I remember one woman who had been raped by a man from another clan(nation) and was pregnant. If that became known in her clan she would be killed (baby too) and a payback war would ensue. Keep in mind in NG there are or were 800 languages (each was effectively a nation). Without her one talks(her people) she would probably die.
Consider now the old Chinese wisdom "if you save a life you are responsible for it afterwards" in the above context. (it has/had practical implications)

Given these real life examples perhaps you can see why, practically speaking, Amanda's moral myopia (her naivety) is less than impressive. That thread to me is moot.

netjunkie writes correctly

'This is article is not about abortion- or if so, it is only indirectly. It is about freedom of conscience.'

So true netjunkie, the problem is those in favour of mutilating the unborn have had their conscience severely seared.