Nice going Peter, instead of answering my question (at all), even my hypothesis, you instead pretend I said something else ENTIRELY and went on a rant.

At least I tried.

Dear Amanda,
Your article is like a beacon of light in a sea of dross.
I sincerely regret the dilemma facing principled people such as yourself as Western society slides further into the abyss.
I also regret the ignorance displayed in the comments on your article.
You sound big enough to forgive them, but I'm not and I don't.
Unfortunately, as you seem to be learning, the Charter of Rights is more about imposing a particular ideology than what it purports to be.
You'll be in the firing line of those who would impose their tyranny on you.
I wish you all the best
Sincerely,
Herman Yutic

Hazza
I got cut off by the timer.

It's you who are pretending you said something different. Your argument is that rights are whatever the state says they are, isn't it?

That theory is then the basis for Australia's motherhood subsidies; and compulsory workers’ insurance; and aggressive war; and race-based social engineering schemes; and compulsory indoctrination of the population as children, teaching them implicitly that the state has the right to physical custody of them against their will; to subject their parents and everyone else to involuntary servitude to pay for it; to dictate any and every aspect of the private production of goods and services; and to inculcate the belief that the arbitrary will of the political class represents a higher value of the common good over and above the freedom of the individual.

Yet there is no conflict between individual freedom and the common good, provided only that each must refrain from aggression against the life, liberty and property of other people. End of issue.

There is nothing about social co-operation that necessitates, or is improved by compulsory funding, nor providing goods and services through a monopoly of compulsion.

Freedom is the only moral, as well as the only practical solution.

The philosophy of liberty in a nutshell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

There is no conflict between the various social values you have asked about, and the libertarian theory of rights I put forward. Indeed it is the basis of freedom of movement, association, contracts, enterprise, construction, purchase, health, equality in law etc. etc.

As to your hypothetical questions about the lead paint and the school, the common law of nuisance already covers it. As the lead paint factory would infringe on other's rights to life, liberty and property, they have a right to stop it.

JLDeland
Is it justifiable to bash people’s heads in to save old growth forests? Would any violence be too much, in your view? Wouldn’t it be more ethical for you to save old growth forests by simply buying them?

whatever men say, especially men who claim to know,
freedom for women requires provision of the women's legislature
of an equal rights republic.

Gorufus, I agree with your suggestion that doctor's should indicate if they don't offer certain services. Perhaps by using someone else's suggestion on a different forum, that doctors put down if they don't offer the service on the form that new patients fill in when they sign up with that practice. This might be better than a sign in the surgery. Abortion is a emotional issue and some people might find a sign a bit confronting and become agitated if it contradicts with their beliefs. I've see a bloke lose the plot and throw a anti-abortion stall's table and chairs around when he was just passing. Not his finest hour. The people manning it were at least in their 70's and not physically robust. Doctors and nurses are at risk from assault already unfortunately. I also don't think they should charge for any visits where they cannot assist.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you on the GP having the responsibility to say which of his fellow doctor's is competant. Firstly, it's a pretty unscientific way of referring. A new doctor would be probably down to using other medical staff's gossip about people. Secondly, I think it's up to the State to provide facilities where you can access an abortion and expect all the staff to be efficient and qualified, and the State to only give qualifications to doctors who are competant to perform this service. Then encouraging fellow staff and patients to identify rouges and incompetants to maintain standards. I guess my focus is on putting responsibility for making sure that the service is accessed without any trouble back onto the State and off the individual with a problem as to the morality of abortion.

Peter Hume you lost me when you suddenly started talking about 'bashing people's heads in' and violence in relation to old growth forest conservation. It came across as offesive, not to mention just plain wrong. Can't say I appreciate the association, so won't try and understand your reasoning in how it's relates to the conscience issue

Very skillfully written article.

Amanda should be a politician, the cool cynical way that she took something as odious as genital mutilation and compared it to the Victorian law banning doctors from actively influencing their patients according to their religious view points.

Just a pity to see someone so twisted so young.

Perhaps the clause should contain a requirement for the doctor to post a warning sign on the door:

"Doctor's ability to meet the needs of the patient may be impaired by religious doctrine."