Abortion restrictions continue 20 years after ruling

[talloola]

There are many mistakes made in life which will eventually lead to a medical procedure.

An unwanted pregnancy is 'just' one mistake. Many people do many things to their bodies which break

down their good health throughout their lives. The medical community treat them

without 'judging' them, and the same should be with the abortion procedure.

 

[tracy]

Do other medical treatments have laws? I understand the Canada Health Act doesn't go into many specifics other than the provinces are required to provide medical services based on the objectives of the Canada Health Act in exchange for federal funding. The provinces have medical boards that determine what services will be provided.

The laws are somewhat indirect. For instance, the Canada health act requires services to be comprehensive, equal and accessible. You could easily argue that having no abortion services in an entire province goes against those principles but it would probably take a pretty expensive lawsuit to challenge that issue.

 

[karrie]

I agree only so far as to say when health is endangered, a practitionner's moral objections should no longer excuse him or her from a procedure. A doctor isn't required to perform abortions, order blood transfusions, help with end of life care, prescribe birth control, etc. if it goes against his or her moral or religious beliefs. BUT, they do have to refer their patients to a practitioner who will and if their refusal ever caused harm, you can bet they would be risking their liscence and a nice lawsuit.

All OB/GYNs should be trained in different techniques used for abortions because they are used to heal women from ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages where the products of conception remain in the uterus. Those aren't uncommon occurances and a doctor needs to know how to deal with it. If an OB/GYN refuses to even learn how to do it, then they are in the wrong field. There are things I don't necessarily agree with in my job, but I do my job because it's the one I chose. If I felt strongly enough, I would change to another specialty.

Exactly.... I make sure to qualify it when I discuss it, that I don't think a doctor should be compelled to remove healthy tissue from a healthy body. But, when there is something going wrong, the rules change.

But, just to highlight what brought us to this conversation in the first place... the geographical difficulty of providing health care according to the standard which is expected for abortion... I've lived in 6 towns/cities in my life, and only 2 of them had OB/GYN's nearby. So, in order to make abortion available in those communities, general practitioners would need to be doing it.

 

[karrie]

The laws are somewhat indirect. For instance, the Canada health act requires services to be comprehensive, equal and accessible. You could easily argue that having no abortion services in an entire province goes against those principles but it would probably take a pretty expensive lawsuit to challenge that issue.

My understanding was that the law compels the health system to declare it a valid medical procedure, and to not impede, in any way, a woman from receiving the procedure. But, that is a law as it applies to an institution. That is not a law which compels any individual to provide it.

 

[gerryh]

There are many mistakes made in life which will eventually lead to a medical procedure.

An unwanted pregnancy is 'just' one mistake. Many people do many things to their bodies which break

down their good health throughout their lives. The medical community treat them

without 'judging' them, and the same should be with the abortion procedure.

Just one small problem....this "mistake" involves another life...but then again.... some people have so little regard for life that it really doesn't matter.

 

[Pangloss]

Everybody, I'd like to introduce. . .speaking directly for that big invisible guy in the sky. . .the pipeline that nobody else can hear. . .

gerrrrrrrrryyyyyyyh!

So tell us, gerryh - what unsupportable assertions will you foist on us poor heathens tonight?

Pangloss

 

[Kreskin]

The laws are somewhat indirect. For instance, the Canada health act requires services to be comprehensive, equal and accessible. You could easily argue that having no abortion services in an entire province goes against those principles but it would probably take a pretty expensive lawsuit to challenge that issue.

That isn't unlike some other services where coverage is provided in some but not all provinces. I keep referring back to IVF because it is the one area I know better than other areas. In Ontario (the only province that will) they cover, up to a set dollar limit (no where near the real cost), coverage for IVF if the treatment is for dual naturally blocked tubes. That coverage has been around for a long time. It's easy to see the thought pattern on this one. Back when it was introduced blocked tubes was obviously a proven infertility cause. However the science, and understanding of it, has grown immensely since then, yet the other known causes aren't covered. To add to that, the OHIP version isn't accepted in some clinics because the OHIP under funds the treatment. If you walk into some private clinics and want to use the OHIP coverage they'll send you away to one of only a few spin-off clinics for the government covered IVF.

Comprehensive, equal and accessible..not when the reproductive system is at issue.

 

[talloola]

Just one small problem....this "mistake" involves another life...but then again.... some people have so little regard for life that it really doesn't matter.

I have great regard for all life, the future life of a baby, not wanted, and the future life
of a mother/, and a father, who don't desire a baby. Abortions should be done very
early, that is very important in my thinking on this matter, as once the pregnancy is
past the first trimester, my opinion changes drastically.

It all matters to me, very much.