Van Badham opines:
Medically speaking, an early-term clinical abortion is a minor procedure.
For the mother-to-be, yes. It’s a bit more than that for the potential baby, eh, Van?
Even so, there remain doctors who cite religious reasons against pregnancy termination treatment. As the Hippocratic oath states very clearly “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone”, the refusal of such doctors to perform a procedure always sought in a patient’s best medical interest can be confounding.
It’s not confounding at all – the tell-tale giveaway in that oath is the word ‘anyone’.
But Van’s prepared to put up with this state of affairs anyway (at least, for now…), for the greater good:
. …what the AMA’s “best practice” position amounts to is the recognition that the state does not have the right to enforce political or religious beliefs over doctors in the provision of care … In the paradoxical world of pro-choice politics, a defence of the right of doctors to deny abortion services without state interference must therefore be a necessary commitment of those whose cause is the autonomy of women to decide their own medical treatment without state interference, too.
The precedent and principle extends far beyond the present abortion wars, of course. Conscientious objection is what enables doctors to fight for Australian standards of care for refugees in Australian detention at Manus Island, for example …
Because Australia needs those refugees, to replenish the population, I suppose?