| I think there's a plausible deniability issue. Like, if you're a good Catholic, you can't prescribe the Pill or perform abortions, but you can treat a person for a pneumonia (for instance) because then taking the Pill is not related to your care.
I don't know, really. It just seems that way to me.
And I can sort of understand how some older professionals might be thrown by having to do things they never thought they've have to do, such as abortions. Because that's been a hot-button issue for years and, in the States anyway, abortion has only been legal for about 35 years. I wasn't cognizant back then, but I would assume it took a while before it became pseudo-mainstream.
And then the details of what is and what isn't okay with regards to performing abortions seem to change with every Administration...
So, I can see why some doctors might balk at having to perform these. Especially when it's not anywhere related to their specialty, but scarcity of resources makes it their responsibility.
Or maybe I took Everwood way too seriously.
But "first do no harm" seems pretty direct to me. Abortions are part of what every woman is entitled to with regards to her sexual health. And every doctor should make it their business to make absolutely darn sure that every last one of their patients receives the best care possible.
If they won't perform the abortion themselves, it ought to be a law that they have to find their patient a willing, competent substitute. In a woman's life, I would imagine that this is a vulnerable enough time as it is... __________________  Sunny
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." avie by Jessie |