Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Feast Day of the Holy Innocents

A thought for today
Paul Belien over at the Brussels Journal managed to brighten up Christmas with this horrifying example of the way in which the European Union and its myrioad of quangos and committees wish to restrict freedom.
The EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights has decided in its wisdom to agrue that a doctor's freedom of concience, at laest in the area of abortion is important but,
"Indeed, the right to religious conscientious objection may conflict with other rights, also recognized under international law. In such circumstances, an adequate balance must be struck between these conflicting requirements, which may not lead to one right being sacrificed to another."
Or in otherwise the group rights of women to be able to have an abortion outrank the individual right of a doctor to refuse, due to his or her concience to perform it.

At what point do these people think that their writ ends? If they can force people to kill, which according to some the act of abortion is then they are forcing those people to break what they see to be the Hippocratic Oath.
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art".


eulogist said...

Now come on, Elaib, get your facts straight. First of all, the issue is not one of group rights against individual rights, but of one individual right against another. Of course such conflicts can exist. In fact they happen all the time - which is why we have courts and not computers deliver sentences.

Second, although the experts' opinion itself does not appear to be on-line yet, even the source used by Paul Beliën (the conservative catholic The Fact Is website) is balanced at least in what it quotes. Apparently, the panel's opinion is that in countries where abortion is legal this should be a de facto right rather than a mere de iure one. Which seems reasonable. This then leads to the conclusion that: the State concerned must ensure, first, that an effective remedy should be open to challenge any refusal to provide abortion; second, that an obligation will be imposed on the health care practitioner exercising his or her right to religious conscientious objection to refer the woman seeking abortion to another qualified health care practitioner who will agree to perform the abortion; third, that another qualified health care practitioner will be indeed available, including in rural areas or in areas which are geographically remote from the centre.

So where does this say that individual doctors should be forced to perform abortions against their will?

Anonymous said...

Since when did the right to obtain an abortion turn into the obligation to provide one?

Rob Read.

P.S. I strongly support the rights of women to control their OWN bodies and thus seek an abortion.

P.P.S. This is one consequence of the state running healthcare and thus allocating a doctor rather than the person choosing a doctor they are comfortable with.