Abortion and the "clean hands morality"

  • Thread starter Thread starter magnusbar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

magnusbar

Guest
When a doctor refuses to perform an abortion, he simply passes it on to another doctor. Not a single baby life has been saved. The only thing he achieves is keeping his own hands clean in his own eyes. He moves the responsibility of the murder on to a colleague.

Why should we approve such a “clean hands morality”?

(I am not in any way asking to justify abortion. I would have refused to perform one as well)
 
Last edited:
If every doctor refused for ethical reasons, then the baby would survive.
 
All that we can be responsible for are own actions. Even when abortion was illegal, there were doctors who performed them. Yes, it’s true that someone who is determined to get an abortion will go from doctor to doctor until she finds one who will perform one, but the doctors who refuse cannot control the actions of the one who agrees. They are not at fault for that.
 
Last edited:
A doctor who refuses to perform an abortion is a strong testimony to the sanctity of life.

There are people who Doctor shop–no doubts about that–but if a woman is denied there is a good chance she will not try for a second opinion.

Doctors are responsible for many things. For instance, surgeons do NOT perform anesthetic procedures. Why? Because anesthesia is a highly delicate science that’s one of the most dangerous parts about surgery. Some neurosurgeons make less than anesthesiologists. The surgeon does not “wash his hands” of the dangers of anesthetics, but simply focus’ on what he or she knows best.

We tend to think of doctors as interchangeable. They are not. Even the surgical urologist who operated when my kidney was blocked by a stone only does work on female patients because of his level of knowledge and expertise. I could have gone with a surgeon who did both genders, but I preferred the one who had more experience with the female body and even though some of his techniques were older, I did not change because I liked that surgeon.
 
magnusbar said:
Not a single baby life has been saved.
Click to expand...
The doctor’s refusal to perform an abortion is still good. The goodness of the act (of refusing to kill) is not entirely determined by the life saved or lost. The refusal, even if it does not save the baby’s life, may work some spiritual good in the mother or in others. It is like shining a small light in the darkness. It’s not much, but it may eventually save a life – or save a soul.
 
Last edited:
Are you attempting to discuss indirect agency, because this is not an example of it.

What you have proposed is not a thing at all. The person who refuses a bad act neither directly nor indirectly causes another to choose a bad act.
 
This discussion takes place in my ethics book from university. The authors conclusion is quite opposite from what we’ve concluded here on CAF (as expected) .

It is a discussion about the “conscience clause” in Norway, and the author dismisses this morality as “questionable” because of the practice of passing over the resposibility over to another doctor.

This conscience clause is highly controversial (not very popular as you might imagine) where I live, being subject to massive debate when the Conservatives and the Christian Democratic Party tried to overturn a descision by the Social Democratic government in 2011 that made it more difficult for general practitioners to refuse providing services and information regarding contraception and abortion, fearing patients’ rights and health services in the rural societies.
1ke said:
What you have proposed is not a thing at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is not a thing at all, 1ke, but cand.philol. Frode Nyeng (b. 1970) at the Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim still want to discuss it in my ethics curriculum.

His conclusion is as follows:

“As an educated medic, one can freely choose another occupational role that does not conflict with patients’ rights and regular community functions.”

Source:

Nyeng, F. (2014). Noen ganger skal man lyve. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, page 53.
 
Last edited:
If the doctor refuses to do the abortion, but sends them to another doctor to do the abortion, then yes, he is a guilty as if he had done the abortion.

If he refuses and explains the reason why (he has moral objections), the ball is in the woman’s court at that point.
 
magnusbar said:
This discussion takes place in my ethics book from university. The authors conclusion is quite opposite from what we’ve concluded here on CAF (as expected) .
Click to expand...
It sounds like consequentialism (but I’m not certain that is the right terminology). In other words, it’s all about whether the baby lives or dies. This is a questionable basis for morality. One can imagine other scenarios, like euthanasia or mercy killing. A man is suffering due to a terminal illness or perhaps a fatal injury. Why not just shoot him in the head? The result is the same. Or is it?
 
Last edited:
What are his alternatives? If he resigns in protest then he can’t help anyone else.
 
magnusbar said:
When a doctor refuses to perform an abortion, he simply passes it on to another doctor. Not a single baby life has been saved. The only thing he achieves is keeping his own hands clean in his own eyes. He moves the responsibility of the murder on to a colleague.

Why should we approve such a “clean hands morality”?

(I am not in any way asking to justify abortion. I would have refused to perform one as well)
Click to expand...
By the same reasoning, given that men are mortal, and everyone will die eventually, why have any doctors at all?

At the very least, the refusal of one doctor gives the unborn baby some additional time to live. Perhaps that is just an hour or a half, but even that is more than nothing.

And yes, the physical results are not all that matter. Yes, “keeping his own hands clean” is also good (by the way, no argument to the contrary has been cited here).
magnusbar said:
This discussion takes place in my ethics book from university. The authors conclusion is quite opposite from what we’ve concluded here on CAF (as expected) .

It is a discussion about the “conscience clause” in Norway, and the author dismisses this morality as “questionable” because of the practice of passing over the resposibility over to another doctor.
Click to expand...
And that looks like a dishonest argument.

If he claims that such an action makes no difference, then why should this action be forbidden? And if this action does make a difference, then why does he argue that it doesn’t?
magnusbar said:
This conscience clause is highly controversial (not very popular as you might imagine) where I live, being subject to massive debate when the Conservatives and the Christian Democratic Party tried to overturn a descision by the Social Democratic government in 2011 that made it more difficult for general practitioners to refuse providing services and information regarding contraception and abortion, fearing patients’ rights and health services in the rural societies.
Click to expand...
So, he claims that refusal doesn’t matter, because a different doctor will promptly perform abortion - and that it must be forbidden, because that “other doctor” isn’t actually available? 🙂

It is obvious that he is not right in both cases. And he needs them both to be true for his argument.

Not much of a surprise here - after all, anything follows from a contradiction. 🙂
 
This logic can lead to quite a few absurdities. Especially since it’s simply not true: the life can oftentimes be saved by such a simple thing, especially if the doctor explains the moral reasoning to the girl.
But, for instance, why not kill your neighbor? He’s going to die anyway, right? Such would be an absurdity that uses similar logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top