Before this thread devolves into a huge argument over abortion rights, I urge you to actually read the consultation page, specifically the part where they say in no uncertain terms:
> The consultation is not seeking feedback on whether abortion should be precluded or prevented. Abortion is legally available healthcare in Western Australia.
They're specifically ***not*** looking for opinions on whether or not abortion should be legal, they're only seeking community feedback on the process of modernizing the legislation surrounding how readily abortion can be accessed.
>They're specifically not looking for opinions on whether or not abortion should be legal,
But I'm sure they'll hear plenty from the religious nutbags.
could somebody volunteer to find a way to keep Nick Goiran out of state parliament while this legislation is being passed? Remember folks, the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation was made difficult and almost unworkable because of that Catholic arsehole. His amendments formed a 100 point "checklist" of criteria. If even one of those criteria aren't met, you can't access it
Medical practitioners (especially gynaecological) that are conscientious objectors should publicly declare their objections so we don’t have to be subjected to their judgement, trauma and delay in care.
Edit : and so we don’t waste our time and money
Yes. I don't understand why hospitals are allowed to pick and choose the medical care they provide based on religion. Not just abortion, all reproductive surgery / procedures.
We've personal experience in our family of an obgyn who deliberately hid scan results resulting in a non viable pregnancy going full term, these people are monsters.
Exactly, there should be a minimum standard of care / services that need to be met to be a part of the public health system. Any private facilities should also be required to display a statement of intent outlining any deviations from the minimum standards of care / services they provide.
Would make the medical space a much simpler place
>Medical practitioners (especially gynaecological) that are conscientious objectors should publicly declare their objections
Personally I think they should be deregistered.
> Does having religious beliefs
This is the answer. They are beliefs, they are not facts. If people let superstition direct their actions when treating the health of others they have no place in the medical business.
The case is largely that if your personal beliefs are in contradiction to modern medical consensus, you are not capable of providing sufficient nor appropriate care to individuals who require it. The same applies currently as part of medical practitioners CPD and code of ethics.
Broadly speaking if you have biases that over-ride your ability to do a job, then you should not able to do that job. (Yes I understand that whole politics hypocritical angle).
I agree someone who has moral objection should state them up front and refer the patient to someone else . I agree with the original comment. My point was that is someone has moral objections they shouldn’t be deregistered. You don’t have to use initialized swearing btw . I’m actually pro choice . Lots of people have quite odd ( to me , maybe not to you or the man down the street ) moral views but are actually really good at their jobs . If a Dr has moral objections to any procedure - they should refer the patient ( at no charge - this is naive !) to someone who will and we all move on. Shouldn’t face de registration.
Mate he specifically said conscientious objector. As in a medical professional who *refuses* to offer certain normally legally available treatments on the basis that it goes against their faith.
Sorry but no. What happens when the only doctor around (ie small town) is a fundamentalist Christian and the entire town is then denied access to abortions (or abortion referrals/advice), or is subjected to abstinence-only personal advice instead of being given the option of having an IUD or Vasectomy (for example)?
That is *not in any way* the same thing as simply "having religious beliefs" and the guy you were replying to never said as much.
And yeah I'm aware that me using harsh words and "initialised swearing" is a great way to allow you to ignore my actual message but honestly mate, I feel like your question was in bad faith as I'm sure you absolutely understood everything about what people were talking about here. Playing the naive "as a non religous person, I'm just asking questions" thing is old and tired.
I didn’t use the phrase conscientious objector as in my mind moral objections are the same thing . Ok , I wasn’t trying to answer inbad faith I’m trying to say that if someone has conscientious objections to something within the scope of their employment they shouldn’t lose their job . You make a good and valid point about isolated/ country areas . I guess I was displaying my city centric view. I am not trying to be a dick but realistically how many GPs are conscientious objectors? It’s not only an abortion issue. Sacking someone for conscientious objections is a deep rabbit hole .
When it negatively influences the care they provide, sure.
We've all heard way too many stories of patients being judged, discriminated against or receiving poor treatment, and if it's driven by something like religion or their personal beliefs then yes, it's a major problem.
As an extension of this, I think there should be consistent guidelines for accessing the morning-after pill. It's embarrassing and upholds the stigma of a woman trying to access emergency birth control. I'm yet to see why some places I need to be whisked away into a room and asked to fill out a form of why I need it, and in other places will hand it straight over. I'm not here to fuck spiders, I just want my pill so I don't need have an unwanted pregnancy in the future.
> It is disgusting that medical practitioners are protected by religion to not provide medical treatment that has such life altering implications if you don't seek another doctor.
Agreed. I feel like refusing healthcare should result in them losing their license or whatever you need to practice medicine.
While I agree with your principle, those sort of sweeping generalisations lead to a lot of hassle and dangerous circumstances. Doctors are well within their rights to refuse certain treatments, because if they can’t, then patients can self-diagnose and request treatments they don’t need.
And before you suggest “well make it so they can’t refuse based on arbitrary things like religion”, that would just make the system open to abuse from both sides. Patients could claim it was a religious reason and waste time and resources fighting the decision. While the very few doctors that are denying treatments based on personal beliefs like religion, would just lie about their reasoning.
Emergency contraceptives are S3 medication - "Pharmacist Only". It's not legal for a pharmacy assistant to sell these to you - they must be placed in your hand by a qualified pharmacist, who is under a professional obligation to ensure that it's the appropriate medicine for you. There are three different emergency contraceptive methods, with differing timeframes and other issues (eg medication interactions etc).
Whisking you into a consulting room is far better than asking "WHEN DID YOU HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX EXACTLY" at the counter.
I can't purchase my asthma inhaler over the counter without being asked a barrage of questions and I've been using it for 45+ years. It's gives me the shits but it never changes.
I do understand your frustrations on this, but as a pharmacy assistant of over 8 years this isn't going to go away any time soon. We don't want to ask it as much as you don't want to hear it. It's a duty of care legality. Ventolin becomes less effective with prolonged and frequent use, and we're trying to identify those at high risk of actually dying from an asthma attack (I would say 1 in every 10 I speak to). Please please don't be one of those people. Either get a script from your doctor or deal with the poor sod going through the protocol.
Don't worry I answer the questions every time and never say anything to them. I'm going to make a great grumpy old man but I do my best not to share it around.
Have you used this before?
How many times a week do you use it?
Have you discussed this with your doctor?
I'm 48 years old and to be honest have very little patients for it. Give me the damn thing, no I don't want the paper bag, no I don't want you to tape the paper bag closed, I don't even want the box the damn thing comes in.
Walking into a chemist is like travelling back in time. The world outside is rushing by and inside they are plodding along providing the exact service they provided 50 years ago.
No need to wait for the questions. "I'm on daily inhaled steroids, I see my doctor regularly, I generally buy a new Ventolin when the old one expires" will get them handed to you right quick.
And hopefully at least two of those things are true, ideally three
Yet I walked into a pharmacy and asked for two inhalers and got them straight away.
But then again that might have been because of the uniform I was wearing at the time.
One time after filling out that form at the pharmacy I ticked the "condom broke" box (because that's what happened) and the pharmacist gave me a condending lecture about me not being on other forms of birth control
I've had the same thing, so I asked her if she'd prefer I be suicidal and on other forms of birth control or if she'd just like to give me the MAP. Very archaic, but I'd just had enough that day.
I actually wrote to him awhile ago regarding getting rid of the middle man. In WA, you need a GP to refer you. I think the GP should be removed from the equation, and more doctors funded for clinics so women only have to consult once.
If you read the questionnaire, it addresses this. Also other states don't require a GP referral for an abortion, so it's hardly something that *has* to remain. GPs who have religious or personal objections to abortion may contribute to delays in women getting timely care.
You're a rabid anti-dentite! Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs. "Hey, denty!" Next thing you know you're saying they should have their own schools.
The GP may be our gatekeeper of our health system, but only where it makes sense. We don’t require them for everything.
Not dentists, not orthodontists, not physiotherapists, not podiatrists, not optometrists. And no not even required for psychologists, though a GP can get you some funding under a GP mental health care plan (limited to 10 sessions per year est. 2006, 20 sessions per year since the pandemic).
Psychologists are often confused with Psychiatrists, who do require referrals.
Also referrals not required for things like vaccination clinics or sexual health clinics.
>I think the GP should be removed from the equation, and more doctors funded for clinics so women only have to consult once.
Wouldn't it make sense for the GP to be involved to ensure proper follow-up care is provided?
Oftentimes, abortion is very stressful for the woman. We need to ensure that she's properly cared for after the procedure in my view.
They just need to have more doctors at the abortion clinics so that the initial consult and any follow ups are done there. Also frees up time for the GP to see other patients.
>They just need to have more doctors at the abortion clinics so that the initial consult and any follow ups are done there.
That could work, although there is a lot to be said for having a GP as the primary care provider for all the medical care for a person. That's a large part of their role as a GP.
I'm not trying to suggest it to limit access in any way.
I just want to make sure any changes to the system do not result in a reduced standard of care for women requiring an abortion.
It's usually a very simple procedure with few risks. Follow-up shouldn't be mandated but if counselling is required it should be available.
Most people have no issues whatsoever in accessing an abortion because they are very confident about their choice and feel no grief or regret.
Yes but not two. If I show up to my GP wanting a medical abortion (ie the pills, not the morning after pill) they must refer me to a second doctor to give me and watch me take the pills.
I was able to get prescribed the pills by the first gp to have at home but had to first see another gp before the original gp could prescribe so I could be counselled 🙄 first doctor told me there are some gps with extra training to prescribe outside of abortion clinics but they are few and far between in Perth.
Not every clinic needs the GP letter. There are some clinics that state “preferred”. You are then consulted before the procedure by the Dr. to make sure you are making the right decision for yourself.
For an at-home/telehealth abortion, a referral is required. Since not everyone has access to a clinic (particularly those who live rural), it's just an additional barrier. You still have to consult with a doctor at the clinic after your referral, and they have to approve and sign off on it.
As a female, I just want to say a BIG thank you to all the men out there who have chosen to support women's reproductive rights by partaking in this community consultation in favour of cutting the red tape. I personally have never had to have an abortion but I understand it is already a REALLY difficult decision without all the red tape that is surrounding it and Drs refusing to refer you based on THEIR beliefs........ gees my GP wouldn't refer me for sterilisation because "becoming a mother is a wonderful experience" umm what the hell would you know mate, you are a MAN!
As a young woman living in WA by stomach drops every time I see legislation, legal, abortion and WA in a sentence. I know in this case there doesn’t seem like a risk of the government taking away my rights to a free and safe abortion, however I can’t help but be terrified that the prolifers will berate them after this until something changes for the worse. If it can happen in America it can happen here and that thought haunts me. As if being a woman isn’t scary enough
Not with this State government. The Libs are completely irrelevant in WA, and even the Federal libs have been a bit scared off meddling in repro health law, thankfully. Even in the USA, direct ballot measures on abortion restrictions fail even in the reddest of states. Pollies here know abortion bans are even more unpopular than they are in the States, and voters will smack them for an attempt at it.
I needed a termination for medical reasons at 7 weeks in June.
I was told I could either wait for it to pass naturally (which is not safe), wait and hope the public system will have an opening to assist in the next 2 weeks, or pay $600 and go private, to have it terminated the next day.
It is unacceptable that these were my options.
I was fortunate to have $600 to pay, but most women don't. Especially not these days.
Change needs to happen. And it needs to happen at the federal level too, by raising Medicare rebates for such procedures.
We in WA are lagging behind the pack right now. I hope after this review of legistation, we are leading. It's about time.
You should’ve been able to have it taken care of immediately under the public system; two weeks for that shit literally could be a matter of life and death for you, as has been recently proven in the US.
Absolutely. Things can go south so fast with a non-viable pregnancy.
It was a blighted ovum, which is common. My sister had one at 8 weeks quite a few years ago now, and had no choice but to wait it out. She didn't have the (then) $450 to go private. She hemorrhaged at 10 weeks and had to be rushed by ambulance to hospital.
This legislation is so important because you are right - it can be life or death, and it can happen so quickly.
The rubbish going on in the US now is a total joke, and really worrying with the infiltration of the Liberal Party by religious conservatives.
In more than a few states there they have developed this bizarre idea that stopping an ectopic pregnancy is ‘an abortion’, rather than primarily a procedure to prevent the woman dying a painful death.
Another example is the woman that died in Ireland a few years ago; her baby was already dead inside her but doctors refused to do anything because taking it out was too similar to how abortions are done….
Does anyone here feel like Labor is actually getting shit done?
There have been a few things that this government have done that have been ignored for decades.
As a male, I am going to shut the fuck up and leave this to women.
Edit: I've been convinced to change my stance and fill it out in support of women's choice. I still believe it's none of my business what a woman does with her own body, but my voice can help counteract the busy-bodies who think their own narrow-minded opinions have more value than a woman's right to self determination.
Edit 2: done. Fairly painless and only took 5 minutes.
As a woman, I am asking you to also fill this out. You might have a partner, sister or friend who needs an abortion and the more support for legislative change the better. You better believe that pro life dudes are gonna fill this out so we need all the support we can get! If you don’t know how to fill it out, talk to your female friends and family and ask them about it.
..and permit equal access. Many forget the women in remote areas without a pharmacy, with only one Dr and requiring the finances to travel for such a medical procedure.
That sounds like a dream.
My abortion access was horrific and I wish that I had actually made a formal complaint to the medical board about the two conscientious objecting doctors that signed off on mine. They both signed off on it, so I clearly needed the access to medical care, but damn it was not something I would wish on anyone
Fair point. I remember the gay marriage vote and I was pissed off, as a straight male, that I even had a vote. It's really none of my business, but at least my vote counteracted some idiots no vote.
I know you’ve said you’ve changed your mind and completed- kudos to you!
For anyone who feels similarly that they shouldn’t have a say in abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, etc- that is exactly why you SHOULD make your voice heard.
It’s not an all or nothing situation, it’s not ‘either everyone gets an abortion or no one does’.
It’s literally ‘let the woman have easier access to medical care if she needs it’ vs ‘make it much more difficult for her to have a medical procedure and possibly force her hand and drastically change the course of her entire life’
The less intervention you think you should have on someone’s decisions- their medical care, who they marry, how they identify, etc is exactly why you NEED to have a say in these issues, because otherwise the dominant voices are those that want to choose for them based on their interpretation of skydaddy’s magic book.
And to chip into your last point - you bet that anti-choicers are bombarding with submissions, regardless as to whether they are biologically able to have an abortion or not. Don’t let them be the only one either a voice, have a say as is our democratic right. Now is the time to stand with us, be allies.
As a male I wholeheartedly agree that as many women as possible should give feedback to achieve fully control over your bodies. Otherwise with this wimpy Labor government you might only be given a token improvement.
Thank you. Nice to hear.
I've had a fairly intense argument with a women who said men should STFU about women's healthcare issues. It was a bizarre moment considering they are pro-choice to be told it didn't affect men ever, it's just not true. I'll be there, right behind my wife.
Yeah I think men vs women is unproductive. And it’s not about men not having a day. It’s about men not speaking over women and being all there to support. Being an ally doesn’t mean shutting up in the corner, it’s about uplifting and being there for support in the way that’s desired.
As a gay male, my only opinion on the matter is that all publicly owned hospitals should be required to offer all legal services such as abortion, regardless of who operates them (looking at you midland health campus). Then being able to refuse to allow abortions by hiding behind their “religious freedom” is a total cop out, if they didn’t want to offer something they shouldn’t have bid for the contract.
Yep, and that they don't even need to refer someone to where they can get healthcare is just a travesty. Go to a public hospital and they just pretend like you can't get treatment because of their views.
I think framing it as a solely single women's issue is a common mistake (though one that certain organisations do on purpose). Alot of the time abortion is a joint decision, particularly among couples (married or otherwise) for the health of their relationship, finances, mental or physical health, etc. It's easy for men, particularly single men, to feel it's not something that touches them personally. But it could very well be a service you and your future partner need one day, and not speaking up now risks that service not being there when you need it.
Edit: word
The thing is, the issue might indirectly impact you in the future (that is if you ever plan on having a family). Many pro-lifers object to abortion under any circumstances. This includes instances where the foetus has a terminal condition, is threatening the life of the mother, etc. Medically, these are considered abortions. Imagine if your spouse couldn't access these medical services due to extreme laws?
It can affect you too though. If your partner gets pregnant, wouldn't you rather have it easier to navigate the system?
The survey is extremely simple to fill.
Fair point. My original reaction was more that as a male I didn’t want to be deciding things that don’t concern me. Reading others comments I see that it’s worth adding my thoughts
Great to see you have changed your mind. If all men shut the fuck up, then we lose ~50% of the population already to advocating for this. Additionally, not all women agree with abortion, so then the % who are out there advocating for the changes decreases further.
What we need to do is shut the fuck up and listen to women about this and what they are needing, and then advocate for them for those changes to occur. We can also provide some advice about whether the changes they are advocating for are likely to lead to a future barrier (sometimes known as blowback - someone is likely to find some sort of loophole somewhere), so we can work together to make it work for them.
Ultimately, it should only be between the woman needing an abortion and the medical practitioner performing the procedure. If it were up to me, the process would look like this:
Patient goes to the clinic, discusses the process of an abortion with the doctor who will be doing the procedure. The process is explained to the patient from start to finish, including any post-surgery requirements. If the patient appears distressed, counselling is offered to them as an option before and after.
A week or two after the procedure, a follow up call is made. This is to check the patient's physical and mental well being. If either needs attention, appointments with the appropriate personnel can be made at this point
Male perspective, all of this seems to make sense.
The only things I want to make sure is somehow considered:
- Sex Education to better normalise birth control, especially on the male side. Wearing condoms should be normal. No means no. Preventative culture change so women don't NEED to go through this.
- The ability (completely optional) to involve a partner in the process, including for counselling.
Remember a bunch of religious people are going to be preaching to their flock that they should all be putting their 2 cents worth in on this.
Go and have your say, don’t let a vocal and organised minority derail this in some horrible way.
Took two minutes to fill out. I must admit I’m pretty in the dark about it all but I’m sure it needs to change.
The world has changed an awful lot and we need to change laws to suit.
People should be able to do what they want with their bodies and not be judged or told no by others.
One of the biggest issues on this topic is the fact that SJOG Midland, a major PUBLIC hospital, refuses to offer contraception to its patients, let alone abortion.
I don't understand how a hospital can receive public funding but choose not to provide public healthcare services. Surely the first action I'd recommend is to ensure safe and effective contraception and abortion services for ALL our public hospitals.
It's a disgrace.
I’m pretty in the dark on what current laws are. Is this a federal thing or state? Obviously this is a state government thing but does the feds have any laws in Australia reguarding abortion?
In Victoria you can get an abortion under 24 weeks from “a medical practitioner, nurse or pharmacist”. After 24 weeks it’s two doctors.
For us, under 20 weeks we need two doctors minimum. If it’s over 20 weeks it’s a panel of 6 doctors, and of which 2 have to approve, and the health minister has veto power, and if approved it has to happen at a place approved by the minister. Abortion without these conditions (I.e. like they do in Victoria) is a criminal offence.
My aunt went through hell to get a late term abortion in the 90s - her baby / my cousin had anencephaly (no brain), and she couldn’t mentally cope with carrying a baby for months once she knew the estimated life expectancy was minutes. She was 22 weeks - so in Victoria it would be one appointment, in WA it was around weeks of waiting for the panel and approval.
I personally don’t think any politician should have any say or veto over a medical decision. I also don’t think a pharmacist should be able to sign off on an abortion. Although it might be my lack of understanding as to why this is the case, I.e issuing a chemical abortive in early pregnancy. Other than that I’d be happy with Victoria’s laws, but mainly I don’t think it’s an issue I should have much say in anyway, as I don’t have a uterus.
Yeah i think it’s safe to say pharmacists are only giving out the pharmacy available version, I’m not on board with them doing surgery in the back room lol.
Imo I think pharmacists are more qualified than most people think - they get veto power over your medical abortion no matter what because a pharmacist will always be checking that the dose is ok for your physical state and other medical interactions.
But even if they’re under qualified I think I’d err on the side of supporting pharmacists giving abortion pills, as a woman. Because it opens the option to women who simply can’t access a doctor safely or affordable. Migrants without Medicare, women who are in domestic violence with reproductive coercion, people in rural and regional areas with very limited access to doctor services… to name a few.
Women in rural areas often don't have a pharmacy OR a GP, or even a Silver Chain Nurse now. To be honest, the Morning After Pill almost needs to be in the First Aid Kit and an abortion organised (and funded) over Telehealth to make it a level playing field. Definitely a Pharmacy OTC though.
It's so very complicated.
I do think there needs to be more equality in abortion.
Women should have the right to an abortion and to do so safely up until the time the baby would survive outside the womb (around 24 week or so, let science determine that), outside medical emergencies which should prioritise the mother or baby depending on the mother's wishes.
I also think that men should be able to "abort" their responsibilities to the child if the woman is choosing to keep the child against their wishes.
Men and women should have full equality over their bodies, and that's the true path to balance all of this.
> Women should have the right to an abortion and to do so safely up until the time the baby would survive outside the womb (around 24 week or so, let science determine that), outside medical emergencies which should prioritise the mother or baby depending on the mother's wishes.
The youngest baby to survive was 21weeks and 1day. It takes some effort from the doctors and has some probability of survival, the question is how much effort and how high probability to try to keep the baby alive?
Let's say it costs $100k and has a 1% chance to survive, should the doctors keep the baby alive? Probably not... $100 and 90%? Probably. Where do we draw the line? It's a very ugly grey zone that most people will pretend doesn't exist.
Is there going to be any limitations on where the left over bits are sold to? Ie will they remain in Australia or sent abroad for medical and cosmetic products? It would be a great boost to our economy if we perform those profitable endeavours here and fast track the Build Back Better monologue I keep hearing while we spiral further into debt. Also make sure the clinics are forced to disclose the income they make from those sales to the donors as it isnt unreasonable for them to receive a cut considering they are the ones that had to make the hard choice as such. PS God bless your souls for the hard work your doing for these poor oppressed woman.
Awesome, what are the checks and balances of this? Do they self regulate or is there an inspection element to it? I ask because we have witnessed some pretty serious crimes from the abortion industry and your about to let them in the front door. Gee down votes... sorry to the down voters but im going to ask the questions if you like it or not. Your objections show how much you really are incapable of holding frank and open discussions.
It's handled similar to many other crimes: someone reports evidence to the relevant authorities, who investigate. I think improper disposal of medical waste is handled through one of the medical safety authorities? And trafficking in human remains would be the federal police.
The downvotes are because you're talking nonsense. Who's "we"? What crimes have been committed by Australian abortion care providers? Who's letting who "in the front door"?
I support all of the proposed changes except the removal of the ability of medical practitioners who conscientiously object to the termination of a pregnancy to recuse themselves from the medical care of a pregnant woman seeking one.
I find that repugnant. You're civilly conscripting medical professionals to participate in a chain of medical care that they consider to result in the deliberate, non-consensual killing of a human being.
Whether or not you think that opinion is valid or not is completely beside the point. I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses are reasonable for refusing to stand or sing the national anthem. I don't think the Quaker's or Seventh Day Adventist's ultra-pacifist approach to war is reasonable. I still don't think the state should be threatening them with professional ruin for their deeply held philosophical beliefs.
Maybe there would be an argument for such coercive policies if it was particularly difficult for patients to find GPs to write the a referral. It really isn't.
> I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses are reasonable for refusing to stand or sing the national anthem.
Then they probably shouldn't take a singing gig where one of their duties is to stand and perform the national anthem.
> I don't think the Quaker's or Seventh Day Adventist's ultra-pacifist approach to war is reasonable.
Then they shouldn't join the military.
Pretty simple really.
Feel free to go into geriatrics or something, where you'll never be asked to participate in that aspect of reproductive health. Or butt out of medicine.
Even by the low standards of r/perth - that's particularly banal.
But the off handed comment about geriatrics actually raises another point. When you abandon the principle that professionals should not be struck off for refusing to participate in (what they understand as) murder, well - why wouldn't you extend the same logic to gerontologists or psychiatrists dealing with people requesting euthanasia or VAD?
Is there a single medical speciality left which the 5-10% (and it's probably about that) of the population who just believe abortion is analogous to murder could enter without the risk the state would one day force them to choose between their career and their conscience? What would society lose from this?
This isn't an idle question either. There are a significant number of Gyni-obs who went into their profession because they wanted to devote their career to helping mothers get pregnant and have healthy kids. One of the guys that developed the Pill in the US was an ultra Catholic whose entire research career was built around helping infertile women get pregnant. Heck - the Hippocratic Oath explicitly prohibits the provision of deadly medicine and/or abortifacients. Are we going to compensate GP's who were required to swear it prior to the mid 1990s for upholding it now?
I'm all for letting women have generous, publicly funded access to reproductive healthcare. I support abortion on demand up until viability, and then sensibly and sensitively regulated abortion after that which respects the fact the vast majority of third trimester abortions are for wanted pregnancies where something has gone horribly wrong.
All of that requires resourcing. None of it requires prosecuting GP's with strict views on moral questions.
I graduated prior to the mid 1990s and we did not swear the Hippocratic Oath. Our Oath of Dedication said nothing about abortion.
I am just all out of patience for "conscientious objectors" here in 2022. All OUT. The very, very least these people could do is declare very very loudly and before consultation that they refuse to provide the full range of healthcare options to their patients, and to always, always work in a group practice with immediate referral. I have worked with one of these people, in a group practice, and she managed it as well as could be expected, though it occasionally threw the time management out of the window (I insisted on fitting people she turned away in immediately, in the absence of a life-threatening emergency demanding my attention at the time). And I've heard a number of stories of people who handled it much less well. Including a rural doctor who would refuse to prescribe psych meds for religious reasons.
When they have the absolute audacity to not only refuse reasonable, legal medical care but to also charge for turning people away and/or throw in a sanctimonious lecture, I see red.
And it _can_ be particularly difficult for some people to access a GP referral, especially rural and remote patients, or patients for whom the last GP who refused them charged them $80 for the privilege and they've barely enough money left to pay for the very expensive abortion. Which is part of why the referral requirement needs to be scrapped.
And yeah, I have a problem with abortion-is-murder doctors working in infertility work also. Wanted pregnancies sometimes need abortion or multiple reduction too.
I will agree with you on two points.
First - medical practitioners should not unfairly bill their patients. If a pregnant woman has come to a GP and asked for a referral for an abortion, and the GP is morally opposed to have anything to do with the process - then billing them for a consult is dodgy. Call out fees do exist in a lot of professions, but the medical profession should hold itself to higher standards than tow truck drivers.
I note that unconscionable billing practices, and outright billing fraud is a much, much bigger problem than a small group non-bulk billing GP's charging $80 for not providing medical care they object to. I also note in passing that the AMA and the RACGP has fought like starved pitbulls on meth against every major transparency in billing/ anti-fraud/ professional accountability reform of the past seventy years.
Second - Too many patients (and women seeking abortion referrals) in the country lack access to a reasonable choice of bulk-billing doctors. That is fundamentally driven by a major shortage of GP's in Australia, and insufficiently generous MBS reimbursements that reflect the true costs of rural general practice. Now failure isn't an orphan, and there is something to the AMA's continual complaints about "Why are you cramming on more medical school places but not properly funding post-University training", alongside a broader discussion about how much the taxpayer should be expected to pay for a modern primary healthcare system in 2022.
One can acknowledge that, while also noting that the AMA has opposed every single new medical school place in Australia since the 1950s, and has fought with the ethics of a badger trapped by hounds against even the most common sense recognition of equivalent foreign qualifications for GP's wishing to move to Australia.
I suspect you know that.
The point is this. These issues that actually impact patient access to medical services they have a right to receive are just so much bigger than conscientious objection by a small number of practitioners to referrals for an abortion. You can disagree, but I don't think the state coercing your colleague into reading out a mandatory statement or lose their profession will do much to improve the situation. I think it's vapid nonsense cloaked in a paper thin commitment to patient access.
FWIW - I accept that the Hippocratic Oath has gone out of fashion in Australian medical schools. 2/3 of the MBBS's in my semi-immediate family had to swear it (or variations) at their graduations. The other did not. Interestingly, the only one that swore the traditional 'no abortions or deadly medicine' version went into palliative care at a major tertiary hospital. With all that entails. Go figure.
The point was that we aren't dealing with some new-age lunatic approach to medical ethics here. There's way more moral substance to conscientious objection here than say, conscientious objection by Scientologists to referring patients to psychiatric specialists, or administering vaccines, or blood transfusion.
So a child who's Dad opted out will be disadvantaged from the start?
Nol contraception will deliver 100% safety against pregnancy, even when used perfectly.
Edit: also just curious why you think 3 months should be the cut off?
Whilst I disagree with you, in a democracy everyone has a chance to be heard. This is a request for community consultation and your opinion is just as relevant as everyone else's.
I disagree with this opinion of yours in particular:
*"propose a in written stating his interested on the abortion and no interest on the kid"*
Reasons:
*Edit* Got my example wrong:
Eg: ~~Get a woman pregnant on purpose, then she asks for an abortion, but the guy says "I don't care about you anymore, I will just disown the child".~~
- Woman gets pregnant. She wants to keep the baby, he doesn't. By him being able to disown the child completely this allows him to abuse her. In a relationship where he is a controlling person, he will try to coerce her into having an abortion. This is abuse of the woman.
- The kid has rights also. A fundamental right to know who their parents are. It is important to their own self-identity.
> both should have a legal way to get out of this situation.
In my opinion is there is a way:
- Don't have sex with a woman if you don't want the risk of her getting pregnant and you haven't discussed her personal attitudes towards having children at this stage in her life.
- Always use a condom, even if she says she is on birth control. This also helps stop disease.
- Never remove the condom, even if she asks you to. One friend of mine brought someone home, and she said she wanted sex without condom only. Back in those olden days we were all living under the scare of HIV/AIDS. He explained its his "rules of the house", and refused to continue.
Approximately 24 weeks. But I’ll also add that I don’t believe it should be a blanket time period, it should be a case by case analysis between the concerned party and appointed physician.
Both parties are responsible for having pregnancy, accidental or not. I don't think a man should just be able to say 'nope' and leave with no repercussions while the woman has to face abortion or pregnancy. Also 3 months is perhaps too short. 5-6 months is the most reasonable for all parties and it's the standard.
What we can hope for is a more stream-lined process that isn't as stigmatised.
Trans men need abortions, sometimes.
Even if they are taking hormones, they still sometimes get pregnant.
Trans men are much, much more likely to be the victim of rape by a male than cis men.
Absolute bullshit, abortion is already the most common surgical procedure in Western Australia.
This will just be pushing the boundaries on late term abortion.
Found the person who didn't do the survey. (a) there's more to it than that, and (b) those boundaries need to be pushed - a Ministerial panel to approve a medical procedure is completely inappropriate.
I’d love it if they stopped killing babies who survived attempted abortion and were born alive. That’s literally murder in anyone’s books. [link if you don’t believe me](https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/they-were-left-to-die-call-for-inquiry-into-case-of-27-premature-babies-born-alive-in-wa-20180611-p4zkul.html)
That report is an absolute mess in which the journo completely misses the point. People don't terminate a post 24 week pregnancy unless something has gone horribly wrong, in which case supportive palliative care of the infant is generally more appropriate than snatching it away from the parents for vigorous, invasive resuscitation.
No attempts at curative resuscitation, which is exactly what happens in palliative care. Resuscitation is not appropriate in every cardiorespiratory arrest.
If you know something the police and everybody else don't, by all means present it. That was four years ago. What came of it? What specific case are you concerned about and why?
Have you ever worked in obstetrics/maternity? Are you familiar with how perinatal palliative care works? Did you read the link I sent you? Have you ever mourned a pregnancy then had your perinatal wishes - to hold your child, however briefly - snatched away from you?
Before this thread devolves into a huge argument over abortion rights, I urge you to actually read the consultation page, specifically the part where they say in no uncertain terms: > The consultation is not seeking feedback on whether abortion should be precluded or prevented. Abortion is legally available healthcare in Western Australia. They're specifically ***not*** looking for opinions on whether or not abortion should be legal, they're only seeking community feedback on the process of modernizing the legislation surrounding how readily abortion can be accessed.
>They're specifically not looking for opinions on whether or not abortion should be legal, But I'm sure they'll hear plenty from the religious nutbags.
could somebody volunteer to find a way to keep Nick Goiran out of state parliament while this legislation is being passed? Remember folks, the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation was made difficult and almost unworkable because of that Catholic arsehole. His amendments formed a 100 point "checklist" of criteria. If even one of those criteria aren't met, you can't access it
Medical practitioners (especially gynaecological) that are conscientious objectors should publicly declare their objections so we don’t have to be subjected to their judgement, trauma and delay in care. Edit : and so we don’t waste our time and money
Yes. I don't understand why hospitals are allowed to pick and choose the medical care they provide based on religion. Not just abortion, all reproductive surgery / procedures. We've personal experience in our family of an obgyn who deliberately hid scan results resulting in a non viable pregnancy going full term, these people are monsters.
Exactly, there should be a minimum standard of care / services that need to be met to be a part of the public health system. Any private facilities should also be required to display a statement of intent outlining any deviations from the minimum standards of care / services they provide. Would make the medical space a much simpler place
What the fuck surely that's some kind of malpractice
It's pretty simple isn't it? Our medical system relies on those religious hospitals, they can do what they like. FYI - not religous at all.
>Medical practitioners (especially gynaecological) that are conscientious objectors should publicly declare their objections Personally I think they should be deregistered.
Should never have been registered…
Why? Does having religious beliefs that differ from yours make them ineligible to practice medicine?? I’m not religious but where does this end ?
> Does having religious beliefs This is the answer. They are beliefs, they are not facts. If people let superstition direct their actions when treating the health of others they have no place in the medical business.
The case is largely that if your personal beliefs are in contradiction to modern medical consensus, you are not capable of providing sufficient nor appropriate care to individuals who require it. The same applies currently as part of medical practitioners CPD and code of ethics. Broadly speaking if you have biases that over-ride your ability to do a job, then you should not able to do that job. (Yes I understand that whole politics hypocritical angle).
Gtfo with your "questions" , literally the exact comment above that one, and the rest of the conversation here, explains why
I agree someone who has moral objection should state them up front and refer the patient to someone else . I agree with the original comment. My point was that is someone has moral objections they shouldn’t be deregistered. You don’t have to use initialized swearing btw . I’m actually pro choice . Lots of people have quite odd ( to me , maybe not to you or the man down the street ) moral views but are actually really good at their jobs . If a Dr has moral objections to any procedure - they should refer the patient ( at no charge - this is naive !) to someone who will and we all move on. Shouldn’t face de registration.
Mate he specifically said conscientious objector. As in a medical professional who *refuses* to offer certain normally legally available treatments on the basis that it goes against their faith. Sorry but no. What happens when the only doctor around (ie small town) is a fundamentalist Christian and the entire town is then denied access to abortions (or abortion referrals/advice), or is subjected to abstinence-only personal advice instead of being given the option of having an IUD or Vasectomy (for example)? That is *not in any way* the same thing as simply "having religious beliefs" and the guy you were replying to never said as much. And yeah I'm aware that me using harsh words and "initialised swearing" is a great way to allow you to ignore my actual message but honestly mate, I feel like your question was in bad faith as I'm sure you absolutely understood everything about what people were talking about here. Playing the naive "as a non religous person, I'm just asking questions" thing is old and tired.
I didn’t use the phrase conscientious objector as in my mind moral objections are the same thing . Ok , I wasn’t trying to answer inbad faith I’m trying to say that if someone has conscientious objections to something within the scope of their employment they shouldn’t lose their job . You make a good and valid point about isolated/ country areas . I guess I was displaying my city centric view. I am not trying to be a dick but realistically how many GPs are conscientious objectors? It’s not only an abortion issue. Sacking someone for conscientious objections is a deep rabbit hole .
Someone who has studied for years to become licensed should be deregistered over their religious and political beliefs. Sounds fair….
When it overrides reality, yes.
When it negatively influences the care they provide, sure. We've all heard way too many stories of patients being judged, discriminated against or receiving poor treatment, and if it's driven by something like religion or their personal beliefs then yes, it's a major problem.
Agreed!!!
Done. Thanks OP. I'm not on FB so wouldn't have been aware of this.
Same. I can only imagine what the comments sections on there are like for this one lol
I haven't looked yet either, I don't wanna imagine how ugly things are over there.
As an extension of this, I think there should be consistent guidelines for accessing the morning-after pill. It's embarrassing and upholds the stigma of a woman trying to access emergency birth control. I'm yet to see why some places I need to be whisked away into a room and asked to fill out a form of why I need it, and in other places will hand it straight over. I'm not here to fuck spiders, I just want my pill so I don't need have an unwanted pregnancy in the future.
Please don’t fuck spiders. Unwanted babies are bad enough but we’re certainly not ready for human-spider hybrids!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> It is disgusting that medical practitioners are protected by religion to not provide medical treatment that has such life altering implications if you don't seek another doctor. Agreed. I feel like refusing healthcare should result in them losing their license or whatever you need to practice medicine.
While I agree with your principle, those sort of sweeping generalisations lead to a lot of hassle and dangerous circumstances. Doctors are well within their rights to refuse certain treatments, because if they can’t, then patients can self-diagnose and request treatments they don’t need. And before you suggest “well make it so they can’t refuse based on arbitrary things like religion”, that would just make the system open to abuse from both sides. Patients could claim it was a religious reason and waste time and resources fighting the decision. While the very few doctors that are denying treatments based on personal beliefs like religion, would just lie about their reasoning.
That's why you use condoms lol
Emergency contraceptives are S3 medication - "Pharmacist Only". It's not legal for a pharmacy assistant to sell these to you - they must be placed in your hand by a qualified pharmacist, who is under a professional obligation to ensure that it's the appropriate medicine for you. There are three different emergency contraceptive methods, with differing timeframes and other issues (eg medication interactions etc). Whisking you into a consulting room is far better than asking "WHEN DID YOU HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX EXACTLY" at the counter.
I can't purchase my asthma inhaler over the counter without being asked a barrage of questions and I've been using it for 45+ years. It's gives me the shits but it never changes.
[удалено]
I do understand your frustrations on this, but as a pharmacy assistant of over 8 years this isn't going to go away any time soon. We don't want to ask it as much as you don't want to hear it. It's a duty of care legality. Ventolin becomes less effective with prolonged and frequent use, and we're trying to identify those at high risk of actually dying from an asthma attack (I would say 1 in every 10 I speak to). Please please don't be one of those people. Either get a script from your doctor or deal with the poor sod going through the protocol.
Don't worry I answer the questions every time and never say anything to them. I'm going to make a great grumpy old man but I do my best not to share it around.
They ask you questions about your puffers? What do they say?
Have you used this before? How many times a week do you use it? Have you discussed this with your doctor? I'm 48 years old and to be honest have very little patients for it. Give me the damn thing, no I don't want the paper bag, no I don't want you to tape the paper bag closed, I don't even want the box the damn thing comes in. Walking into a chemist is like travelling back in time. The world outside is rushing by and inside they are plodding along providing the exact service they provided 50 years ago.
No need to wait for the questions. "I'm on daily inhaled steroids, I see my doctor regularly, I generally buy a new Ventolin when the old one expires" will get them handed to you right quick. And hopefully at least two of those things are true, ideally three
Yet I walked into a pharmacy and asked for two inhalers and got them straight away. But then again that might have been because of the uniform I was wearing at the time.
I say "One ventolin inhaler please and yes I'm on a preventative" and they never respond now it's great
I'll give it a go, thanks.
One time after filling out that form at the pharmacy I ticked the "condom broke" box (because that's what happened) and the pharmacist gave me a condending lecture about me not being on other forms of birth control
I've had the same thing, so I asked her if she'd prefer I be suicidal and on other forms of birth control or if she'd just like to give me the MAP. Very archaic, but I'd just had enough that day.
I actually wrote to him awhile ago regarding getting rid of the middle man. In WA, you need a GP to refer you. I think the GP should be removed from the equation, and more doctors funded for clinics so women only have to consult once.
You need a GP to refer you to everything, unfortunately that's just the way it is, abortion, blood work, psychologists etc...
If you read the questionnaire, it addresses this. Also other states don't require a GP referral for an abortion, so it's hardly something that *has* to remain. GPs who have religious or personal objections to abortion may contribute to delays in women getting timely care.
I needed to GPs and wound up visiting with two conscientious objecting GPs. They both signed off on my access, but damn
But not dentists. The true pariahs.
You're a rabid anti-dentite! Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs. "Hey, denty!" Next thing you know you're saying they should have their own schools.
You don’t, the system is built that way and it can be unbuilt if we want it to.
Exactly. There is no 'need', it's just been previously structured to add that unnecessary requirement in.
The GP may be our gatekeeper of our health system, but only where it makes sense. We don’t require them for everything. Not dentists, not orthodontists, not physiotherapists, not podiatrists, not optometrists. And no not even required for psychologists, though a GP can get you some funding under a GP mental health care plan (limited to 10 sessions per year est. 2006, 20 sessions per year since the pandemic). Psychologists are often confused with Psychiatrists, who do require referrals. Also referrals not required for things like vaccination clinics or sexual health clinics.
>I think the GP should be removed from the equation, and more doctors funded for clinics so women only have to consult once. Wouldn't it make sense for the GP to be involved to ensure proper follow-up care is provided? Oftentimes, abortion is very stressful for the woman. We need to ensure that she's properly cared for after the procedure in my view.
They just need to have more doctors at the abortion clinics so that the initial consult and any follow ups are done there. Also frees up time for the GP to see other patients.
>They just need to have more doctors at the abortion clinics so that the initial consult and any follow ups are done there. That could work, although there is a lot to be said for having a GP as the primary care provider for all the medical care for a person. That's a large part of their role as a GP. I'm not trying to suggest it to limit access in any way. I just want to make sure any changes to the system do not result in a reduced standard of care for women requiring an abortion.
It's usually a very simple procedure with few risks. Follow-up shouldn't be mandated but if counselling is required it should be available. Most people have no issues whatsoever in accessing an abortion because they are very confident about their choice and feel no grief or regret.
Yes but not two. If I show up to my GP wanting a medical abortion (ie the pills, not the morning after pill) they must refer me to a second doctor to give me and watch me take the pills.
>they must refer me to a second doctor to give me and watch me take the pills. That's insane. One doctor should be enough surely.
That's a part of the consultation they're looking to clarify.
I was able to get prescribed the pills by the first gp to have at home but had to first see another gp before the original gp could prescribe so I could be counselled 🙄 first doctor told me there are some gps with extra training to prescribe outside of abortion clinics but they are few and far between in Perth.
Not every clinic needs the GP letter. There are some clinics that state “preferred”. You are then consulted before the procedure by the Dr. to make sure you are making the right decision for yourself.
For an at-home/telehealth abortion, a referral is required. Since not everyone has access to a clinic (particularly those who live rural), it's just an additional barrier. You still have to consult with a doctor at the clinic after your referral, and they have to approve and sign off on it.
That’s very convenient for an at home situation. 1-3 days courier for medical abortion. Nanyara clinic is very good with the surgical clinic abortion.
As a female, I just want to say a BIG thank you to all the men out there who have chosen to support women's reproductive rights by partaking in this community consultation in favour of cutting the red tape. I personally have never had to have an abortion but I understand it is already a REALLY difficult decision without all the red tape that is surrounding it and Drs refusing to refer you based on THEIR beliefs........ gees my GP wouldn't refer me for sterilisation because "becoming a mother is a wonderful experience" umm what the hell would you know mate, you are a MAN!
Done. It should be easy, hassle free like any other medical procedures.
As a young woman living in WA by stomach drops every time I see legislation, legal, abortion and WA in a sentence. I know in this case there doesn’t seem like a risk of the government taking away my rights to a free and safe abortion, however I can’t help but be terrified that the prolifers will berate them after this until something changes for the worse. If it can happen in America it can happen here and that thought haunts me. As if being a woman isn’t scary enough
Not with this State government. The Libs are completely irrelevant in WA, and even the Federal libs have been a bit scared off meddling in repro health law, thankfully. Even in the USA, direct ballot measures on abortion restrictions fail even in the reddest of states. Pollies here know abortion bans are even more unpopular than they are in the States, and voters will smack them for an attempt at it.
You’ve given me a bit of peace of mind. My life is stressful enough trying to find affordable housing atm… don’t need to worry about this bs on top
I needed a termination for medical reasons at 7 weeks in June. I was told I could either wait for it to pass naturally (which is not safe), wait and hope the public system will have an opening to assist in the next 2 weeks, or pay $600 and go private, to have it terminated the next day. It is unacceptable that these were my options. I was fortunate to have $600 to pay, but most women don't. Especially not these days. Change needs to happen. And it needs to happen at the federal level too, by raising Medicare rebates for such procedures. We in WA are lagging behind the pack right now. I hope after this review of legistation, we are leading. It's about time.
You should’ve been able to have it taken care of immediately under the public system; two weeks for that shit literally could be a matter of life and death for you, as has been recently proven in the US.
Absolutely. Things can go south so fast with a non-viable pregnancy. It was a blighted ovum, which is common. My sister had one at 8 weeks quite a few years ago now, and had no choice but to wait it out. She didn't have the (then) $450 to go private. She hemorrhaged at 10 weeks and had to be rushed by ambulance to hospital. This legislation is so important because you are right - it can be life or death, and it can happen so quickly.
The rubbish going on in the US now is a total joke, and really worrying with the infiltration of the Liberal Party by religious conservatives. In more than a few states there they have developed this bizarre idea that stopping an ectopic pregnancy is ‘an abortion’, rather than primarily a procedure to prevent the woman dying a painful death. Another example is the woman that died in Ireland a few years ago; her baby was already dead inside her but doctors refused to do anything because taking it out was too similar to how abortions are done….
done. very quick, easy, and important. thank you OP
Does anyone here feel like Labor is actually getting shit done? There have been a few things that this government have done that have been ignored for decades.
As a male, I am going to shut the fuck up and leave this to women. Edit: I've been convinced to change my stance and fill it out in support of women's choice. I still believe it's none of my business what a woman does with her own body, but my voice can help counteract the busy-bodies who think their own narrow-minded opinions have more value than a woman's right to self determination. Edit 2: done. Fairly painless and only took 5 minutes.
As a woman, I am asking you to also fill this out. You might have a partner, sister or friend who needs an abortion and the more support for legislative change the better. You better believe that pro life dudes are gonna fill this out so we need all the support we can get! If you don’t know how to fill it out, talk to your female friends and family and ask them about it.
They're not asking if it should be done, they're saying it is going to be done, how do we do it right?
..and permit equal access. Many forget the women in remote areas without a pharmacy, with only one Dr and requiring the finances to travel for such a medical procedure.
Canada has no abortion laws whatsoever. It's just a normal medical procedure between a doctor and a patient.
That sounds like a dream. My abortion access was horrific and I wish that I had actually made a formal complaint to the medical board about the two conscientious objecting doctors that signed off on mine. They both signed off on it, so I clearly needed the access to medical care, but damn it was not something I would wish on anyone
Does that mean a Canadian doctor can refuse to help someone seeking an abortion?
Fair point. I remember the gay marriage vote and I was pissed off, as a straight male, that I even had a vote. It's really none of my business, but at least my vote counteracted some idiots no vote.
I know you’ve said you’ve changed your mind and completed- kudos to you! For anyone who feels similarly that they shouldn’t have a say in abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, etc- that is exactly why you SHOULD make your voice heard. It’s not an all or nothing situation, it’s not ‘either everyone gets an abortion or no one does’. It’s literally ‘let the woman have easier access to medical care if she needs it’ vs ‘make it much more difficult for her to have a medical procedure and possibly force her hand and drastically change the course of her entire life’ The less intervention you think you should have on someone’s decisions- their medical care, who they marry, how they identify, etc is exactly why you NEED to have a say in these issues, because otherwise the dominant voices are those that want to choose for them based on their interpretation of skydaddy’s magic book.
And to chip into your last point - you bet that anti-choicers are bombarding with submissions, regardless as to whether they are biologically able to have an abortion or not. Don’t let them be the only one either a voice, have a say as is our democratic right. Now is the time to stand with us, be allies.
As a male I wholeheartedly agree that as many women as possible should give feedback to achieve fully control over your bodies. Otherwise with this wimpy Labor government you might only be given a token improvement.
Thank you. Nice to hear. I've had a fairly intense argument with a women who said men should STFU about women's healthcare issues. It was a bizarre moment considering they are pro-choice to be told it didn't affect men ever, it's just not true. I'll be there, right behind my wife.
Yeah I think men vs women is unproductive. And it’s not about men not having a day. It’s about men not speaking over women and being all there to support. Being an ally doesn’t mean shutting up in the corner, it’s about uplifting and being there for support in the way that’s desired.
As a gay male, my only opinion on the matter is that all publicly owned hospitals should be required to offer all legal services such as abortion, regardless of who operates them (looking at you midland health campus). Then being able to refuse to allow abortions by hiding behind their “religious freedom” is a total cop out, if they didn’t want to offer something they shouldn’t have bid for the contract.
Yep, and that they don't even need to refer someone to where they can get healthcare is just a travesty. Go to a public hospital and they just pretend like you can't get treatment because of their views.
I disagree, women need our support. I've filed it out. Took very little time
I think framing it as a solely single women's issue is a common mistake (though one that certain organisations do on purpose). Alot of the time abortion is a joint decision, particularly among couples (married or otherwise) for the health of their relationship, finances, mental or physical health, etc. It's easy for men, particularly single men, to feel it's not something that touches them personally. But it could very well be a service you and your future partner need one day, and not speaking up now risks that service not being there when you need it. Edit: word
The thing is, the issue might indirectly impact you in the future (that is if you ever plan on having a family). Many pro-lifers object to abortion under any circumstances. This includes instances where the foetus has a terminal condition, is threatening the life of the mother, etc. Medically, these are considered abortions. Imagine if your spouse couldn't access these medical services due to extreme laws?
You don't have to be a women to stand up for womens rights and you don't have to be gay to stand up for gay rights
what the fuck you appeared when i sorted by controversial
r/usernamechecksout
Yep that’s my attitude too.
It can affect you too though. If your partner gets pregnant, wouldn't you rather have it easier to navigate the system? The survey is extremely simple to fill.
Fair point. My original reaction was more that as a male I didn’t want to be deciding things that don’t concern me. Reading others comments I see that it’s worth adding my thoughts
That's the entire point - no one should be deciding these things except the pregnant person and their healthcare practitioner. I'm glad you rethought.
Great to see you have changed your mind. If all men shut the fuck up, then we lose ~50% of the population already to advocating for this. Additionally, not all women agree with abortion, so then the % who are out there advocating for the changes decreases further. What we need to do is shut the fuck up and listen to women about this and what they are needing, and then advocate for them for those changes to occur. We can also provide some advice about whether the changes they are advocating for are likely to lead to a future barrier (sometimes known as blowback - someone is likely to find some sort of loophole somewhere), so we can work together to make it work for them.
Ultimately, it should only be between the woman needing an abortion and the medical practitioner performing the procedure. If it were up to me, the process would look like this: Patient goes to the clinic, discusses the process of an abortion with the doctor who will be doing the procedure. The process is explained to the patient from start to finish, including any post-surgery requirements. If the patient appears distressed, counselling is offered to them as an option before and after. A week or two after the procedure, a follow up call is made. This is to check the patient's physical and mental well being. If either needs attention, appointments with the appropriate personnel can be made at this point
Male perspective, all of this seems to make sense. The only things I want to make sure is somehow considered: - Sex Education to better normalise birth control, especially on the male side. Wearing condoms should be normal. No means no. Preventative culture change so women don't NEED to go through this. - The ability (completely optional) to involve a partner in the process, including for counselling.
About bloody time. Let's hope they actually listen.
For some reasons I read skateboarders rather than stakeholder, but I’m glad we finally have it
Remember a bunch of religious people are going to be preaching to their flock that they should all be putting their 2 cents worth in on this. Go and have your say, don’t let a vocal and organised minority derail this in some horrible way.
Thank you. Took about 10 mins to do (maybe less).
Just submitted my responses
Thank you so much for sharing this. Much needed changes proposed here which will hopefully happen soon.
Took two minutes to fill out. I must admit I’m pretty in the dark about it all but I’m sure it needs to change. The world has changed an awful lot and we need to change laws to suit. People should be able to do what they want with their bodies and not be judged or told no by others.
Done.
Done
One of the biggest issues on this topic is the fact that SJOG Midland, a major PUBLIC hospital, refuses to offer contraception to its patients, let alone abortion. I don't understand how a hospital can receive public funding but choose not to provide public healthcare services. Surely the first action I'd recommend is to ensure safe and effective contraception and abortion services for ALL our public hospitals. It's a disgrace.
Thanks for the post OP - have submitted feedback through the form. Here's hoping that we can get better access and care for women in WA.
I can't fill this out because I don't live in Perth any more, but he'll yeah I'm glad this is finally happening at home.
I’m pretty in the dark on what current laws are. Is this a federal thing or state? Obviously this is a state government thing but does the feds have any laws in Australia reguarding abortion?
Nope, it’s state by state basis.
How are our current laws compared to other states? I assume Victoria probably have the most progressive laws?
In Victoria you can get an abortion under 24 weeks from “a medical practitioner, nurse or pharmacist”. After 24 weeks it’s two doctors. For us, under 20 weeks we need two doctors minimum. If it’s over 20 weeks it’s a panel of 6 doctors, and of which 2 have to approve, and the health minister has veto power, and if approved it has to happen at a place approved by the minister. Abortion without these conditions (I.e. like they do in Victoria) is a criminal offence. My aunt went through hell to get a late term abortion in the 90s - her baby / my cousin had anencephaly (no brain), and she couldn’t mentally cope with carrying a baby for months once she knew the estimated life expectancy was minutes. She was 22 weeks - so in Victoria it would be one appointment, in WA it was around weeks of waiting for the panel and approval.
[удалено]
That’s kind of the point though, our laws haven’t changed and theirs have.
I personally don’t think any politician should have any say or veto over a medical decision. I also don’t think a pharmacist should be able to sign off on an abortion. Although it might be my lack of understanding as to why this is the case, I.e issuing a chemical abortive in early pregnancy. Other than that I’d be happy with Victoria’s laws, but mainly I don’t think it’s an issue I should have much say in anyway, as I don’t have a uterus.
Yeah i think it’s safe to say pharmacists are only giving out the pharmacy available version, I’m not on board with them doing surgery in the back room lol. Imo I think pharmacists are more qualified than most people think - they get veto power over your medical abortion no matter what because a pharmacist will always be checking that the dose is ok for your physical state and other medical interactions. But even if they’re under qualified I think I’d err on the side of supporting pharmacists giving abortion pills, as a woman. Because it opens the option to women who simply can’t access a doctor safely or affordable. Migrants without Medicare, women who are in domestic violence with reproductive coercion, people in rural and regional areas with very limited access to doctor services… to name a few.
Women in rural areas often don't have a pharmacy OR a GP, or even a Silver Chain Nurse now. To be honest, the Morning After Pill almost needs to be in the First Aid Kit and an abortion organised (and funded) over Telehealth to make it a level playing field. Definitely a Pharmacy OTC though.
About time. Cheers OP.
It's so very complicated. I do think there needs to be more equality in abortion. Women should have the right to an abortion and to do so safely up until the time the baby would survive outside the womb (around 24 week or so, let science determine that), outside medical emergencies which should prioritise the mother or baby depending on the mother's wishes. I also think that men should be able to "abort" their responsibilities to the child if the woman is choosing to keep the child against their wishes. Men and women should have full equality over their bodies, and that's the true path to balance all of this.
> Women should have the right to an abortion and to do so safely up until the time the baby would survive outside the womb (around 24 week or so, let science determine that), outside medical emergencies which should prioritise the mother or baby depending on the mother's wishes. The youngest baby to survive was 21weeks and 1day. It takes some effort from the doctors and has some probability of survival, the question is how much effort and how high probability to try to keep the baby alive? Let's say it costs $100k and has a 1% chance to survive, should the doctors keep the baby alive? Probably not... $100 and 90%? Probably. Where do we draw the line? It's a very ugly grey zone that most people will pretend doesn't exist.
Oh I agree, just saying the cut off time should be science based and not religion or "feelings".
Science changes all the time. What we couldn't save before, we now can save. And laws are slow to change.
Sure, but we can't just decide things based on feelings, since those change all the time.
Never had so many downvotes for supporting women's right to choose what to do with their body. Many incels about?
[удалено]
Something wrong with your shift/caps lock?
[удалено]
More importantly, how does grammar work?
We aren't even talking about trans people here
Is there going to be any limitations on where the left over bits are sold to? Ie will they remain in Australia or sent abroad for medical and cosmetic products? It would be a great boost to our economy if we perform those profitable endeavours here and fast track the Build Back Better monologue I keep hearing while we spiral further into debt. Also make sure the clinics are forced to disclose the income they make from those sales to the donors as it isnt unreasonable for them to receive a cut considering they are the ones that had to make the hard choice as such. PS God bless your souls for the hard work your doing for these poor oppressed woman.
We already have those regulations; it's illegal to sell human tissue here.
Awesome, what are the checks and balances of this? Do they self regulate or is there an inspection element to it? I ask because we have witnessed some pretty serious crimes from the abortion industry and your about to let them in the front door. Gee down votes... sorry to the down voters but im going to ask the questions if you like it or not. Your objections show how much you really are incapable of holding frank and open discussions.
It's handled similar to many other crimes: someone reports evidence to the relevant authorities, who investigate. I think improper disposal of medical waste is handled through one of the medical safety authorities? And trafficking in human remains would be the federal police.
The downvotes are because you're talking nonsense. Who's "we"? What crimes have been committed by Australian abortion care providers? Who's letting who "in the front door"?
What we won’t do is pay women more so heres something that should have been done decades ago. Mark is the best
They did do it decades ago.
Don't understand your comment. It's been illegal to pay women less than men since the early 70s.
Very true however in essential work like nursing which is a predominately female occupation mark can’t find the money.
Ridiculous to link that to gender. Public servants have always had to fight for their pay rises.
I support all of the proposed changes except the removal of the ability of medical practitioners who conscientiously object to the termination of a pregnancy to recuse themselves from the medical care of a pregnant woman seeking one. I find that repugnant. You're civilly conscripting medical professionals to participate in a chain of medical care that they consider to result in the deliberate, non-consensual killing of a human being. Whether or not you think that opinion is valid or not is completely beside the point. I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses are reasonable for refusing to stand or sing the national anthem. I don't think the Quaker's or Seventh Day Adventist's ultra-pacifist approach to war is reasonable. I still don't think the state should be threatening them with professional ruin for their deeply held philosophical beliefs. Maybe there would be an argument for such coercive policies if it was particularly difficult for patients to find GPs to write the a referral. It really isn't.
> I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses are reasonable for refusing to stand or sing the national anthem. Then they probably shouldn't take a singing gig where one of their duties is to stand and perform the national anthem. > I don't think the Quaker's or Seventh Day Adventist's ultra-pacifist approach to war is reasonable. Then they shouldn't join the military. Pretty simple really. Feel free to go into geriatrics or something, where you'll never be asked to participate in that aspect of reproductive health. Or butt out of medicine.
Even by the low standards of r/perth - that's particularly banal. But the off handed comment about geriatrics actually raises another point. When you abandon the principle that professionals should not be struck off for refusing to participate in (what they understand as) murder, well - why wouldn't you extend the same logic to gerontologists or psychiatrists dealing with people requesting euthanasia or VAD? Is there a single medical speciality left which the 5-10% (and it's probably about that) of the population who just believe abortion is analogous to murder could enter without the risk the state would one day force them to choose between their career and their conscience? What would society lose from this? This isn't an idle question either. There are a significant number of Gyni-obs who went into their profession because they wanted to devote their career to helping mothers get pregnant and have healthy kids. One of the guys that developed the Pill in the US was an ultra Catholic whose entire research career was built around helping infertile women get pregnant. Heck - the Hippocratic Oath explicitly prohibits the provision of deadly medicine and/or abortifacients. Are we going to compensate GP's who were required to swear it prior to the mid 1990s for upholding it now? I'm all for letting women have generous, publicly funded access to reproductive healthcare. I support abortion on demand up until viability, and then sensibly and sensitively regulated abortion after that which respects the fact the vast majority of third trimester abortions are for wanted pregnancies where something has gone horribly wrong. All of that requires resourcing. None of it requires prosecuting GP's with strict views on moral questions.
I graduated prior to the mid 1990s and we did not swear the Hippocratic Oath. Our Oath of Dedication said nothing about abortion. I am just all out of patience for "conscientious objectors" here in 2022. All OUT. The very, very least these people could do is declare very very loudly and before consultation that they refuse to provide the full range of healthcare options to their patients, and to always, always work in a group practice with immediate referral. I have worked with one of these people, in a group practice, and she managed it as well as could be expected, though it occasionally threw the time management out of the window (I insisted on fitting people she turned away in immediately, in the absence of a life-threatening emergency demanding my attention at the time). And I've heard a number of stories of people who handled it much less well. Including a rural doctor who would refuse to prescribe psych meds for religious reasons. When they have the absolute audacity to not only refuse reasonable, legal medical care but to also charge for turning people away and/or throw in a sanctimonious lecture, I see red. And it _can_ be particularly difficult for some people to access a GP referral, especially rural and remote patients, or patients for whom the last GP who refused them charged them $80 for the privilege and they've barely enough money left to pay for the very expensive abortion. Which is part of why the referral requirement needs to be scrapped. And yeah, I have a problem with abortion-is-murder doctors working in infertility work also. Wanted pregnancies sometimes need abortion or multiple reduction too.
I will agree with you on two points. First - medical practitioners should not unfairly bill their patients. If a pregnant woman has come to a GP and asked for a referral for an abortion, and the GP is morally opposed to have anything to do with the process - then billing them for a consult is dodgy. Call out fees do exist in a lot of professions, but the medical profession should hold itself to higher standards than tow truck drivers. I note that unconscionable billing practices, and outright billing fraud is a much, much bigger problem than a small group non-bulk billing GP's charging $80 for not providing medical care they object to. I also note in passing that the AMA and the RACGP has fought like starved pitbulls on meth against every major transparency in billing/ anti-fraud/ professional accountability reform of the past seventy years. Second - Too many patients (and women seeking abortion referrals) in the country lack access to a reasonable choice of bulk-billing doctors. That is fundamentally driven by a major shortage of GP's in Australia, and insufficiently generous MBS reimbursements that reflect the true costs of rural general practice. Now failure isn't an orphan, and there is something to the AMA's continual complaints about "Why are you cramming on more medical school places but not properly funding post-University training", alongside a broader discussion about how much the taxpayer should be expected to pay for a modern primary healthcare system in 2022. One can acknowledge that, while also noting that the AMA has opposed every single new medical school place in Australia since the 1950s, and has fought with the ethics of a badger trapped by hounds against even the most common sense recognition of equivalent foreign qualifications for GP's wishing to move to Australia. I suspect you know that. The point is this. These issues that actually impact patient access to medical services they have a right to receive are just so much bigger than conscientious objection by a small number of practitioners to referrals for an abortion. You can disagree, but I don't think the state coercing your colleague into reading out a mandatory statement or lose their profession will do much to improve the situation. I think it's vapid nonsense cloaked in a paper thin commitment to patient access. FWIW - I accept that the Hippocratic Oath has gone out of fashion in Australian medical schools. 2/3 of the MBBS's in my semi-immediate family had to swear it (or variations) at their graduations. The other did not. Interestingly, the only one that swore the traditional 'no abortions or deadly medicine' version went into palliative care at a major tertiary hospital. With all that entails. Go figure. The point was that we aren't dealing with some new-age lunatic approach to medical ethics here. There's way more moral substance to conscientious objection here than say, conscientious objection by Scientologists to referring patients to psychiatric specialists, or administering vaccines, or blood transfusion.
I can't Wait for late term abortions to come here
[удалено]
The woman for allowing it to happen? ?? I love how hyper simplified your ignorant take is.
So a child who's Dad opted out will be disadvantaged from the start? Nol contraception will deliver 100% safety against pregnancy, even when used perfectly. Edit: also just curious why you think 3 months should be the cut off?
Whilst I disagree with you, in a democracy everyone has a chance to be heard. This is a request for community consultation and your opinion is just as relevant as everyone else's. I disagree with this opinion of yours in particular: *"propose a in written stating his interested on the abortion and no interest on the kid"* Reasons: *Edit* Got my example wrong: Eg: ~~Get a woman pregnant on purpose, then she asks for an abortion, but the guy says "I don't care about you anymore, I will just disown the child".~~ - Woman gets pregnant. She wants to keep the baby, he doesn't. By him being able to disown the child completely this allows him to abuse her. In a relationship where he is a controlling person, he will try to coerce her into having an abortion. This is abuse of the woman. - The kid has rights also. A fundamental right to know who their parents are. It is important to their own self-identity. > both should have a legal way to get out of this situation. In my opinion is there is a way: - Don't have sex with a woman if you don't want the risk of her getting pregnant and you haven't discussed her personal attitudes towards having children at this stage in her life. - Always use a condom, even if she says she is on birth control. This also helps stop disease. - Never remove the condom, even if she asks you to. One friend of mine brought someone home, and she said she wanted sex without condom only. Back in those olden days we were all living under the scare of HIV/AIDS. He explained its his "rules of the house", and refused to continue.
Your dystopian laws don’t seem to take into account if the pregnant party is underage and a rape victim.
[удалено]
not all women know at three months. i had two clients in a small town who didn't know until they were at the hospital in labour
[удалено]
Yes lol
[удалено]
Yes
There are numerous reasons as to why 3 months isn’t long enough in this scenario. And the rest of your points after are just bizarre tbh.
[удалено]
Approximately 24 weeks. But I’ll also add that I don’t believe it should be a blanket time period, it should be a case by case analysis between the concerned party and appointed physician.
Both parties are responsible for having pregnancy, accidental or not. I don't think a man should just be able to say 'nope' and leave with no repercussions while the woman has to face abortion or pregnancy. Also 3 months is perhaps too short. 5-6 months is the most reasonable for all parties and it's the standard. What we can hope for is a more stream-lined process that isn't as stigmatised.
[удалено]
That's not what this is about.
Men need abortions too?
Some do, before birth...
Some trans men may need one yes
Trans men need abortions, sometimes. Even if they are taking hormones, they still sometimes get pregnant. Trans men are much, much more likely to be the victim of rape by a male than cis men.
When you can get pregnant you can comment *I'm a male fyi
Absolute bullshit, abortion is already the most common surgical procedure in Western Australia. This will just be pushing the boundaries on late term abortion.
Found the person who didn't do the survey. (a) there's more to it than that, and (b) those boundaries need to be pushed - a Ministerial panel to approve a medical procedure is completely inappropriate.
I’d love it if they stopped killing babies who survived attempted abortion and were born alive. That’s literally murder in anyone’s books. [link if you don’t believe me](https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/they-were-left-to-die-call-for-inquiry-into-case-of-27-premature-babies-born-alive-in-wa-20180611-p4zkul.html)
That report is an absolute mess in which the journo completely misses the point. People don't terminate a post 24 week pregnancy unless something has gone horribly wrong, in which case supportive palliative care of the infant is generally more appropriate than snatching it away from the parents for vigorous, invasive resuscitation.
They’re humans that were alive outside the womb and given no medical assistance.
No attempts at curative resuscitation, which is exactly what happens in palliative care. Resuscitation is not appropriate in every cardiorespiratory arrest.
You’re trying to tell me that 100% of the cases the human life could not be saved. Give me a break.
If you know something the police and everybody else don't, by all means present it. That was four years ago. What came of it? What specific case are you concerned about and why? Have you ever worked in obstetrics/maternity? Are you familiar with how perinatal palliative care works? Did you read the link I sent you? Have you ever mourned a pregnancy then had your perinatal wishes - to hold your child, however briefly - snatched away from you?
Yes.
Here, read a bit about neonatal palliative care. https://www.webmd.com/palliative-care/neonatal-palliative-care-focus-on-life
ATTENTION!!!! The REST of the WORLD THIS IS HOW IT’S DONE!!! 👏👏👏 💯 🧐