Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 1:02:10 GMT -5
A medical professional has denounced in a public letter that in her own hospital, at the time one of the largest and most established public hospitals in Madrid, they have refused to perform an abortion due to the complication of her pregnancy that made it unviable and that It posed an added risk to their health, with the sole argument that all gynecology specialists had declared themselves conscientious objectors to the 'voluntary' interruption of pregnancy. A strange unanimity, which does not even allow us to help a colleague at risk. Based on this, the woman was referred to a private clinic specialized in pregnancy terminations, as if it were an abortion by her own decision, when there were additional clinical reasons to perform it in the hospital itself with all the guarantees. The fundamental problem in this case is that we are dealing with a therapeutic abortion, which is the interruption of pregnancy that is carried out for medical reasons, that is, a case that poses a risk to the mother.
Faced with a process that has been legalized since the first indications law of the eighties, but that has been part of good medical practice since long before, although even when I was a student it was still waited until the end of pregnancy in women with serious respiratory problems. , so much so that more than one fell by the wayside before giving birth. According to this archaic Australia Phone Number interpretation, not very different from that of the Taliban, regarding the lower value of women's lives, the pregnancy had to be allowed to evolve, even if it posed a danger to the mother, until the final outcome. That is what was done then, although fortunately not in all cases, before democracy and abortion laws. The unborn ended up prevailing before the life of the mother. Therefore, the aforementioned refusal to attend a therapeutic abortion is an extreme case of perversion of the right to conscientious objection to deny health care, that is, we are facing a more than probable case.
Fraud of law, collective malpractice and including denial of help and mistreatment, by also stealing health care from a colleague at the same health center. An inconceivable medical act, as well as humiliating. In this case, conscientious objection does not even apply, since it would be the same as refusing any other treatment or surgery that is indicated in medical practice, citing reasons of conscience. The life of the mother has long prevailed over that of a fetus, and even more so if the fetus is unviable, both in medicine and in law. Until now, the majority of therapeutic abortions, which also carry some degree of risk, have been carried out completely normally in public health hospitals, with the rest of those included in the deadlines law being referred to private clinics. A kind of functional distribution, although not exactly legal. Conscientious objection cannot in any case be used to boycott a legally recognized right and benefit. On the other hand, even if it were a case of pregnancy interruption contemplated in the law of deadlines and therefore without therapeutic motivations, conscientious objection cannot in any case be used to boycott a legally recognized right and benefit.
Faced with a process that has been legalized since the first indications law of the eighties, but that has been part of good medical practice since long before, although even when I was a student it was still waited until the end of pregnancy in women with serious respiratory problems. , so much so that more than one fell by the wayside before giving birth. According to this archaic Australia Phone Number interpretation, not very different from that of the Taliban, regarding the lower value of women's lives, the pregnancy had to be allowed to evolve, even if it posed a danger to the mother, until the final outcome. That is what was done then, although fortunately not in all cases, before democracy and abortion laws. The unborn ended up prevailing before the life of the mother. Therefore, the aforementioned refusal to attend a therapeutic abortion is an extreme case of perversion of the right to conscientious objection to deny health care, that is, we are facing a more than probable case.
Fraud of law, collective malpractice and including denial of help and mistreatment, by also stealing health care from a colleague at the same health center. An inconceivable medical act, as well as humiliating. In this case, conscientious objection does not even apply, since it would be the same as refusing any other treatment or surgery that is indicated in medical practice, citing reasons of conscience. The life of the mother has long prevailed over that of a fetus, and even more so if the fetus is unviable, both in medicine and in law. Until now, the majority of therapeutic abortions, which also carry some degree of risk, have been carried out completely normally in public health hospitals, with the rest of those included in the deadlines law being referred to private clinics. A kind of functional distribution, although not exactly legal. Conscientious objection cannot in any case be used to boycott a legally recognized right and benefit. On the other hand, even if it were a case of pregnancy interruption contemplated in the law of deadlines and therefore without therapeutic motivations, conscientious objection cannot in any case be used to boycott a legally recognized right and benefit.