Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Some points to ponder
Message-ID: <7337@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 10:53:27 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.7337
Posted: Thu Mar 22 10:53:27 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 20:22:41 EST
References: <3882@lanl-a.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21


Apparently pro-choice groups are divided on the rights of the doctor, but from
what I know of the pro-choice organisations in this country (caral etc), their
position is that abortion should be matter that is strictly between a woman and
her doctor.
This means that the doctor has as much right to refuse to perform an abortion
as the woman has a right to get one.  The woman has a right to find another
doctor who will perform an abortion.  This definition runs into problems for
cases of people living in rural areas where there is no choice of doctors and
the only alternative is for a woman to travel to get an abortion, something that
poor people cannot always do.

Another point of view is that abortion is medical treatment just like any
other and that a doctor has no right to refuse to treat somebody.  However
doctors already have a right to refuse to treat people, if the people cannot
afford to pay him, or if the treatment requested is to terminate the life of the
patient, so I don't believe the right of patients to force doctors to treat them
will ever be inforced.

				Sophie Quigley
			...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley