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