• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
23,542
Reaction score
15,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A Polish teenager who became pregnant after rape should have had unhindered access to an abortion, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. The girl, who was then 14, was forced to have a clandestine abortion after harassment from pro-life groups led to her being turned away from hospitals.

--snip--

The girl, named only as "P" went to two different hospitals with her mother in her hometown of Lublin in south-east Poland to try and obtain an abortion.


At one, a Roman Catholic priest attempted to convince her to have the child. Hospital management then issued a press release saying they would not perform the procedure, leading to her case becoming caught up in Poland's ongoing debate about abortion.
The girl then travelled to a hospital in Warsaw, but doctors there said they were under pressure not to go ahead with the procedure.
The court documents say the pair left the hospital "feeling manipulated and helpless", after which they were harassed by pro-life groups and eventually taken in for several hours of police questioning.

The authorities then accused the mother of trying to force her daughter into having an abortion and had "P" placed in a juvenile shelter. Link.

One of the times I agree with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, whatever happened to this poor girl's privacy that a priest turn up at the first hospital to convince her not to abort and then to end up in custody.
 
No ****, says reason.
 
Wow - I can't even imagine how horrid the entire experience was for a 14 year old child to go through . . . they should be ashamed of their selves - everyone who harassed her and made her suffer even more after she already suffered through a horrifying ordeal.
 
Poland is a Catholic country, this is to be expected there.

Yes but they are part of the EU and subject to the EUCHR (European Union Court of Human Rights), there are going to be more cases like this for those countries that wish to stay within the EU.

God vs EU aid packages, I know which one will win in the long term.
 
Yes but they are part of the EU and subject to the EUCHR (European Union Court of Human Rights), there are going to be more cases like this for those countries that wish to stay within the EU.

God vs EU aid packages, I know which one will win in the long term.

Never underestimate the power of the Catholic church in Europe.
 
This was an eye-opener to me. I'm shocked that the girl was not only prevented from having an abortion which was completely legal under Polish law, but that the hospitals blatantly violated the girl's medical and personal privacy by basically putting out a press release naming her, and telling the world she was seeking an abortion. That she was then detained by the police and removed from her home in an attempt to force her, a raped 14-year-old child, to carry the pregnancy to term is an absolute outrage. :2mad:
 
That she was then detained by the police and removed from her home in an attempt to force her, a raped 14-year-old child, to carry the pregnancy to term is an absolute outrage. :2mad:

...Coming soon to a place called America
 
This was an eye-opener to me. I'm shocked that the girl was not only prevented from having an abortion which was completely legal under Polish law, but that the hospitals blatantly violated the girl's medical and personal privacy by basically putting out a press release naming her, and telling the world she was seeking an abortion. That she was then detained by the police and removed from her home in an attempt to force her, a raped 14-year-old child, to carry the pregnancy to term is an absolute outrage. :2mad:

The first hospital was a Catholic hospital. Why should they be forced to give abortions? The second one however, if not religious should have performed the procedure.
 
The first hospital was a Catholic hospital. Why should they be forced to give abortions? The second one however, if not religious should have performed the procedure.

My outrage is not that they refused to perform the procedure on religious grounds, it is that they issued a press release identifying a 14-yr-old rape victime by name, violated her medical and personal privacy by informing the "world" that she was trying to get an abortion, after which the police detained her and removed her from her home in an attempt to force a 14-yr-old rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term against her will.
 
My outrage is not that they refused to perform the procedure on religious grounds, it is that they issued a press release identifying a 14-yr-old rape victime by name, violated her medical and personal privacy by informing the "world" that she was trying to get an abortion, after which the police detained her and removed her from her home in an attempt to force a 14-yr-old rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term against her will.

Oh I see. Yes that was so wrong.
 
The first hospital was a Catholic hospital. Why should they be forced to give abortions? The second one however, if not religious should have performed the procedure.
If it is determined to be medically the right course of action and the patient (or in this case her parents) agrees, why shouldn't they? If a hospital accepts an individual as a patient, they should be expected to offer the best medical treatment they're physically capable of providing.

If an organisation is "morally" incapable of offering the full range of legal and medically legitimate procedures, maybe they shouldn't be running an acute hospital in the first place.

More significantly IMO, you're saying that if a Catholic has a moral objection to abortion, they should get special exception but if a non-religious person has a personal moral objection to abortion, they shouldn't. If it is legitimate for Catholic hospital administrators to ignore medical advice on "moral" grounds, it should be legitimate for any other hospital administrators to do the same.
 
If it is determined to be medically the right course of action and the patient (or in this case her parents) agrees, why shouldn't they? If a hospital accepts an individual as a patient, they should be expected to offer the best medical treatment they're physically capable of providing.

Because you would be forcing a Catholic hospital to preform abortions. If you can't see the conflict here. Also they did not accept her, that is part of the problem.

If an organisation is "morally" incapable of offering the full range of legal and medically legitimate procedures, maybe they shouldn't be running an acute hospital in the first place.

Using the US as an example; considering the amount of aid and services religious hospitals offer, that would be a huge mistake. The consequences should be obvious to even you. In fact due to rising insurance costs some states are already having problems keeping good doctors and are suffering server shortages. Lets add to that and see who cries then.

More significantly IMO, you're saying that if a Catholic has a moral objection to abortion, they should get special exception but if a non-religious person has a personal moral objection to abortion, they shouldn't.

No you said that. I said nothing of the sort.

If it is legitimate for Catholic hospital administrators to ignore medical advice on "moral" grounds, it should be legitimate for any other hospital administrators to do the same.

Yes it should.
 
Seems a little strange that she couldn't find one hospital that would peform the service if abortion is legal. Why did the police make such a big deal about this one girl? Why is she being hassled?
 
Because you would be forcing a Catholic hospital to preform abortions. If you can't see the conflict here.
I recognise the conflict, I'm challenging your view on how it should be "resolved". I don't think the personal morality of individuals who happen to be in control of a hospital shouldn't be allowed to override medical decisions on the health, well being and potentially life of their patients.

Using the US as an example; considering the amount of aid and services religious hospitals offer, that would be a huge mistake.
Not really. The vast majority of religious hospitals don't have an issue with the religious aspects impacting medical decisions. Even in the ones that do, I'm not suggesting closing hospitals, only a voluntary change at the top. The issue isn't the institutions, just a handful of individuals.

No you said that. I said nothing of the sort.
You said the Catholic hospital shouldn't have been forced to perform the abortion but if the second hospital wasn't religious it should have done it. You didn't allow for a moral objection at the second hospital if it wasn't a religious one. I'm sure that was a subconscious slip on your part but a symptom on an underlying mindset all the same.

Yes it should.
At least that would be consistently wrong. It would still be wrong though. The correct form of treatment should be determined by the doctor and the patient, not administrators and certainly not on the basis of their personal morality. If you were refused a blood transfusion, drugs made with animal products or a treatment developed in Israel because the hospital's new CEO objected to them I'm sure you'd change your tune.
 
I recognise the conflict, I'm challenging your view on how it should be "resolved". I don't think the personal morality of individuals who happen to be in control of a hospital shouldn't be allowed to override medical decisions on the health, well being and potentially life of their patients.

Giving someone an abortion because they "want" one is not life threatening in any way.

Not really. The vast majority of religious hospitals don't have an issue with the religious aspects impacting medical decisions. Even in the ones that do, I'm not suggesting closing hospitals, only a voluntary change at the top. The issue isn't the institutions, just a handful of individuals.

Actually yes they do. An individual who works at a corporate or county run hospital etc, has no right to refuse anything. They can reasonably be expected to do things in line with that job. A hospital funded and operated by the archdiocese should not be forced to go against it's own philosophy. If you don't like it, you can go to another hospital. Just like she did.

The Catholic hospital overstepped its bounds by releasing a minor's name, that she was raped and wanted an abortion. This was the real problem. Not them refusing to do the abortion. The secular hospital in Warsaw refusing to do it based on the comments and information from the previous hospital was also an issue.

There are more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions, period.

You said the Catholic hospital shouldn't have been forced to perform the abortion but if the second hospital wasn't religious it should have done it. You didn't allow for a moral objection at the second hospital if it wasn't a religious one. I'm sure that was a subconscious slip on your part but a symptom on an underlying mindset all the same.

A secular hospital is under no moral value to not perform abortions while a religious institution is.

At least that would be consistently wrong. It would still be wrong though. The correct form of treatment should be determined by the doctor and the patient, not administrators and certainly not on the basis of their personal morality. If you were refused a blood transfusion, drugs made with animal products or a treatment developed in Israel because the hospital's new CEO objected to them I'm sure you'd change your tune.

No I would not. I understand the need to let religious institution run separately from government. I also have the right to go to a different hospital. The only thing consistently wrong here is you thinking religious hospitals must go against their core principles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom