So we stumbled upon this article over at the Friendly Atheist just yesterday and we are absolutely dumbfounded. It’s remarkable just how far some people are willing to go in order to support their own insane means.
Over in Australia abortion has been legal for about half a decade; but, don’t tell that to Jereth Kok, a suburban doctor Down Under.
Australia’s abortion law is probably one of the fairest laws in the world in regard to the hottest of hot topics. According to the law, if a doctor is opposed to abortion he or she can refuse to go through with the procedure. However, they must also advise women on where they can go to receive one. By law they must be directed to a doctor who will perform the procedure. This protects a women’s right to choose what happens to her body, while protecting the religious views of medical professionals. Win/win, yes?
Pro-choice mathematics lecturer, blogger, and Melbourne native Daniel Mathews put it this way:
The law thus balances rights of women, on the one hand ? rights to autonomous control of their own bodies, self-determination of their own lives, freedom of conscience, and religion ? with the rights of doctors to freedom of conscience and religion, on the other.
Not everybody is happy with the ultimately fair guidelines of the law, though. A discussion of the subject exploded on Dan’s Facebook page and caught the blogger’s attention. Enter, Dr. Kok. Doctor Jereth Kok made it clear during the discussion that he doesn’t mind breaking Australian law by not offering women an alternative physician; and, in fact, he states he often attempts to talk women out of the procedure. This violates the Australian abortion law, but the good doctor “…(doesn’t) give a stuff.” Said Dr. Kok:
I get a request for abortion referral about once every 3 or 4 months. I tell the woman politely that it is against my moral principles to advise on this issue, and they need to find someone else to help them. (In a few instances I have attempted to talk them out of it.)?Yes, I’m breaking Victoria’s new abortion laws, but I don’t give a stuff?? I am not going to soil my conscience by being complicit in the slaughter of children.
We don’t think that we’re talking out of turn by saying that this is totally what you want to hear from licensed doctor. (That was sarcasm for those who don’t speak Chandler Bing.)
But he wasn’t done yet! When reminded of the dangers of back-alley abortions and how they can cause serious health problems and even death, Dr. Kok responded with confident enthusiasm:
That’s exactly what she deserved for trying to kill her own child… I have a 3-month-old baby. If someone snuck into his room with a knife and tried to kill him, but accidentally slipped over and stabbed themselves through the heart that would be exactly what they deserve. ?Loading...
?He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword.? ? Jesus Christ, Matthew 26:52
Let us tell you: nothing says “compassionate Christian” like “I want you do die, because I don’t agree with your actions”. Plus, as The Friendly Atheist’s, Terry Firma says in the referenced article:
…with that verse, Jesus advocated non-violence, but such a charitable reading of scripture apparently didn’t appeal to Kok.
Thankfully, somebody was alarmed enough by Dr. Kok’s nonsense that they alerted the National Medical Board of Australia – the AHPRA. Sadly, though, they offered only a “caution” which essentially amounts to a stern talking-to. That’s right: Dr. Kok received a slap on the wrist for violating Australia’s medical Code of Conduct which is clear on the fact that a doctor’s religious beliefs or opinions cannot impede the wants or needs of the patient.
Nobody likes abortion. It can be depressing. It often isn’t truly wanted. Rather, it’s a sad necessity. However, Mr. Mathews sums it up really rather nicely:
When a patient sees a doctor, the doctor is not supposed to judge the patient’s moral, religious or political beliefs. The doctor is there to help and care for the patient, respecting the patient’s autonomy and agency; certainly not allowing the doctor’s own moral judgments of their patient to affect treatment. If a?Jehovah’s Witness?refuses a blood transfusion because of a religious belief, the doctor may find the refusal unfounded, ignorant, even stupid; but the patient’s own judgment must prevail.
Unfortunately, religious freedom and an ability to refrain from judging other people isn’t the strong point for many of the loudest, rowdiest Christians.
Edited by SS