Should this man

[Mid A 15]

I have to disagree on anumber of points.
If someone does a job that is unpleasant they do not have to put up with being reminded of it.
(The drain cleaner has every right not to be continually reminded of the unpleasant sights and smells assosciated with their work.)
In fact most hospital employees will have no connection to abortion clinics at all. Even obstetric staff can elect not to be involved.
This man is not being refused treatment because of his views, he is being refused treatment because of his behaviour towards NHS staff.

As I tried to make clear in my post explaining my reasons for saying "Yes" I do not condone the actions of Mr Atkinson. I merely question whether those actions are as serious as intimidation and threats as perpetrated by animal rights activists etc or direct physical and verbal abuse in casualty.

You state that he is being refused treatment because of his behaviour to NHS staff. However he has been punished for this by society with a prison sentence.

As far as I am aware convicted criminals are entitled to treatment by the NHS. I can remember Myra Hindley, whom committed abhorrent crimes, receiving NHS treatment for instance.

It is this inconsistency of approach to treating convicted criminals on the NHS that leads me to postulate that Mr Atkinson may have been denied treatment because of his views.

I consider that to be a dangerous precedent if true regardless of whether one is pro or anti abortion.

[graham]

The sending of pictures of aborted foetuses (sp ?) must be described as not only educational to hospital workers, but the right of a person in this country to excercise free-speech.

So JR, you would be happy for me to mail you images of various disgusting acts and objects in a bid to 'educate' you? Even if others in your household, including young children, could be exposed to this material? If I decided to attack the government over war in Iraq, could send pictures of mutilated corpses of soldiers to every member of the labour party, potentially including a number who opposed the war and many of whom may be older and extremely disturbed by what they see? The right of one person to exercise free speech, while undeniably important, has to be tempered by the right of another to chose not to listen, and this man denied people that right. As such, those against whom he offended have chosen to deny him privelages in their institution.

By the way Euterpe, I think that you are being a touch harsh to deny that men should have any valid opinion on abortion. I don't disagree that women are affected by this to a greater degree, due to the inherent physical and emotional attachment between a mother and her child, but to deny that a father could have strong emotion when it comes to the abortion of his own offspring is ridiculous. Sorry if this offends; I'm not anti-abortion but I do think fathers are sold-out a bit these days when it comes to discussing subjects like this.

[graham]

Just a thought - could we add an option for the poll that says

Yes - but not at that hospital

I think all of us who have said No, actually mean the above

[Mid A 15]

Just a thought - could we add an option for the poll that says

Yes - but not at that hospital

I think all of us who have said No, actually mean the above

Graham,

That may well prove to be the best solution in reality. In fact he would probably be better off going private.

Matthew, I see you've made a similar point.

I set the poll up as I did though because I wanted to ascertain people's views given that he has already been punished for his transgressions with a prison sentence.

[J.R.]

The sending of pictures of aborted foetuses (sp ?) must be described as not only educational to hospital workers, but the right of a person in this country to excercise free-speech.

So JR, you would be happy for me to mail you images of various disgusting acts and objects in a bid to 'educate' you? Even if others in your household, including young children, could be exposed to this material? If I decided to attack the government over war in Iraq, could send pictures of mutilated corpses of soldiers to every member of the labour party, potentially including a number who opposed the war and many of whom may be older and extremely disturbed by what they see? The right of one person to exercise free speech, while undeniably important, has to be tempered by the right of another to chose not to listen, and this man denied people that right. As such, those against whom he offended have chosen to deny him privelages in their institution.

Maybe I should have said 'suppression of information'. As far as children are oncerned, I feel they should be educated correctly, and if that includes them seeing such images, then so be it. The Germans suppressed their history education in their history classes until the late 60's by not allowing students to see photographs of the allied liberation of concentration camps.

For 'suppression of information' read 'hiding the truth'.

[Euterpe13]

[
By the way Euterpe, I think that you are being a touch harsh to deny that men should have any valid opinion on abortion. I don't disagree that women are affected by this to a greater degree, due to the inherent physical and emotional attachment between a mother and her child, but to deny that a father could have strong emotion when it comes to the abortion of his own offspring is ridiculous. Sorry if this offends; I'm not anti-abortion but I do think fathers are sold-out a bit these days when it comes to discussing subjects like this.[/quote]

Graham - perhaps I should have been more extensive in my comment, but am bit tired at the moment and brain not working well -

whilst I agree that men can have strong emotion regarding the fate of their unborn child, I think that the percentage of abortions where there is any conflict, or indeed involvement at all, of the father is very small, and the major issue here is not the attachment between mother and child, but rather the misery and despair induced by an unwanted pregnancy. No man, no matter how sensitive, could ever understand the horror ( the word is not too strong) felt by a woman carrying a child she does not want. Which is why, on the issues of both abortion and contraception, I believe that only women should be permitted to legislate.

As to the reactionary with the hip problem: there is an old saying " my freedom ends where yours begins" - this logically also extends to freedom of speech and expression, therefore sending photographs intended to offend, rather than inform, is a breech of another person's freedom of choice, perceivable as an agression and should be sanctioned.

This man, obviously , is entitled to his operation, but the hospital in question is also entitled to react by saying " not here".

Maybe I am getting old, but I am tired of the prevalent attitude in society that ranting, screaming and generally acting like a spoilt toddler is the best way to get what you want - whatever happened to respect for others, consideration and adult negociation ? I think I need a nice lie-down...

[englishangel]

Well said BB.

[Hendrik]

If I ever meet him he'll need more than a hip operation.

Catholics/anti-choicers:
If you don't like abortions, don't have one! For any man to protest against anything to do with a woman's body is absurd.

You can't say he didn't have it coming. All he has to do is go to a different hospital. I also think it would be fair to allow non-tw*ts to queue-jump t*ats like him in the waiting list.

[Mid A 15]

If I ever meet him he'll need more than a hip operation.

Catholics/anti-choicers:
If you don't like abortions, don't have one! For any man to protest against anything to do with a woman's body is absurd.

You can't say he didn't have it coming. All he has to do is go to a different hospital. I also think it would be fair to allow non-tw*ts to queue-jump t*ats like him in the waiting list.

I suspect (and hope) the first and third paragraphs of your post are tongue in cheek as, whilst understandably committed and strident in your own views, I've always felt you to be respectful of the right of others to their views even if you disagree.

Regarding your second paragraph, I've deliberately avoided expressing an opinion one way or the other on whom has a right to express an opinion on abortion until now as I did not want the principle of right to treatment to be muddied in a debate about the rights and wrongs of this.

However it takes two to make a baby and whilst, yes, the baby is carried in a woman's body the man has helped create it and must therefore have some right in determining that baby's destiny.

If the fate of the baby is an issue for women alone then how can the Government justify setting up a Child Support Agency to pursue those fathers whom do not want emotional or financial ties to their children?

In these days of equality if a woman is to be allowed exclusivity in deciding whether or not to have a baby then a man must also have a right to involvement or non-involvement surely?

For the reasons above I think it is wrong to state that men are not entitled to an opinion.

The above comments of course assume the status quo i.e. abortion is permissible. The question of whether it should be permissible is another issue.

[Euterpe13]

Good comments - and I disapprove of the Child Support Agency pursuing fathers who have never been operant as such, it is indeed a case of double standards.

As to the dual creation of a baby, this presuposes that sexual intercourse was undertaken with the object of procreation - not usually the case where abortion is considered....( although there are exceptions, of course).

When pregnancy is an accident ( through negligence, ignorance or mishap) and unwanted, there are two potential victims of emotional damage - the mother and the baby- whilst the unwilling father suffers, at the most, financial constraint, and then only if paternity can be proved.

Hence my position that only a woman has the right to decide what happens to/in her own body, and no religious or philosophical counter-argument will change that.

[marty]

When pregnancy is an accident (through negligence, ignorance or mishap) and unwanted, there are two potential victims of emotional damage - the mother and the baby- whilst the unwilling father suffers, at the most, financial constraint, and then only if paternity can be proved.

I don't think that's true at all. You paint men as emotional vacuums (whether that's your intention or not) and seem to think they are immune to any kind of psychological harm caused by an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, it may affect more women more of the time but your claim that men are totally removed from any kind of emotional involvement in the situation is wrong...

[Euterpe13]

Marty, perhaps again my words are not expressing clearly my thoughts:
in the case of an unwanted preganancy , the man can, if he wishes, walk away .... the woman cannot, except through abortion. You cannot begin to imagine the panic felt by a woman in this situation.

If she is forced, either by society, family or other pressures, to carry this pregnancy to term, this can lead to permanent psychological damage to both mother and child - there is nothing sadder and more tragic in the world that a child whose mother did not want him.

If the unwanted pregnancy occurs in an established couple, then of course the emotional inputs are different - I do not at all consider that men are emotional vacuums - and the man does have a right to an opinion, even if the ultimate decision must lie with the woman - but the majority of abortion requests do not fall into this category.

Let me state that , in my opinion, abortion is NOT a contraceptive measure, and is not to be considered or discussed lightly - it is a traumatic experience, but vastly preferable to the possible options.

[Hendrik]

[sorry, to quote parts of my and your last post would be too complicated so scroll up]
Marty:
1st paragraph was not so much tongue in cheek, though was not typed with a cool head. I do respect other people's views. That's just the point, this wacko man doesn't! I respect his right to have views such as "women can't decide what to do with their own bodies" (and I suspect "men kissing men is naughty"). Granted, I probably wouldn't just attack the guy if I saw him in the street. But if I was accompanying a woman to an abortion clinic and some anti-choicer started heckling us outside the door, I would ignore it until we were safely inside and then go back out and deal with said heckler in a matter which may not be congruent with my generally non-violent principles. This is a point I have often considered. It would be the heckler that was not respecting other people's views. Surely? Especially when said woman would already be in torment over what has to be done, without some idiot pushing her towards suicide.

2nd paragraph indeed does not belong in this thread, sorry. I still stand by it though.

3rd paragraph I stand by entirely. I never said this man shouldn't be treated, I am just saying that those who abuse the NHS deserve to be treated AFTER those who don't. Can this be so wrong? I, despite cutting down considerably, still smoke (just so that you know my bias). Yet I still believe that someone who needs medical treatment a second time due to smoking, despite being told by doctors to give up after the first time, should be placed after all the others in the waiting list for any given procedure.
In the same way, this man was warned to stop being an idiot, and he didn't. So I believe the affected hospital may withdraw treatment, AND he should be of a lower priority at another hospital.
If me and my lefty friends went around putting pictures of dying black babies under the windscreen wiper of every Jag (we haven't BTW), I would expect to be blacklisted from the local golf club. I thought it was that simple!

Euterpe, agreed.

[marty]

[sorry, to quote parts of my and your last post would be too complicated so scroll up]
Marty:
1st paragraph was not so much tongue in cheek, though was not typed with a cool head. I do respect other people's views. That's just the point, this wacko man doesn't! I respect his right to have views such as "women can't decide what to do with their own bodies" (and I suspect "men kissing men is naughty"). Granted, I probably wouldn't just attack the guy if I saw him in the street. But if I was accompanying a woman to an abortion clinic and some anti-choicer started heckling us outside the door, I would ignore it until we were safely inside and then go back out and deal with said heckler in a matter which may not be congruent with my generally non-violent principles. This is a point I have often considered. It would be the heckler that was not respecting other people's views. Surely? Especially when said woman would already be in torment over what has to be done, without some idiot pushing her towards suicide.

2nd paragraph indeed does not belong in this thread, sorry. I still stand by it though.

3rd paragraph I stand by entirely. I never said this man shouldn't be treated, I am just saying that those who abuse the NHS deserve to be treated AFTER those who don't. Can this be so wrong? I, despite cutting down considerably, still smoke (just so that you know my bias). Yet I still believe that someone who needs medical treatment a second time due to smoking, despite being told by doctors to give up after the first time, should be placed after all the others in the waiting list for any given procedure.
In the same way, this man was warned to stop being an idiot, and he didn't. So I believe the affected hospital may withdraw treatment, AND he should be of a lower priority at another hospital.
If me and my lefty friends went around putting pictures of dying black babies under the windscreen wiper of every Jag (we haven't BTW), I would expect to be blacklisted from the local golf club. I thought it was that simple!

Euterpe, agreed.

Er, shouldn't this be a reply to Mid A 15's comments? Think you've got the wrong person...

[Jude]

The sending of pictures of aborted foetuses (sp ?) must be described as not only educational to hospital workers, but the right of a person in this country to excercise free-speech.

So JR, you would be happy for me to mail you images of various disgusting acts and objects in a bid to 'educate' you? Even if others in your household, including young children, could be exposed to this material? If I decided to attack the government over war in Iraq, could send pictures of mutilated corpses of soldiers to every member of the labour party, potentially including a number who opposed the war and many of whom may be older and extremely disturbed by what they see? The right of one person to exercise free speech, while undeniably important, has to be tempered by the right of another to chose not to listen, and this man denied people that right. As such, those against whom he offended have chosen to deny him privelages in their institution.

By the way Euterpe, I think that you are being a touch harsh to deny that men should have any valid opinion on abortion. I don't disagree that women are affected by this to a greater degree, due to the inherent physical and emotional attachment between a mother and her child, but to deny that a father could have strong emotion when it comes to the abortion of his own offspring is ridiculous. Sorry if this offends; I'm not anti-abortion but I do think fathers are sold-out a bit these days when it comes to discussing subjects like this.

Graham - shut up
I feel you are way over the line in your talk about this going to youngsters and families. I think we should all back off, and think about it for real. If this was your fahter, brother - sister ,mother whatever, you would DO ANYTHING TO GET THAT APPOINTMENT MADE AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

People act in many different ways to attract the ettention they need, and with the current state of Nanny Parliament I actually feel sorry for the guy who needed the hip operation. I know that unless I harange my GP for tests then it takes ages - the entire policy here is to push more and more people onto Private health insurance so that the NHS can be finally run down. It has been run into the ground ever since Tony Blair got into power, and he really and truely wants it to fall over completely before he leave power.

"Until you walk in another man's shoes you cannot possible see his views"