Protect “Good Medical Practice” in Australia: safeguard the Medical Board Code of Conduct.

I believe this proposal is a threat to any doctor guided by his - her conscience.

I elide no decision can be made without considering both sides and making an informed choice. This seems to deny me my right to make such a choice as doctors are not allowed to give me both the advantages and disadvantages on the medical,decision to be made.

I am opposed to thes proposed changes which would undermine the medical profession's current mandate to "Do no harm".

These proposed changes have disturbing implications. Freedom of speech and of conscience is already being undermined in Australia. Please do not make the situation worse.

I am a retired nurse, and I am very concerned regarding the proposed limitation on ethical expression for doctors.

Respect for a patient does not equal respecting ‘cultural beliefs and practices’ that may equate to unsafe medical practice. Why the drive to silence doctors right to express their opinion in public and practice ethical medicine according to the existing Code of Conduct already in place?

The proposal is not only a moral outrage, it infringes on our right to have an opinion and act (or not act) in accordance to our conscience.

Bad laws (and Codes) make innocent people break the law - why force doctors into a corner on what could be a conscience issue. Perhaps we are no longer permitted to have a conscience.

Surely we don't want to go back to the dark ages and accept any primitive culture's demands contrary to good medical standards and Medical Board Code of Conduct.

If patient or patient's family can determine what medical care is appropriate, why do we need to ask doctor? Doctors were professionally trained to give independent advice and should not be influenced by patients.

Protect good medical practice in Australia and protect our doctors and medical staff from being forced to participate in practices that cause harm. "First, Do No Harm!"

I oppose these changes to good medical conduct...and to the rights of doctors and medical staff to refuse to take the life of another or harm another person. These changes are not good medical practice.

"First, do no harm"...no person ought to decide to take the life of another, nor should they be forced to take the life of another. The Hippocratic Oath is sworn for that reason.

Good medical practice should never be determined by cultural practice. Cultural practices change; good medicine should be based on scientific knowledge and proven research not merely on what people think.

As a retired nurse I too am concerned with the proposed changes to The Code of Conduct.

As a medical practitioner who has worked in the Middle East and Africa, I am deeply disturbed by this proposed Code of Conduct. For example, in Sudan, if a person had diarrhoea and vomiting, the cultural practice was to cut the Uvula - at great risk of hemorrhage. Another cultural practice was female circumcision, with resultant disfigurement and complications in child-birth. I am sure none of us would agree with this cultural practice! It is essential that a doctor be able to practice in accordance with his/her conscience, otherwise his/her rights are violated.

I do not agree with the proposed changes to the code of conduct - it is vital that we protect and safeguard "our good Medical Practice and the existing Medical Board Code of Conduct.

Please preserve good medical practice based on scientific knowledge rather than on radical thought-policing.

Please protect Good Medical Practice in Australia

The proposed terms "culturally safe" and any accompanying legal doctrine are risky in this proposed instance by virtue of the numerous possible interpretations of what is "culturally safe". These concepts would also require revision from time to time with changing cultural values and standards . Thus, "culturally safe" ultimately must betray any deeming of what could be found to be "culturally unsafe": the idea of some act, or omission, being "culturally unsafe" freely lends itself to no fixed understanding over time. Then there are the contentious issues of subjectivity with adjudication. These issues are likely to fracture the required standards of proof. Therefore, any future punitive proceedings by way of "culturally safe" enforcement are bound to become out-dated, obsolete, and soon recognized in history for what they can only be - draconian.