03-02-2009, 03:33 PM
Quote:Yes, as Pete describes, they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. There is a procedure they cannot in good conscience recommend. Why? Because they consider the human embryo as also a living being, and that the doctor now has two patients. What is good for one (or her bank account mostly), will be lethal to the other. The reality is that this is a pressure tactic of the "pro-abortion" lobby who want to have those doctors who object to abortion drummed out of practice. I found on consciencelaws.org a good description of the vagueness of the current situation within the UK, the US, Canada, and other parts of the world.
"There is widespread confusion about the extent of the conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 4(1) reads: âSubject to subsection (2) of this section, no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorized by this Act to which he has a conscientious objectionâ¦.â Subsection (2) relates to treatment ânecessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant women.â"
On their main site they sum up the situation thusly; Influential academics and professionals have begun to suggest that physicians who object to euthanasia are, nonetheless, obliged to refer patients for the service [Mandatory Referral]. More and more often comes the ultimatum: "Do what you're told, or get another job."
What about State sanctioned executions? If the government orders a doctor to administer the cocktail of death, are they obliged to kill for the government? There are currently lawsuits in California against doctors who refused embryo implants for single welfare women who were able to save enough to pay for the procedure. At what point does the doctor just become the amoral prostitute of medicine?
I think that with most professions there are lines which you may not cross. For example, in software engineering, I would not want to be involved in designing the logic in anti-personnel mines. In trucking, you might imagine there are people who wouldn't want to transport hazardous waste, or explosives. A lawyer can choose to become a defense attorney, and even then which clients they might serve. It means that some doors are shut for those people of conscience, and the same is true in the medical profession. If you object to too many things, you probably would not earn as good a living as that person who would do anything.
The point is, if the procedure will bring about a better quality of life, the physician should point out the benefits. The case that I pointed out in my first reply involves a pharmacy that refused to fulfill a perscribtion to a rape victim and put the rape victim into a worse mental state by refusing service (to the point where the rape victim was ready to take their own life due to the tramau of the rape and the tramau of not getting the perscribed medication). A medical provider is there to bring about a better quality of life and make sure that the patient's best health interests are taken care of. Withholding information that would better the quality of life of the patient, or witholding treatment, means you should not be performing in that roll. If you cannot perform that roll as a medical provider, you should not be a medical provider.
Sith Warriors - They only class that gets a new room added to their ship after leaving Hoth, they get a Brooncloset
Einstein said Everything is Relative.
Heisenberg said Everything is Uncertain.
Therefore, everything is relatively uncertain.
Einstein said Everything is Relative.
Heisenberg said Everything is Uncertain.
Therefore, everything is relatively uncertain.