Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL Morality must be universal to exist at all. Once again you have hit the nail on the head, but I'd rather not get into that now. Perhaps another time, and another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CagedCrado Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 It may sound cruel but it is fair that doctors can choose to not treat anybody that they dont want to. Doctors are running a business too afterall, if another business can deny service than they should also be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 i'm not sure that doctors CAN just refuse to treat someone on business grounds. They have after all taken an oath to HELP people. It would certainly be morally wrong. It would almost certainly be against their oath (and get them disbarred) and it might well be against the law in some countries (like ones with good-samaritan acts). That is not to say that they should always treat someone, just hat their oath would mean they should make that decision based on the best interests of the patient, not on business, financial or convienience reasons. AFAIK these cases come before the courts quite often (in the uk at least) and the judges and doctors always make a point of saying that the judgement is unique and DOESN'T set a precedent. I'd say that this is as it should be. Eg: 1 - The doctors make a recommendation based on the best interests of the child 2 - The parents decide whether to accept that recommendation 3 - If, and only if, the doctors feel that the parents are actively (for whatever reasons) harming the welfare of the child then they resort to the courts, who look at the individual details of the case, get expert and second opinions and then deliver a verdict unique to that case. This is a sensible route that takes into account the unique aspects of a case, seeks to minimise harm and conflict and allows a resolution if conflict of opinion occurs. It also probably has the added benefit that the parents will feel that they did everything they could to save their child, and will remove from them any guilt that they might feel over agreeing to let their child die. (which would be hard for any parent). Passive Euthanasia for adults is a harder issue, and active euthanasia a harder still issue though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Thank you toms, that is exactly what I think, too. Well, maybe not the last paragraph, but thats not really the issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.