View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (10477)	2/1/2006 12:14:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 541753

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a clear pattern in your response. It seems like you think they should be allowed to refuse treatment when you agree with them that it's immoral and not when you don't. I was hoping for something more definitive, with a brighter line. You mentioned murder the other day, which seemed like a bright enough line. This collection is unclear. That's not your fault, of course. It would be nice though, if you had a position that was implementable. As a practical matter, some of these situations are not really an issue because the remedy is simple. If you don't want to provide in-vitro fertilization, then don't work in that area. Like, duh. Emergency rooms are another matter. There's also a complexity factor when the law, the code of professional ethics, and the ethics of individuals get out of sync. We have notions of "usual and customary," which has been around for a long time. If any provider deviates from that, it seems to me that advance notification is required. You can't find yourself in a risky situation and have to wonder whether the doctor will treat you as os usual and customary or not.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next