Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (76502)	10/5/2003 8:31:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's assume that the woman had at some time been raped by a black man (which I know could be viewed as a hostile racist assumption but after all it does happen, and would help explain an irrational, visceral opposition to a black person being present when she was in such a vulnerable position). Would it still be justified to force her to be served by a black male doctor or nurse during childbirth?

To: Lane3 who wrote (76502)	10/6/2003 4:49:02 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes, it would have been worse to KILL the baby. But I don't think it would have been worse to allow the relevant party to authorize treatment or not. They cannot reasonably be expected to force treatment upon a woman against her will. There are other places to have babies. The husband may refuse to authorize treatment under the terms of those professionals who are trained to operate within the guidelines of professional ethics. They are under no compunction to acquiesce to his racism unless he has a gun. If they do decide to treat they must do so as a medical procedure in accordance with their own values. Anyone can try to shift responsibility to others in order to coerce unethical behaviour. I could insist on a Jewish girl at the grocery check-out, and I could threaten to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach within three days if my demands are not met. Should they be coerced into racist behaviours to prevent the potential for harm? Absolutely not, IMO. I will, however, give one qualifier: There is, of course a sympathy for those with mental disabilities who may put themselves or others at risk by irrational or unpredictable behaviour. There may be times when a compromise with this sort of thing may be justified by circumstances. Where the perpetrator is not competent it does place the idea of accountability and responsibility upon the competent. However, where the person IS competent it is no part of others to shield him from his choices or to assist in his degradation of humanity. As to the question of an innocent third party (even though the unborn is not a person with legal rights we may still assume that society at this stage has a compelling interest and compassion in the matter)--whatever decision is made in that regard, the treatment should still be on their terms and should not involve the tacit endorsement of racism. As this went on over several days I can only assume it was a matter of money and a conspiracy of a small number of people.