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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (10436)	2/1/2006 11:42:43 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541674

>>That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.<< I don't have any problems with doctors refusing to provide in-vitro fertilization, or to assist in a suicide or provide treatments based on embryonic stem cells (similarly I wouldn't have a problem with doctors refusing to provide treatments with the organs from executed prisoners esp. where there may be doubt as to consent). As for refusing to provide services to gays and lesbians I don't think it should be directly illegal, but it is a violation of medical ethics, and I would not argue for removing it from the obligations of the code of professional ethics even though this code is backed by the law (The ethics board can pull your license to practice and the government says you can't practice without the license.) If someone tried to argue that medical boards should not be able to pull a license or that you shouldn't need a license to practice, I would entertain the argument but I don't think the author was arguing for that, and I don't think here anyone here has been supporting the idea. I consider that argument beyond the scope of analysis and comment on the author's ideas. >>Doctors opposed to fetal tissue research, for example, could refuse to notify parents that their child was due for a chicken pox inoculation because the vaccine was originally produced using fetal tissue cell cultures<< I could support the doctor not taking part in any procedure using fetal cells, but refusing to inform the patient that an inoculation was due seems to be a fairly unarguable breach of professional ethics. The rest of the cases pretty much fall under the same category. Doctors shouldn't serve prison terms or have to pay fines to the government for refusing these services but they could be found in breach of professional ethics and I am not arguing that they should not be. >>Advocates for end-of-life care are alarmed that the laws would allow health care workers and institutions to disregard terminally ill patients' decisions to refuse resuscitation, feeding tubes and other invasive measures.<< That is a special case where it isn't the refusal to provide a service, but rather providing a service against someone's will. In theory you could even make an assault charge, although it might be a stretch to do so when the intention is to save someone's life. I support the right to refuse treatment. About the only exception I might support is for people who are not mentally competent but even in that situation I think you have to be careful.