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 (10485)	2/1/2006 12:44:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541699

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 line covers most of my points. For elective procedures, I would give much wider latitude to the doctor. A doctor would not be required to remove a mole or participate in in-vitro fertilization (which could for some also fall under the murder line because normally multiple embryos are created, the one considered most desirable is implanted and the rest often destroyed, but that since its an elective procedure I don't think that special defense for the doctor is needed, and also the procedure could be done differently). I don't have a specific bright line for how far I would let the doctor decide what he or she will do in elective procedures, but it would be much further than in non-elective procedures, at least if the doctor was clear and upfront about the type of procedures (either a specific list or at least a description of the criteria used) that he or she will be unwilling to perform. Tim