• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It's not your life or your decision of you are that persons doctor. You could make it yours, but doing so is to claim ownership over something that does not belong to you to claim.
I do not own anything in this world, only being a part of the world and to take away that for someone is not a righteous way to live, To care for them on the last part of their journey, that is the task of a nurse or a caretaker. What good does it do to take someone's life away, just because they have a sickness? No matter what way we turn this, there will be suffering and sadness. I could please the family and end someone life, because the family suffer when they see their loved one in that state. or i could treat the person who is sick until life itself has come to an end for the person. But by doing that the family will also suffer and feel sadness because their love one has passed away.

It has nothing to do with selfishness. because if we become selfish when working with sick people, that is when we fall for the "it is only unplugging them" syndrome.
But to sit down with the family and tell them why as a caretaker we can not end their life, and explain that even at the end of someone's life, they have the right to live. In a situation where a family asks for their loved one to be unplugged so they can die. That is the egoistic and selfish part because then it is from there need of ending the suffering they, them self experience

How can I say that? Because in the 6 situations I experienced someone asking the team i worked on to end their family member's life, we always took them into the office and asked why.
And 100% of the time the answer was. Because the family did not want to see their loved one sick. so we asked, what does that mean. And again the family member said, it is better for them(the sick person) to die.
To the team I was working on, it meant it was the family that wanted the sick to die because the family was the one suffering the most, not the sick one who got treatment every day.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
How is it compassionate to just stand by and witness suffering, knowing the entire time someone (not necessarily you if you objected) could have given merciful relief? Compassion? Compassion is doing what’s best for the patient, regardless of your own morality. To put them and their needs above your own and your own conscience even. That is true humility and compassion, imo. Merciful killing is good karma, it means you have relented your ego and surrendered yourself to a higher purpose, if that is your issue.
I grew up in a hospital, I have seen doctors “play God” as you would call it just as a day job. They save people on the very brink of death, they have made a slip up and killed people. That’s just how the cookie crumbles. Sometimes a battle is just over and you can either accept defeat graciously or throw a tantrum and prolong suffering.
Death is sometimes a better alternative and whilst I wouldn’t begrudge a medical professional for refusing to “pull the plug” I’ll be damned if I also wouldn’t find someone else fully willing to. Allowing unneeded suffering is not compassion, in my eyes. These patients aren’t supposed to emulate Jesus’ sacrifice. Let them go in peace rather than wishing for relief in their final moments.
I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes.

Same verse in a Jewish translation:

And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give restitution according to the judges' orders

Here is Rashi's commentary. Rashi was a Rabbi of top order,


And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]

It was an accident.
At a time of "an eye for an eye" when an accident would not have been an excuse. And a poor understanding of the morals of combat. The example as posed is incomplete and cannot be judged fairly either way. If the man with the wife was attacked then the attacker would still be at fault in law for the damage done to the woman and her fetus. If the man with the wife attacked the other then he would not be to blame if he caused the death of a fetus. If it was mutually agreed combat then he would most likely be to blame since he willingly entered into a dangerous activity. But that is besides the point. I was dealing with the fact that the interpretation of the Bible was changed after Roe v Wade.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
At a time of "an eye for an eye" when an accident would not have been an excuse. And a poor understanding of the morals of combat. The example as posed is incomplete and cannot be judged fairly either way. If the man with the wife was attacked then the attacker would still be at fault in law for the damage done to the woman and her fetus. If the man with the wife attacked the other then he would not be to blame if he caused the death of a fetus. If it was mutually agreed combat then he would most likely be to blame since he willingly entered into a dangerous activity. But that is besides the point. I was dealing with the fact that the interpretation of the Bible was changed after Roe v Wade.
You do realise than an eye for an eye has always been a matter of financial repercussions? It meant monetary compensation, just as today.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You do realise than an eye for an eye has always been a matter of financial repercussions? It meant monetary compensation, just as today.
That would appear to be a more modern interpretation. One thing that one sees even in the Old Testament is a changing of morals as man advances and gets more civilized. One can speak of evolution of morals in the Bible.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
It’s not killing. It is giving merciful relief. It is surrendering the ego and embracing death as a part of life. You cannot have life without death. Allowing needless suffering is certainly not going to generate good karma, in my view.
At the time I would have wanted my dad to be kept alive at all costs. I was just a punk kid of around 15. Do you think I wanted him to die just because I didn’t like to see him suffer? I saw him suffer my entire life. But I overheard a conversation he had with his doctor. His exact words were “I wouldn’t even treat my dog like this.” The doctor agreed and said that until the law catches up with modern day nuance (or something like that) his hands were tied.
Suffering may be a part of life, but so is death. And doctors and nurses literally play with life and death as a job. If you are happy enough to prolong life, then you have to accept the other side of the coin. Otherwise it’s just hypocrisy in my eyes.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
That would appear to be a more modern interpretation. One thing that one sees even in the Old Testament is a changing of morals as man advances and gets more civilized. One can speak of evolution of morals in the Bible.
No it isn't, it's from the Oral Torah. That's how it's always been interpreted.

See, this is the problem with people just picking up the Torah and thinking they know what it means. This is why Yeshivah students study it day in day out for their lives.

Would you treat a modern law text the same way? Just assume you can read through 'English Tort Law' and that's it, you're good to go? Or do people spend years studying it?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
I accept your position and may act the same way you do. The question here isn't if you would participate in an assisted suicide but if you are opposed to the general practice. I.e. would you stand in the way of someone else doing it (legally)?
I think everyone should have a right of dying. That does not include the right to be aided by a specific person, especially not a doctor.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I accept your position and may act the same way you do. The question here isn't if you would participate in an assisted suicide but if you are opposed to the general practice. I.e. would you stand in the way of someone else doing it (legally)?
I think everyone should have a right of dying. That does not include the right to be aided by a specific person, especially not a doctor.
Everyone has a right to die because death is a transition to something else, but not done by someone else hand, So yes if I was in a situation where I either saw someone pulling the plug or was about to do so I would report them to the police as attempted murder, then what the police decide is not something I can say against.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The whole reason that the this story came up now is because of legislation that, if passed, would get rid of the "have someone else do it" option. The Alberta legislature has a bill that would remove the requirement for a physician to refer the patient to someone else if they refused a treatment or service for reasons of conscience. Dr. Schuklenk was being interviewed for that story when he brought up the idea of screening out applicants to med school to nip the problem in the bud.

That legislation aside, there often is no "someone else." A specialist may be the only one in their field in a certain area. Rural areas may only have one family doctor for the whole community. Growing urban areas may have no doctors who are taking new patients. It may be impossible to transport an infirm or medically unstable patient to a different hospital.

Every medical discipline has a standard of care. When a practitioner refuses to uphold that standard, we as a society really have two choices:

- demand that the practitioner follow the normal standards of their profession, or
- force the patient to have substandard care.
In Canada, not in the USA.

Since when are specialists needed to kill an unborn child, or another adult ?

You say that a conscience that stops a health professional from killing is a "problem".

In the USA it is a right.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:


Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist

My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.

In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.

On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.

In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.

What are your thoughts?

I think you will lose a lot of potential good Doctors. As you said many doctors would stay clear of those area's and still be great in the field. Its pretty much the same as saying if you refuse to provide plastic surgery on conscientious grounds you can't be a doctor. As long as they are willing to provide referrals its shouldn't matter. My general doctor provides referrals when I need something he can't or wont provide.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No it isn't, it's from the Oral Torah. That's how it's always been interpreted.

See, this is the problem with people just picking up the Torah and thinking they know what it means. This is why Yeshivah students study it day in day out for their lives.

Would you treat a modern law text the same way? Just assume you can read through 'English Tort Law' and that's it, you're good to go? Or do people spend years studying it?
Are there written records of how it was interpreted way back then? I did not think that there were any. To me it appears that one cannot work backwards from modern interpretations to ancient ones. All one can go by is the written records. An oral tradition is all but worthless since oral records appear to change with the times.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:


Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist

My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.

In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.

On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.

In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.

What are your thoughts?
They have conscientious objectors in the military why can't they have them in medication?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What good does it do to take someone's life away, just because they have a sickness?
They aren't just sick. They are terminal. They will not get better. Their disease will kill them. When they choose to have their life ended, it's because it's coming soon anyways, there is no quality of life, and the final days will be nothing but suffering, pain, and misery for all involved.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
That simply is not your decision to make. It is not your life, it is not your care, and its not your decision to make.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Like me, Im not really to keen on psychotropic medications and am personally terrified to try them again. However, despite my objections, I dont discourage clients from using their own. I had bad experiences. My own personal baggage doesnt belong. It has no place. My personal feelings can bugger off, because its not about me.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:


Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist

My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.

In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.

On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.

In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.

What are your thoughts?

Exactly this-- they MUST keep their religion out of their scientific medical practice.

The ONLY religion a medical professional needs to worry about? Is that of their patients.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Medical personnel is there to save and treat people, Not to take life or help someone make suicide with assistance. The training/school is there to teach the nurse/Doctors how to save a life, not to take it away. (I have basic health worker education my self and been in a situation where I was asked to help end someone's life, my answer was No I can not do that)

Your stance goes against the Do No Harm code-- it is far MORE harm to force a dying person the agonizing and painful, lingering death over the course of months, than help them painlessly end a pointless existence.

Same for abortion-- it's not up to the doctors-- the owner of the womb is the SOLE owner of the womb, here-- and Do No Harm once again takes precedence.
 
Top