Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The standard of murder.

Does NOT include abortions. Because "murder" is a LEGAL term, and abortions are legal-- even if YOU don't like it.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

Exactly.
“Do no harm” oh but let’s just prolong someone’s agonising existence until they lose all dignity, pride, quality of life and self respect. Because that’s so harmless, right?
The real issue is the inability to accept death as a reality. By all means, seek every avenue available. But if you’re terminal and there’s nowhere to go but death, then just accept defeat.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Even Orthodox Jews can use the pill, so those others must be something really hardcore.

Like, too hardcore.

I always admired the pragmatic outlook of (most) Jewish folk, in that respect. I suppose, so often being a persecuted minority, they kind of had to become pragmatic to survive.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Highly, HIGHLY doubtful-- likely they'd seriously consider that prayer was equally effective as some "scientifical man-made suff", if not more so.

We are best to medical practice without these people anywhere near patients.

Let them become preachers instead-- because they literally put their religion over the health and safety of their victims.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They have conscientious objectors in the military why can't they have them in medication?

Because what these "objectors" would be practicing? Would not be The Best Medicine, but some limited, religious-based, possibly harm-inducing semi-medicine.

I would be okay, if they had a giant WARNING sign on the entrances of their "medical" facility.

"WARNING! WE DO NOT PRACTICE ACTUAL SCIENCE BASED MEDICINE HERE. WE USE BIBLICAL METHODS OVER AND ABOVE MODERN MEDICAL PRACTICE."

I'd be okay if they had to post that or a similar sign.

Let The Buyer Beware, and all that...

 

[bobhikes]

Highly, HIGHLY doubtful-- likely they'd seriously consider that prayer was equally effective as some "scientifical man-made suff", if not more so.

We are best to medical practice without these people anywhere near patients.

Let them become preachers instead-- because they literally put their religion over the health and safety of their victims.

Nothing in the right up says that they consider prayer equally effective as medicine. It just states that they are against abortion and/or euthanasia as something they would be willing to preform on conscientious grounds not even necessarily religious.

They are also not putting religion over health and safety. They just don't want participate in 2 procedures that are in the minority anyway.

 

[74x12]

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?

actually both those things are against the Hippocratic oath. It couldn't be more obvious you support tyranny and you're supposed to be a liberal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They have conscientious objectors in the military why can't they have them in medication?

Conscientious objection in the military is about the draft. If you voluntarily enlist and you're ordered to fight, you fight.

Nobody gets drafted into med school.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Because what these "objectors" would be practicing? Would not be The Best Medicine, but some limited, religious-based, possibly harm-inducing semi-medicine.

I would be okay, if they had a giant WARNING sign on the entrances of their "medical" facility.

"WARNING! WE DO NOT PRACTICE ACTUAL SCIENCE BASED MEDICINE HERE. WE USE BIBLICAL METHODS OVER AND ABOVE MODERN MEDICAL PRACTICE."

I'd be okay if they had to post that or a similar sign.

Let The Buyer Beware, and all that...

But, why can't they be doctors and just not do abortion and euthanasia? They could take a small pay cut. They don't want to go to hell and they have huge brains for helping medically.

How do you know the fetus doesn't have a soul?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Conscientious objection in the military is about the draft. If you voluntarily enlist and you're ordered to fight, you fight.

Nobody gets drafted into med school.

Good point but still, a talented doctor who believes fetuses have souls or that helping someone commit suicide puts blood on their own hands spiritually should be able to just take a minor paycut and practice the rest of the medical profession.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

actually both those things are against the Hippocratic oath.

Which Hippocratic oath?

The original? Surgery also violates the original Hippocratic Oath. No modern medical schools use it.

Not all schools use any sort of oath at all.any more, but for those that do, abortion and assisted dying are both in line with modern versions of the oath, such as this one:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will protect the environment which sustains us, in the knowledge that the continuing health of ourselves and our societies is dependent on a healthy planet.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia

It couldn't be more obvious you support tyranny and you're supposed to be a liberal.

Liberty to deny freedom to others is the tyranny here. The needs of the patient come first, not your religious preferences.

 

[Revoltingest]

actually both those things are against the Hippocratic oath. It couldn't be more obvious you support tyranny and you're supposed to be a liberal.

But ideologically based rejection from schools....how could that possibly go wrong?

 

[74x12]

Liberty to deny freedom to others is the tyranny here. The needs of the patient come first, not your religious preferences.

What if it has nothing to do with religion? What if someone just doesn't want to help assist someone in suicide or an abortion? They can easily go to another doctor? You don't care about that. You just want to deny people from being medical professionals who disagree with your ideology.

You obviously just want more controlling laws and rules that limit what people can and can't do, think or say. It will never be enough. No personal liberty.

The original? Surgery also violates the original Hippocratic Oath. No modern medical schools use it.

Well, yes because they weren't trained surgeons. So of course they left surgery to the surgeons.

 

[74x12]

But ideologically based rejection from schools....how could that possibly go wrong?

It's perfect if your ideology is in control of the schools. Otherwise it ... sucks.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's perfect if your ideology is in control of the schools. Otherwise it ... sucks.

But control should be exercised only by those who agree with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if it has nothing to do with religion? What if someone just doesn't want to help assist someone in suicide or an abortion? They can easily go to another doctor?

No, they often can't. Read the rest of the thread and inform yourself a bit.

You don't care about that. You just want to deny people from being medical professionals who disagree with your ideology.

"My ideology" is that medical professionals should put the needs of their patient first. And yes: I don't think that people who refuse to do this are fit to practice.

You obviously just want more controlling laws and rules that limit what people can and can't do, think or say. It will never be enough. No personal liberty.

This isn't an issue of personal liberty. It's a matter of professionals upholding the normal standard of care of a profession they voluntarily chose.

Well, yes because they weren't trained surgeons. So of course they left surgery to the surgeons.

Again: which Hippocratic oath are you talking about?

 

[Harel13]

Does NOT include abortions. Because "murder" is a LEGAL term, and abortions are legal-- even if YOU don't like it.

Yes, a bunch of morons started legalizing murder several decades ago. MURDER.
Why? Does this make you uncomfortable?

 

[Ponder This]

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?

Abortion and Assisted Suicide have been around since ancient times and the ethics of such procedures have always been called into question. The dominant moral and ethical position from history has generally been opposed to abortion and assisted suicide as indicated, for example, in the earliest form of the Hippocratic Oath. Of course, there have always been physicians willing to carry out these procedures anyway.

I think that it is curious to claim moral or ethical grounds to bar people from medical school who conscientiously object to abortion or assisted suicide on moral or ethical grounds!

I think people have and will request things of doctors that are immoral or unethical but which a doctor has within his knowledge and power to provide or to do. It seems to me that "First do no harm" is superior to "the needs of the patient come first" when it comes to guiding physicians towards the proper application of their abilities in a moral or ethical sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, a bunch of morons started legalizing murder several decades ago. MURDER.
Why? Does this make you uncomfortable?

No, no one legalized murder. That is only a personal belief that you cannot seem to support. In fact the anti-abortion position is a relatively recent one of churches. It did not exist until the later 1800's.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, a bunch of morons started legalizing murder several decades ago. MURDER.
Why? Does this make you uncomfortable?

Murder has been legal since humans exist. Just call it war, punishment or protection.