(July 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(July 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm)Losty Wrote: I completely get your point, but if someone's life is on the line then I still think they should be required to save their patient.
As I said in a previous post, individual doctors are not. Hospitals are obligated to provide emergency care.
Compelling individuals to act in this case opens up a bunch of issues - not the least of which is personal liability (i.e. malpractice) if something goes wrong.
From another angle: I'm trained and certified in (scuba) diver rescue. To a diver in need of rescue, I'd say rescue is a necessity. Does that obligate me to attempt to rescue someone? No. I would almost certainly *try*, if I could, if it would not put my own life in real peril. I'm certainly not going to try to bring someone up from 130 feet when all I've got to breathe is 45% EAN - because the likelihood of oxygen toxicity is too great a risk. (I realize that this is an esoteric example - suffice it to say that such a scenario is FAR beyond any certifying agency's recommended limits, and the risk of going into convulsions is unquantifiable, but very very real - this is an extraordinarily bad thing to have happen underwater under any circumstances).
Some might try anyway - it's their choice, made given their personal level of risk aversion. Apply your imagination and I'm sure you can come up with a few analogous situations where requiring physicians to act would be unconscionable.
The difference is that physicians aren't being put at risk of dying in the scenario being debated.
There are certain rights that are far more important than religious rights that, if necessary, should override these religious rights.
