(July 2, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 4:58 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I still don't agree with your point. This isn't a club of a hobby that someone might find objectionable. This is standards of healthcare, something that we need. A service that's as vital as medicine needs to have strict standards that everyone operating in the field needs to follow. I still don't think you can compare medicine to any sort of objectionable club or organization. I'd even go so far as to say it's unique in its neccesity, and thus needs strongly observed standards.

b-mine.

There are unspoken assumptions here, and out of hand dismissals of any other alternative. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to apply your argument -in favor- of something objectionable, and then tell us what you think. It's a thought experiment.

I don't understand how it's relevant?
We need doctors. Everyone. All of society. They must be required to drop their personal issues at the door and do their jobs. It's a necessity. Otherwise people would be dying left and right as doctors are refusing to help them if they were injured while doing something the doctors find morally objectionable.
This type of requirement doesn't apply to anything outside of doctors that I can think of.

I just don't get where you are going with this.

(July 2, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: b-mine.

There are unspoken assumptions here, and out of hand dismissals of any other alternative. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to apply your argument -in favor- of something objectionable, and then tell us what you think. It's a thought experiment.

I don't understand how it's relevant?
We need doctors. Everyone. All of society. They must be required to drop their personal issues at the door and do their jobs. It's a necessity. Otherwise people would be dying left and right as doctors are refusing to help them if they were injured while doing something the doctors find morally objectionable.
This type of requirement doesn't apply to anything outside of doctors that I can think of.

I just don't get where you are going with this.

Regarding objection of conscience, I will ask the question you have not yet answered. What is your proposal on a democratic society? To force doctors to abstain from being objectors? Wouldn't that be forcing an absolute view on their conscience? If we want doctors in a society, we should give them conditions, rights and duties, it's our job, if less people start wanting to become doctors we would be in a big mess. In portugal we are already struggling while we hire doctors from cuba, spain, mexico, we need more med universities.

I'm not sure about Portugal. Hell I'm not even positive about USA, but I'm pretty sure a doctor is legally required to do whatever they can to save someone who is dying. There is absolutely no room for objection of conscious if the woman is dying. It's unacceptable and I feel like anyone who would think to do that isn't even a good person let alone a good doctor. All your country would have to do is provide some sort of incentive for being a doctor (as if the money isn't enough).

(July 2, 2014 at 7:04 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm not sure about Portugal. Hell I'm not even positive about USA, but I'm pretty sure a doctor is legally required to do whatever they can to save someone who is dying. There is absolutely no room for objection of conscious if the woman is dying. It's unacceptable and I feel like anyone who would think to do that isn't even a good person let alone a good doctor. All your country would have to do is provide some sort of incentive for being a doctor (as if the money isn't enough).

In portugal salaries have been cut. I completely agree with you when you say in case of death all doctors should provide their services. There is no contest in that, just a prevalence of the right to live, a lot more important than objection of conscience. However if there is no eminent danger of death, what about it? What's your proposal? The case of refusing abortion, I'd like to hear from you. I already said our law gave objectors the duty to immediately send a woman to a qualified professional after they object, to avoid dangers that could arise after the objection/refusal of treatment

As long as she's not dying then it seems okay to me that the doctor refuse to give her an abortion. I've had doctors refuse to treat me for less important objections than abortion.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:09 pm)Losty Wrote: As long as she's not dying then it seems okay to me that the doctor refuse to give her an abortion. I've had doctors refuse to treat me for less important objections than abortion.

Yesterday you disagreed with me and said the opposite I think. But I still think not all objections are valid

It's possible. I am easily distracted and confused. Ask Tartarus
But I always thought you were saying that your country always allows for objection of conscious. If they do not allow it in a life threatening case then I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Abortion (for non-medically necessary reasons) is wrong as is execution and war. If you're going to take the moral high ground, at least make it count.

(July 3, 2014 at 12:26 am)Polaris Wrote: Abortion (for non-medically necessary reasons) is wrong as is execution and war. If you're going to take the moral high ground, at least make it count.

As Xigbar once said "Nope"

(July 3, 2014 at 12:26 am)Polaris Wrote: Abortion (for non-medically necessary reasons) is wrong as is execution and war. If you're going to take the moral high ground, at least make it count.

How do you know this?