(July 1, 2014 at 6:08 pm)blackout94 Wrote:(July 1, 2014 at 6:05 pm)Beccs Wrote: I'll remember that next time I'm required to perform surgery on some criminal.
"Objection of conscience". . .
C'mon you are comparing two different situations. Performing a surgery means saving a life, nothing else is at stake. Performing an abortion for some people means murdering or taking/terminating a life. You might not like it or disagree but people have the right to be against the ethics of abortion, if a doctor doesn't want to perform it, why force them? Just like I can refuse to go to war because my ethics are against it, I can refuse to marry 2 gays if my religion is against it, I can refuse to provide military service if my ethics is against it, the list goes on. In a democratic state ruled by the law according to fundamental rights people have the right to not get their principles hurt trough coercion.
But where do we end objections.
We had an ethics debate when I was in med school regarding a case in London where UK Muslim medical students who were women refusing to wear short sleeves because it was against their religion. Long sleeves can get dipped into injuries and carry contamination.
THe general consensus was that if their religious views were put before the needs of their patients then they should find something else to do and stay out of medicine.
Yes, I'm being pedantic though technically, refusing to perform life saving surgery on a hardened criminal could well save the lives of others.
So the question remains: where do we stop allowing objections to overcome the needs of the patient?
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
