RE: Abortion is morally wrong
July 2, 2014 at 3:47 pm
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(July 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(July 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The AMA specifically? Because it works with the government (federal and state sometimes) in constructing ethics codes, oversight committees, investigations, and standards. The AMA is bound by law and has an active role in discussing medical law, something I don't think you could attribute to your example of a slavery organization or torturers organization.That's the position that they find themselves in because of their history, yes. But if we are allowing this sort of justification - is it not imaginable to you that other associations could have had a similar history? That the existence of the one (in this case) at least makes the existence of the other a possibility. Would a professional organization with the same status and historical heft of the ama - which centered around some otherwise objectionable profession- enjoy the same weight of persuasive power in this claim?
That's a huge 'if'. Assuming that there was such a thing as a torturer's association...that had been around and robust for as long as the AMA...was bound by law (which by definition a torturer's club isn't)...took an active role in oversight of its operations with assistance from the government...performed a vital civil service (again, torturers not so much)... then maybe? I don't think that's really a very good analogy, since it would assume that this <insert shitty practice here> association would have survived the constantly progressing moral landscape of our society and government, which groups like an association for torturers would not have done.
I don't think you can reduce healthcare and its ethics as a whole down to an analogy to something as single-pointed as "The torturer's association"
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson