(July 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To lighten the mood - we have reached page 69 as of the time I posted. Congratulations everyone - here's a cigar - do with it what you will.
Quote: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)They are only bound by law -to be outside of law- because we say that a conflict of rights exists. They can not waive, or someone else's right cannot be waived, and this prevents their business from operating.
If the argument you've offered about the amas standards and collusion with law is a persuasive argument - then there's no reason that these sorts of organizations shouldn't exist - bound by law- within the law. You're essentially saying that your argument is only true for the ama and not some other organization with the same attributes in the same situation.
I understand that you don't feel that there are any, or should be any - but there's no reason that there couldn't be any - if I'm persuaded by what you offered.
My point is that something like your torturer's club or slavery organization could never reach the same level or status or situation as the AMA in our society. The AMA isn't perfect, but it's gotten to the level of regard it has today because it (generally) operates on the interests of the patients it serves over the last 165 years.
But again, lets get away from the slavery/torture associations because I'm still unclear on some stuff. You don't think that voluntary entry into a well regarded and overseen association constitutes waiving a right if it conflicts with their ethics code. Fine, I see what you're saying, I just disagree. Do you have a method that you would like to use?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson