(July 2, 2014 at 4:58 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(July 2, 2014 at 4:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm saying that -if this- were the standard (the ama standard of excellence) by which one could waive a right - wouldn't it also apply to those other objectionables (i leave what to your imagination).
I know that you can't imagine that such an association might find a way to exist - but your standard allows it to. A failure of imagination does not support a point.
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.
A doctor that disapproves abortion would argue that such practice is against the 'Standard' of medicine because it impossibility the fetus' life. Not putting my nose between you two, but just saying even the standards aren't 100% objective. The problem where I live is the article saying 'Doctors must always preserve life' - For doctors against abortion, this article gives them protection if they consider a fetus as a live organism with person-hood.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you