(July 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(July 2, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Losty Wrote: I don't understand how it's relevant?I would disagree, they're immensely useful - but not necessary. But lets roll with it, the necessity of a profession determines whether or not people in that profession are capable of waiving rights/ought to waive rights. All of my "objectionable organization" responses apply. And even moreso......do I have to join some organization or association? Some needed profession? Why can;t I just waive my rights as a "non-necessary" joe?
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.
My question is, why do you think a doctor being required to save a dying patient would ever mean waiving their rights? They're not legally required to be doctors. They have a right to quit their job. Do you think requiring Christian strippers to strip is a violation of their rights?
Quote:(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.Negatron. They are under no such legal obligations. They can be held accountable for malpractice - but if they refuse treatment, that's a non starter - and they -can- refuse treatment, for a variety of reason.
I explained where I went with this earlier. To recap simply. A consistent application of this sort of justification would probably slit the throat of some other sacred cow you wouldn't want me to touch. Normally I;m okay with slippery slopes - we'll handle the permutations as they arise. But this is about our rights - which are fundamental to law. If the slope is so much as covered with dew when it comes to rights -it's time to close down the mountain while we troubleshoot.
I'm sorry, love, you're going to have to dumb it down for me because I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.