(July 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm)Losty Wrote:(July 3, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'm about as pro-choice as they come - but there are lines to be drawn. One line I draw is that I would not *ever* seek to compel a physician to perform a procedure that they believe is morally equivalent to murder.
If we *did* do that - you know what you'd see? A whole lot less practicing OB-GYNs, and the world would be worse off for it.
I completely get your point, but if someone's life is on the line then I still think they should be required to save their patient.
As I said in a previous post, individual doctors are not. Hospitals are obligated to provide emergency care.
Compelling individuals to act in this case opens up a bunch of issues - not the least of which is personal liability (i.e. malpractice) if something goes wrong.
From another angle: I'm trained and certified in (scuba) diver rescue. To a diver in need of rescue, I'd say rescue is a necessity. Does that obligate me to attempt to rescue someone? No. I would almost certainly *try*, if I could, if it would not put my own life in real peril. I'm certainly not going to try to bring someone up from 130 feet when all I've got to breathe is 45% EAN - because the likelihood of oxygen toxicity is too great a risk. (I realize that this is an esoteric example - suffice it to say that such a scenario is FAR beyond any certifying agency's recommended limits, and the risk of going into convulsions is unquantifiable, but very very real - this is an extraordinarily bad thing to have happen underwater under any circumstances).
Some might try anyway - it's their choice, made given their personal level of risk aversion. Apply your imagination and I'm sure you can come up with a few analogous situations where requiring physicians to act would be unconscionable.
