(February 23, 2020 at 10:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(February 23, 2020 at 9:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not always. Radiation treatments and chemotherapy are done consciously and cause harm and affect well-being. In fact, they cause so much harm that a certain percentage of patients give up on the treatment and let the cancer take its course. Is using these methods to treat cancer patients an immoral act?
Things aren't as black and white as you seem to think.
Boru
They may be black and white - the statement adequately describes an act with moral import. As in, any time we're doing harm it's worth looking into, though it doesn't adequately describe (or confine) an immoral act as a product of moral summary.
In the case of cancer treatment (or any treatment), it becomes immoral to treat a condition at whatever point the treatment is worse than the condition itself - not entirely unlike banning abortion.
I’m not sure you can make the case that vomiting and hair loss are worse than death.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
