3 ms·

I do not believe the author was trying to be coy, but you are eliding the paragraph which gives the correct context to the latter statement: > Moreover, though

I do not believe the author was trying to be coy, but you are eliding the paragraph which gives the correct context to the latter statement: > Moreover, though we pay lip service as a society to diversity and tolerance, we increasingly demand uniformity. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of conscientious objection. Once the profession, guided by ethicists, had decided as a whole that something was ethically permissible, no doctor should be allowed to go against the consensus. This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory. Never mind: It can’t happen here. But what was once unthinkable can become thinkable very quickly. The emphasized section above shows that his point is about overriding the moral judgement of individual doctors with legal fiat. In my mind, the risk is not just the law will someday mandate doctors participate in mass murder. Rather, that by eroding the judgement of doctors in the present, people who tend to think for themselves will self-select themselves out of the profession all together.

aidanfindlater 8y ago
The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. We are instead held up to a standard of care by our professional regulatory bodies, which define how a physician should act in order to be considered a member of the profession. Most of the rules are around ethical behaviour. With regards to conscientious objection, our professional bodies attempt to balance a patient's right to access timely, effective, and legal treatment against the physicians right to practice their personal ethics. How most bodies reach that balance is to say that physicians are required to provide timely referral to another provider for any service that they are morally objected to. For example, if you don't believe that abortion is right, you are not required to provide them (not by the regulating body and definitely not by the law), but you also can't prevent your patients from getting abortions--you need to refer them to someone who can. We can't force our personal ethics on our patients. The linked article appears to be arguing that doctors should be able to just say no, and thereby prevent someone from accessing the care that they want. Ultimately, the patient is the most important person in medicine, the doctor comes second. This is not the law, this is medical ethics.
- lliamander 8y ago
  > The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. I agree that is the status quo. The linked article is not necessarily talking about what the medical field currently looks like, but what it may look like over the coming decades. The author is concerned that law may one day override an individual doctor's conscientious objections. I should also note that author lives and practiced in the U.K. and so if you are writing from an American context (as I am) then it may be that the state of medical ethics is somewhat different over there.

aidanfindlater 8y ago

The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. We are instead held up to a standard of care by our professional regulatory bodies, which define how a physician should act in order to be considered a member of the profession. Most of the rules are around ethical behaviour. With regards to conscientious objection, our professional bodies attempt to balance a patient's right to access timely, effective, and legal treatment against the physicians right to practice their personal ethics. How most bodies reach that balance is to say that physicians are required to provide timely referral to another provider for any service that they are morally objected to. For example, if you don't believe that abortion is right, you are not required to provide them (not by the regulating body and definitely not by the law), but you also can't prevent your patients from getting abortions--you need to refer them to someone who can. We can't force our personal ethics on our patients. The linked article appears to be arguing that doctors should be able to just say no, and thereby prevent someone from accessing the care that they want. Ultimately, the patient is the most important person in medicine, the doctor comes second. This is not the law, this is medical ethics.

lliamander 8y ago
> The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. I agree that is the status quo. The linked article is not necessarily talking about what the medical field currently looks like, but what it may look like over the coming decades. The author is concerned that law may one day override an individual doctor's conscientious objections. I should also note that author lives and practiced in the U.K. and so if you are writing from an American context (as I am) then it may be that the state of medical ethics is somewhat different over there.