3 ms·
>The doctor is saying “Our principle is that we don’t use the patient’s past violence or convictions to determine whether they should get a heart or not, so the
by geoduck14 5y ago
>The doctor is saying “Our principle is that we don’t use the patient’s past violence or convictions to determine whether they should get a heart or not, so the stabbing doesn’t disqualify David.”
>Neither party can offer a valid argument as to why their principle is true, because both of their principles are normative.
I'm pretty sure someone mentioned that the Dr's pov is that the doctors don't punish crime. Someone else does that. If they have a crime worthy of death, someone else determines that and administers that punishment. The Dr's stay out of that conversation.
- vidarh 5y agoExactly. If the law was changed to allow judges to impose "denial of transplants" as a punishment, then one might consider that a good or bad thing, but in that case it would be the courts not the doctors who makes the determination, and the legislative who'd be ultimately responsible for the rule existing. As long as there is no such law, it's not for doctors to impose such restrictions.