S
- Status
C
Consecrated
Guest
Setter’s not the only one who’s misunderstanding you, then. I find your arguements really hard to follow, myself.
What does your :tsktsk: response to Setter mean? honestly
B
boppaid
Guest
I guess my problem with this is that she is not yet a doctor (correct, right?) and she is simply shadowing this doctor. She is working for him. If he, in his moral discernment, chooses to dispense birth control information and/or products, and tells her to do likewise, she can say “no”, based on her moral convictions. He does not, however, have to keep her in his employ, if she cannot do what his practice requires. She may be more suitable shadowing a doctor who shares beliefs similar to hers.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No one will ever die from abstaining from sex until marriage instead of using birth control. The desire to fornicate without consequences may well be a “condition” but the birth control pill is not the cure for it - indeed, it may well be part of the disease.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
How about a re-read of John 8, Jesus sent the woman away. She may well sin again, but that is up to her …not the doctor. The Pharisee’s plan would have assured she could not sin again. If the doctor removes the option the discernment is Has the doctor acted correctly. If the doctor allows the patient to discern whether to sin or not… *well you have heard my opinion already . *
review post #14 and look for an example in which I spoke or wrote in such manner, tone, or charity.What does your :tsktsk: response to ----- mean? honestly
The problem as I see it is the posts often feel completely comfortable transferring the responsibility. Hope this helps
S
setter
Guest
According to your trail of presented logic, Jesus (the doctor prescribing the cure) would have deferred to the prevailing cultural ethos to determine whether or he would demand his morality in the given situation.
M
mosher
Guest
On the contrary Tex “error has not rights” and as a result a person does not have a right to choose something that is in error. As such the legal or medical ramifications are not principle to this discussion. Rather what is the object of this issues is the good. So, in effect it moves into the sphere of ethics and as such the benefit of the soul. For a person to be complicit in the sin of another is to at least commit a sin of omission if not a sin of commission. Thus in your cited example the person may have the right to ask but the doctor also has the right to refuse.
This right to refuse should come from a two pointed discernment (to use your term). The first point would be the clinical judgment of the medical professional judging medical treatment as being beneficial or detrimental to the patient who is asking. The second point is the more important and is tied up with the morality of the treatment. Hence if a treatment may cure or help a person but the administration of it would be morally negative then the doctor has an obligation to refuse the treatment to the patient. A perfect example are the vaccinations that have been developed using human embryos in some immoral way.
This right to refuse should come from a two pointed discernment (to use your term). The first point would be the clinical judgment of the medical professional judging medical treatment as being beneficial or detrimental to the patient who is asking. The second point is the more important and is tied up with the morality of the treatment. Hence if a treatment may cure or help a person but the administration of it would be morally negative then the doctor has an obligation to refuse the treatment to the patient. A perfect example are the vaccinations that have been developed using human embryos in some immoral way.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Nope, Jesus did not “deferred to the prevailing cultural ethos to determine” Jesus sent her away leaving the discernment to her.
Nor did I ever mention any other group or culture
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Your mixing a lot here 1) I did not empower the patient -God did. (Free will) 2) The matter of ethics is agreeable with me, but who’s ethics? That is the circle we continue in, many dismiss the patient’s ethics as inferior. 3) Now on the doctor’s refusal I agree with you but again you switched the ethical question from who decides to actions with in the doctor’s practice. See the issue is not whether the doctor should sin. The issue is when does the doctor intervene over the patient’s decision. The doctor has every right to refuse any treatment of any patient. This refusal is the pertinent discernment. If you reread the original posting you will see an A,B,C,D -see there are many responsibility of the medical provider.
Can you imagine if you were on your death bed in agony and your doctor arrives, you say “Doctor please give me a pain blockers”. But the doctors says “No, I am a Seventh Day Adventist I do not agree with your request”. So you say “Doctor call another doctor for me”, but he says “NO, you will use that doctor to get pain medicine and I said no to that already”. See this example is to address the points in paragraph #2 the doctor did refuse and used the doctor’s ethical view which is this would be " morally negative "
hope that helps
M
mosher
Guest
To not intervene would be an improper understanding of freewill. The patient has used their free will by asking for the unethical treatment and then the doctor has used his free will to say no. The use of free will does not equate to getting what you desire.
Also, on the second case I can understand the concern. In that case the obligation of the patient is to suffer patiently. A lot easier said than done, I know. However, evil in the world is the result of such acts that do not resonate with what is true. While all circumstances cannot be accounted for we cannot do ethics per the situation but rather the principle must be upheld. The principle here is the issue of objective evil and the individuals obligation to not participate in a desired evil. As such my previous treatment stands.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Thanks
But I simply do not agree with much of this post I’ll underline the sections I have clear disagreements with.
I am leaving for the day but let me ask you a question. Suppose the doctor in your view was doing the unethical thing to the patient, yet the doctor said it was ethical? I’ll make up an example the doctor prescribes a medicine for the patient ( who is poor with several children) or treatment which unknowingly creates a sterile patient. The doctor knows but the patient does not know. The doctor claims the actions were ethical, because he claims the sterile condition was not the objective. Is your doctor who used your same process still on high ground? Suppose the patient does not believe the doctor accidently withheld the knowledge, and the patient believes the treatment was not even essential. See if you have the doctor decide the ethics on behalf of the patient in the earlier cases, what is the magic that now changes the doctor to pass this decision to the patient?
I’ll read your reply tomorrow - thanks
M
mosher
Guest
It is not only the responsibility of the doctor to make the judgment. Rather it is the responsibility of all involved to judge the action. If there is a variation of judgment then it must the verified by objective moral principles of which both or neither may have competence. In such a case an outside competent authority must be consulted. In the case of a hospital the ethics board can be consulted or one can have recourse to a higher authority which is the Church.
The point is that it is not a matter of what one believes to be ethical but what is ethical. Further, one can never be compelled to act in such a way that violates their conscience even if this is a poorly formed conscience. The operative word here is to compel. So, in the earlier case the doctor who refuses to give a treatment himself cannot be forced to do so if it violates his conscience. In turn it is now the responsibility of the patient to seek another way in which he can receive the treatment. However, if the treatment is objectively evil then no person has a right to that treatment.
A
Arwen037
Guest
Question: WHY was the doctor prescribing birth control? My dermatologist planned to suggest it to me if the first step of my acne treatment didn’t work. If that had happened, would it have been immoral to hand me the prescription?
J
jmcrae
Guest
I hope for your sake that he found an alternative that wasn’t quite that drastic. It seems like overkill to treat a skin condition with a drug that causes you to become infertile.
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
WHY is irrelevant.
C
Catherine_W
Guest
To answer your question:
The doctor was prescribing birth control pills for the lady because she did not want to have anymore kids. No other factors were involved. Also there was no danger to her health if she were to have more children (not that that would matter and he should still recommend NFP).
The doctor was prescribing birth control pills for the lady because she did not want to have anymore kids. No other factors were involved. Also there was no danger to her health if she were to have more children (not that that would matter and he should still recommend NFP).
S
setter
Guest
“Discernment” as in what is right or wrong, or whether to accept the moral authority of Jesus, or discernment as to whether to give into temptation? Your use of “discernment” is unclear.
F
fix
Guest
It is not about the doctor having authority over the women to sin or not. It is about his cooperating in her sin.
F
fix
Guest
Yes, the fact that some doctors act incorrectly does not mean there are no objective standards. All types of unjust situations arise each day, but none of them make formal participation in evil acceptable.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Thanks Fix, Mosher, & CatherineW
Fix, I was avoiding your post only in that you are saying the exact same thing I am, probably in a better communication. When you say “the fact that some doctors act incorrectly does not mean there are no objective standards. All types of unjust situations arise each day, but none of them make formal participation in evil acceptable.” You are exactly correct. So the student, the doctor, and the patient are equal in that regard. Which is why all three have to be capable of acting independently as their own moral compass. The responsibility can not be passed from one to the other -as that in itself would violate an objective moral standard. It is simply not possible all will always act the same, and agree the same. In this example the doctor and patient manifested an action based on their individual moral compass. The student has not yet done that.
Now please consider the possibility these three people met in the communion line at Sunday’s Mass. Now the Priest must apply his moral compass.
Fix, I was avoiding your post only in that you are saying the exact same thing I am, probably in a better communication. When you say “the fact that some doctors act incorrectly does not mean there are no objective standards. All types of unjust situations arise each day, but none of them make formal participation in evil acceptable.” You are exactly correct. So the student, the doctor, and the patient are equal in that regard. Which is why all three have to be capable of acting independently as their own moral compass. The responsibility can not be passed from one to the other -as that in itself would violate an objective moral standard. It is simply not possible all will always act the same, and agree the same. In this example the doctor and patient manifested an action based on their individual moral compass. The student has not yet done that.
Now please consider the possibility these three people met in the communion line at Sunday’s Mass. Now the Priest must apply his moral compass.
- Status