On the internet, I see Christians praising Garrett Swasey, the policeman who was shot and killed by Robert Dear. In one respect, that makes sense. People who hate Christians are blaming the attack on Christian extremism–although, from what I've read, there's no evidence that Robert Dear was theologically motivated. So the counter is that a prolife Christian (full-time policeman and volunteer copastor) died attempting to save the lives of others from the crazed gunman.
That's a good counter in the sense that it answers the critics on their own terms. It does, however, raise ethical questions. I suppose a policeman has a professional duty to go wherever the dispatcher tells him to go.
However, this is the larger issue: Is there a moral duty to intervene to save the life of a killer? Suppose Pablo Escobar is wheeled into the ER with a pulmonary embolism. Do the physicians have a moral obligation to save his life? You see, by saving his life, they ensure that he will kill even more innocent people. You patch him up on Friday and he goes back to ordering hits on Monday.
Refusing medical intervention in that case isn't the same as killing him. The doctor didn't cause his pulmonary embolism. The doctor didn't inject him with potassium chloride. The doctor simply let nature take its course.
Sometimes letting person die is equivalent to killing him, and sometimes not. That depends on the circumstances.
But there's no moral obligation to save the life of a contract killer. People in the business of taking innocent lives should kill at their own risk. They are not entitled to protection. You can't obligate others to rescue you in that situation.
Thank you from this pro-life mainliner for the reminder that many of you sectarians are pretty okay with lawlessness when the law in question doesn't strike your fancy. Echoes of Kim Davis.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record, yes, a physician has the moral/ethical/legal obligation to save even Pablo Escobar needing an embolization. Anyone with a cursory understanding of medical ethics or law knows that.
Guy Williams
Delete"Thank you from this pro-life mainliner for the reminder that many of you sectarians are pretty okay with lawlessness when the law in question doesn't strike your fancy. Echoes of Kim Davis."
You're all bark, no bite:
1. Nothing necessarily wrong with being "sectarian." At a minimum, you'll have to elaborate what you mean for your words to carry any weight.
2. Your assertion that we "are pretty okay with lawlessness when the law in question doesn't strike your fancy" is a bare assertion. Where's your argument?
If you have none, then you're at best living from paycheck to paycheck. One assertion after another with no money in the bank to pay for all your bluster.
3. Likewise with your statement "Echoes of Kim Davis." As if that explains what you mean. All it does is simply assume what Kim Davis did was wrong, but once again you provide no argumentation for your position. One might ironically say your position is itself a series of echoes. A faint clamoring for some attention in imitation of others who have shouted much louder than you have.
"And for the record, yes, a physician has the moral/ethical/legal obligation to save even Pablo Escobar needing an embolization. Anyone with a cursory understanding of medical ethics or law knows that."
1. Yet another assertion in search of an argument.
2. You roll the moral/ethical and legal into one. But Steve didn't frame the issue in terms of legality. He framed it in moral and ethical terms.
Besides, what's legal may be immoral.
3. Perhaps your real problem is you only have "a cursory understanding of medical ethics."
The purpose of the comment was to genuinely thank you for the reminder that you folks are "nuts", as they say. I don't feel any need to provide any "bite" because for anyone who finds living in a safe, orderly society to be desirous would find the assertion that a police officer may save citizens from a mass shooter because he finds those citizens objectionable to be absurd on its face.
ReplyDeleteYour ideas would be dangerous if you didn't periodically make people aware of the extent of your crazy with such assertions. So once again, I think it's appropriate to thank you, even though the rhetorical damage you do to pro-life politics with such preposterous assertions is troublesome.
May *decline to save* citizens from a mass shooter. My apologies for the typo.
DeleteA "safe, orderly society" for whom? For aborted babies? For euthanized senior citizens?
DeleteYou resort to the euphemism of "citizens he finds objectionable." Your lack of moral discrimination is impressive.
If you were actually capable of reasoning, you'd notice that my post wasn't about the specific question of a policeman's official duties, but whether there's a general obligation to save the life of a killer.
Since you're incapable of reasoning, all you can do is to resort to abusive adjectives. So I genuinely wish to thank you for the reminder that folks like you have no intelligent contribution to make.
Steve has responded to Guy Williams at length here.
ReplyDelete