tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6305758824598388293..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Concierge physician for the Khmer RougeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65871087473520148232019-03-07T20:36:54.565-05:002019-03-07T20:36:54.565-05:00I'm someone who has taken "a class in bio...I'm someone who has taken "a class in bioethics" in medical school. Just a few brief thoughts for now:<br /><br />1. The <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/court-initiated-medical-treatment-criminal-cases" rel="nofollow">American Medical Association</a> itself has said: "Physicians have civic duties, but medical ethics do not require a physician to carry out civic duties that contradict fundamental principles of medical ethics...". <br /><br />In short, the AMA recognizes that doctors aren't <i>only</i> doctors. Doctors have "civic duties" as well as medical duties.<br /><br />2. Nothing necessarily unethical about <i>withholding care</i>. It depends on the particulars of a specific case. <br /><br />Of course, if someone has a fatal disease (e.g. stage 4 pancreatic cancer), they may die without treatment, but still it's not necessarily wrong for a physician to withhold treatment from a patient with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. For one thing, Rauser's hypothetical never mentioned what "the entire population inflicted with a fatal disease" wanted to do or not do. <br /><br />Suppose a subset of the population refuses medical treatment of a curable fatal disease, which actually happens in the real world of medicine. If that happens, then a doctor could, without violating standard medical ethics, respect their autonomy and withhold care from them. <br /><br />Likewise, God could withhold salvation from those who refuse it. That's consistent with Calvinism.<br /><br />3. The Hippocratic Oath is outdated. Many contemporary medical ethicists argue the Hippocratic Oath is paternalistic, that the Hippocratic Oath leaves out patient autonomy, that the Hippocratic Oath is sexist by only imparting this knowledge to "sons", the Hippocratic Oath could be regarded as not including surgeons ("I will not use the knife"), it's not as if most physicians literally "swear by Apollo the physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses", and so on. <br /><br />Besides, most social progressives today would vehemently disagree with the Hippocratic Oath's admonition against abortion ("I will not give a woman a pessary to procure abortion") and it would seem against euthanasia ("I will not give a deadly drug to anyone though it be asked of me, nor will I lead the way in such counsel").Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65908380321980232932019-03-07T18:56:57.819-05:002019-03-07T18:56:57.819-05:00Indeed. As is so often the case, in an attempt to ...Indeed. As is so often the case, in an attempt to demonstrate a problem within Calvinism the Arminian offers a clumsy analogy that misses the mark completely (as Steve has demonstrated), providing the Calvinist with an opportunity to turn it around, tighten things up somewhat, and provide a more fitting analogy that gets closer to the heart of the Arminian scheme, exposing it for what it is. <br /><br />When will Arminians learn?Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43820561957848498362019-03-07T17:26:50.382-05:002019-03-07T17:26:50.382-05:00Good point Danny. Also, the Doctor had the abilit...Good point Danny. Also, the Doctor had the ability to stop the virus from spreading but decided to let it out to see who would come to him for saving? His oath at that point was of course irrelevant because...well...it would destroy their own position as well.Auggybendoggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01730767940271614636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54112586634944353372019-03-07T13:36:35.407-05:002019-03-07T13:36:35.407-05:00Excellent response. One side thinks, the other sid...Excellent response. One side thinks, the other side prances and preens itself, even engaging in self-congratulation ('Well said, if I do say so myself!') after quoting its original post! <br /><br />The Hippocratic Oath is impotent and irrelevant here given Rauser's theology since, according to Arminianism, the doctor is utterly hamstrung in his abilty/willingness to actually *apply* the antidote and thus make it *effective*, and stands by after merely 'providing' the antidote in some disconnected, meaningless-to-many fashion, and so watches on (or simply walks away) as many if not most (or theoretically all!) of the population does not avail itself of the antidote and continues to perish. Marvellous! Thanks, doc! <br /><br />Rauser's example backfires spectacularly.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.com