IMHO, Doctors have a duty of care to whomever is their patient. I don’t care whether that person is the second coming of Christ or the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, they are entitled to effective care.
That’s not to say that they can’t be tried for their crimes, but the administration of justice is a different job from the administration of medicine.
Physicians are not judges. Their duty is to save lives, no matter how evil or good said life is.
Because a living terrorist can pay for its crimes, and may one day understand the evil of his way, no matter how slim the chances are.
A dead one won’t. Even worse, it can become a martyr to his people and encourage others to follow his path.
Once they are fit to be incarcerated and judged they will. But for now they are a life that can be saved. That’s all that matters for a physician.
You are right. It isn’t universal, nor is it a law in many countries. Still, it is an oath that many take, and this is why they won’t refuse to treat anyone, even their enemies.
The relevant part, albeit not part of the original oath, can be summarized as “help, or do not harm”. And not helping a wounded person when you could is considered by many of their peers as harm by inaction.
Of course you won’t chastise them for breaking their oath, you don’t have the power to do anything anyway, but their peers will, and it is almost impossible to find work in this field once you are identified as an oath breaker.
On the other hand, there can be some triage during such an event, and if the hospital is too full, guess who will probably not get priority over their victims?
it’s a universal truth that anything other than that will just end up in the following situation:
you have to decide how good or bad each patient is before you treat them.
What if it’s a terrorist, but they’re not in a uniform? What if they’re unconscious? Do you simply not treat anyone unconscious until you’ve given them a moral test? Should people who support a woman’s right to choose get healthcare? Some would say no. Why say Hamas militants are bad when the armies of the USA, Britain, Germany, France have committed atrocities? Should doctors not treat anyone in the military? Current or past? What about people who’ve been in a fight? Smokers? Drinkers? The overweight?
In the end you have to go back to “just treat everyone”.
It’s not a pure universal axiomatic truth, but it’s still a truth
how do you know that, if your sister was killed, and I trip and break my leg, I’m not your sisters killer? You’d have doctors who couldn’t treat anyone until we could prove without doubt their patient wasn’t a killer.
Imagine having a contagious disease that needs urgent treatment and the doctor sending you back home to inject the rest of the world because you were in a car crash where someone died
I think you are the one clinging to absolutes here.
That’s also an incredibly unlikely scenario that I would wager no human being has ever actually faced. We should build societal rules and norms around things that generally actually happen, not the most extreme or ‘nuanced’ versions of a scenario we can imagine.
By your logic we should have one hospital and a unique set of staff for each religion, one for felons, one for each race, etc. So that each doctor can work only on patients that they think deserve their help.
I responded with hyperbole to your hyperbole about doctors being forced to treat patients that had raped and murdered their family. But anyway, you’re clearly set on seeing it your way, and lacking in critical think skills, so have a good day in your own little world buddy.
What are you talking about? Present a valid argument and you may change my mind.
I responded with hyperbole to your hyperbole about doctors being forced to treat patients that had raped and murdered their family.
What? Your hyperbole was assuming doctors would be judging whether each patient should be treated. You made that comment before I commented about doctors treating patients who kill and rape their family.
Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension, lol.
IMHO, Doctors have a duty of care to whomever is their patient. I don’t care whether that person is the second coming of Christ or the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, they are entitled to effective care.
That’s not to say that they can’t be tried for their crimes, but the administration of justice is a different job from the administration of medicine.
That’s cool that you think that, but it’s far from a universal truth.
I believe it should be. A lot can be gleaned about a society’s morals & ethics from how it treats its criminals (and arguably crime in general).
I don’t necessarily agree, but I get your point.
Do you know about the Hippocratic Oath ?
Physicians are not judges. Their duty is to save lives, no matter how evil or good said life is.
Because a living terrorist can pay for its crimes, and may one day understand the evil of his way, no matter how slim the chances are.
A dead one won’t. Even worse, it can become a martyr to his people and encourage others to follow his path.
Once they are fit to be incarcerated and judged they will. But for now they are a life that can be saved. That’s all that matters for a physician.
Yes. The hippocratic oath is not universal law.
Doctors are free to break it, and I will not chastise them for doing so in the case of their enemies.
You are right. It isn’t universal, nor is it a law in many countries. Still, it is an oath that many take, and this is why they won’t refuse to treat anyone, even their enemies.
The relevant part, albeit not part of the original oath, can be summarized as “help, or do not harm”. And not helping a wounded person when you could is considered by many of their peers as harm by inaction.
Of course you won’t chastise them for breaking their oath, you don’t have the power to do anything anyway, but their peers will, and it is almost impossible to find work in this field once you are identified as an oath breaker.
On the other hand, there can be some triage during such an event, and if the hospital is too full, guess who will probably not get priority over their victims?
it’s a universal truth that anything other than that will just end up in the following situation:
you have to decide how good or bad each patient is before you treat them.
What if it’s a terrorist, but they’re not in a uniform? What if they’re unconscious? Do you simply not treat anyone unconscious until you’ve given them a moral test? Should people who support a woman’s right to choose get healthcare? Some would say no. Why say Hamas militants are bad when the armies of the USA, Britain, Germany, France have committed atrocities? Should doctors not treat anyone in the military? Current or past? What about people who’ve been in a fight? Smokers? Drinkers? The overweight?
In the end you have to go back to “just treat everyone”.
It’s not a pure universal axiomatic truth, but it’s still a truth
Yeah, but doctors are people too and I don’t think they have a moral obligation to treat people who kill and rape their family.
It’s part of me not being autistic. I can see nuance in these situations and don’t cling to easy absolutes.
how do you know that, if your sister was killed, and I trip and break my leg, I’m not your sisters killer? You’d have doctors who couldn’t treat anyone until we could prove without doubt their patient wasn’t a killer.
Imagine having a contagious disease that needs urgent treatment and the doctor sending you back home to inject the rest of the world because you were in a car crash where someone died
I think you are the one clinging to absolutes here.
Okay, buddy. I can see you will not listen to reason here, and that’s okay. I’ve come across many people like you before.
I’m just gonna duck out and tell you to have a nice day.
I hope you do so.
“listen to reason”
the reason: “I am not autistic like you”
ok buddy have a good one
Lol, you apparently think everyone is worth arguing with which proves my point.
That’s also an incredibly unlikely scenario that I would wager no human being has ever actually faced. We should build societal rules and norms around things that generally actually happen, not the most extreme or ‘nuanced’ versions of a scenario we can imagine.
By your logic we should have one hospital and a unique set of staff for each religion, one for felons, one for each race, etc. So that each doctor can work only on patients that they think deserve their help.
That’s because I’m not advocating for your hyperbole, that doctors should judge whether each patient should be treated.
Not really. That’s your own hyperbole.
I responded with hyperbole to your hyperbole about doctors being forced to treat patients that had raped and murdered their family. But anyway, you’re clearly set on seeing it your way, and lacking in critical think skills, so have a good day in your own little world buddy.
What are you talking about? Present a valid argument and you may change my mind.
What? Your hyperbole was assuming doctors would be judging whether each patient should be treated. You made that comment before I commented about doctors treating patients who kill and rape their family.
Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension, lol.
Buddy you are so wrong lol, look at this screenshot and tell me what the comment at the very top says?
Oh look, it’s you hyperbolizing about people being forced to operate on someone who raped and murdered their family.
Then, as a CHILD COMMENT to yours, I make my very first comment in this thread.
Then you tell me I’m using hyperbole and try to discredit me.
Absolutely incredible the arrogance you have for someone that can’t even proof read your own arguments.