PhuturePriest Posted April 17, 2014 Author Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) So what is the limit of force? If the doctor refuses to provide care, then what may a person do to force him, or to punish him if he does not? And are there any reciprocal obligations? Is it not incumbent upon those seeking care to compensate the doctor? It shouldn't be done by force. But the doctor does have an obligation to save a person's life to the best of his abilities, and whether he does it or not is irrelevant. Many people have had obligations that they didn't do but were nonetheless obligations. I wonder if your opinion would change about dying people having a right to medical care if something happened to you or your wife. Edited April 17, 2014 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 So what is the limit of force? If the doctor refuses to provide care, then what may a person do to force him, or to punish him if he does not? And are there any reciprocal obligations? Is it not incumbent upon those seeking care to compensate the doctor? those who seek care should compensate a doctor but an unconscious gun shot victim should not be denied care or have care withheld because he can not pay before hand for his care. I think no force should be used to make the doctor treat the dying person but if they refuse they should be subject to not only lawsuits by the affected family but also punishment by jail time. Just as I believe a normal lay person should have the same punishment if they find a dying person in the middle of the road and choose to do nothing and watch them die. I believe they are responsible for that persons death if they choose not to call 911 and just watch the person die. Same with the doctor. I believe if someone brings a dying person to a doctor in the hospital and he refuses care and just sits there and watches him die, he is in part responsible for that persons death and should receive punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Multiple kidney transplants woul qualify? The fact that you are being logical makes me think you might hate poor people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 It shouldn't be done by force. But the doctor does have an obligation to save a person's life to the best of his abilities, and whether he does it or not is irrelevant. Many people have had obligations that they didn't do but were nonetheless obligations. I wonder if your opinion would change about dying people having a right to medical care if something happened to you or your wife. See this: The doctor having a moral obligation to help a dying person does not equal the dying person having a right to the doctor's help. Different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 17, 2014 Author Share Posted April 17, 2014 See this: I already responded to that. But again, we'll see if your opinion changes if you're ever gunshot and need immediate medical attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 would the kidneys already be avaliable or are we talking about taking them from people? also are we talking about someone needing a transplant now, like they will die in a day or 2 or they need one eventually? Die in a few days. Not taking by force from living people. Since voluntary donors are scarce, would Gov be in charge of harvesting from all terminal or accident victims? Who would pay for Doctors, nurses, janitors, aids, technicians, builders, supplies, etc? Where would the money come from? Would it be for any and every person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Die in a few days. Not taking by force from living people. Since voluntary donors are scarce, would Gov be in charge of harvesting from all terminal or accident victims? Who would pay for Doctors, nurses, janitors, aids, technicians, builders, supplies, etc? Where would the money come from? Would it be for any and every person? die in a few days would qualify. the doctor has to attempt to save the person or face criminal charges. he can not just sit there and watch the person die. same rules apply for donors as currently in place. you need permission from donors pre death or family members. that rule wouldn;t change. who pays for the doctors and such? the customer of course, after they have been cared for. Now maybe that means 20 dollars a month until the bill is paid off but the doctor is still being paid. the doctor can not refuse care to a dying person because they don't have the cash on hand or can pay right then because they are unconscious from a near fatal injury. this would be for any person and every person who is about to die. a doctor or even a lay person should never, ever be allowed to have a dying person in front of them and refuse them care and just watch them die. they are partly responsible for their deaths then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 die in a few days would qualify. the doctor has to attempt to save the person or face criminal charges. he can not just sit there and watch the person die. same rules apply for donors as currently in place. you need permission from donors pre death or family members. that rule wouldn;t change. who pays for the doctors and such? the customer of course, after they have been cared for. Now maybe that means 20 dollars a month until the bill is paid off but the doctor is still being paid. the doctor can not refuse care to a dying person because they don't have the cash on hand or can pay right then because they are unconscious from a near fatal injury. this would be for any person and every person who is about to die. a doctor or even a lay person should never, ever be allowed to have a dying person in front of them and refuse them care and just watch them die. they are partly responsible for their deaths then. How many 20 a month patients do you think it would take until the system crashed. It isn't just the "rich" doctor, but the janitors, linen companies, bandage suppliers, the laborers who built the building,,the lawn maintenance guys, electric company, etc. Should the gov be in charge of of the medical system to distribute the resources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 How many 20 a month patients do you think it would take until the system crashed. It isn't just the "rich" doctor, but the janitors, linen companies, bandage suppliers, the laborers who built the building,,the lawn maintenance guys, electric company, etc. Should the gov be in charge of of the medical system to distribute the resources? How the payment would work out, I don't know. I haven't given it a lot of thought since I am not a hospital administrator or accountant. I would have to think on this. Although someone should not be refused life saving care because they cant pay up front or are currently unconscious with life threatening injuries. The government doesn't necessarily need to be in charge. It could be a private business. Although either way, punishment of jail time should be enforced for any doctor who is presented with a dying patient and chooses not to do anything just because and instead just sits there and watches that person die. They are then partially responsible for that persons death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Doctors are slaves if we have rights over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Doctors are slaves if we have rights over them. If you and i are in a building and you slip and break your legs and are bleeding out and can not reach the phone do I have a right to refuse to call 911 or hand you a phone and instead sit there and watch you bleed out and die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 If you and i are in a building and you slip and break your legs and are bleeding out and can not reach the phone do I have a right to refuse to call 911 or hand you a phone and instead sit there and watch you bleed out and die? Do you disagree with my statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I would ask you to show mercy and choose by your own free will to help me, I would not believe I had certain rights over you that would compel you to help me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I would ask you to show mercy and choose by your own free will to help me, I would not believe I had certain rights over you that would compel you to help me. so you believe your choice not to help is more important than human life. That someone's right to life is less important than someone;s choice to do nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Do you disagree with my statement? absolutely i disagree with your statement. right to life superceeds someone's choice of doing nothing. right to life is a basic human right that every person deserves as given by God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now