(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Even prostitutes should have the opportunity to turn down sex. This is something I posited in one of my sociology papers: that prostitutes can be raped, because they too have the ability to affirm or deny consent. This may seem like a given, but you'd be amazed at how many people think otherwise.

Comments

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. From what I understand, the "right-to-refuse" issue for doctors involves doctors being able to turn away patients that aren't of the same religious affiliation or something similar. That I adamantly don't agree with--that's quite opposed to the Hippocratic oath, IMO.

[artofcode.livejournal.com]

Indeed, if that's what guttaperk is getting at, I ditto the opinion that doctors and pharmacists do not have the right to withhold medication or treatment due to their "moral stance".

If that's the way they feel, they should not be doctors and pharmacists.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Right to refuse simply refers to the right to refuse services for (almost) any reason. It is staunchly defended by most who deal with the public.

Most modern governments rightly note that refusal on the basis of the racial/religious classification of the potential client- that is, on the basis of bigotry- is of such pressing danger to our societies that it is not to be tolerated. Non-bigoted reasons, even idiosyncratic ones, however, are usually tolerated, e.g. dress codes.

The Hippocratic Oath was an important early step in the development of medical ethics. However, I don't think that it remains the definitive reference for modern practise. For instance, it specifically forbids the practise of abortion and euthanasia, if I recall correctly, and both remain common practises in one form or another.

The important part of the Hippocratic Oath that you are likely referring to, the still-pertinent part, is "Do No Harm"; and I agree that where it can be shown that refusal of service poses immediate danger to the patient, it should fall under illegal-endangerment as well as unprofessional-conduct statutes.

But that is a specific minority of cases. Most cases of refusal of service, medical or not, do not constitute immediate danger, and so are (to me) legally tolerable. I should not be forced to perform routine infant circumcision or extreme breast enlargement (or other body modification procedures) at the whim of the patient; neither should pharmacists be forced to engage in prescription practises which they deem to be inappropriate.

Pharmacists and pharmacies which subject their patients to troublesome idiosyncratic refusals should, however, be subject to the usual marketplace punishments, just as are bars with unusually inconvenient dress codes.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Here we go.

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

There is much here with which we will both likely agree, but there are also significant components which fly against common current morality, including the waiving medical school fees and entry requirements for children of physicians, the forbiddance of military action for physicians, and including the forbidding of abortions.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

As abhorrent as the denial of right-to-refuse is, it is a right that some feel should be denied to pharmacists and doctors as well as prostitutes.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. From what I understand, the "right-to-refuse" issue for doctors involves doctors being able to turn away patients that aren't of the same religious affiliation or something similar. That I adamantly don't agree with--that's quite opposed to the Hippocratic oath, IMO.

I actually don't know of any cases where doctors wished to deny service on the basis of the patient having a different religion. We agree that such denial would be reprehensible- though still within the doctor's rights, if the patient is not endangered by it.

I believe that we all should be allowed to chart our own destiny unless we are directly putting others in harm's way by doing so. That is the basis for declaring blackmail to be morally wrong, after all.

State insistence that an individual dispense services against their wishes is essentially forced labour; such insistence should only be considered allowable in cases where life and safety would be directly in harm's way in the absence of such insistence.

I don't believe in double standards for doctors versus pharmacists versus prostitutes versus bricklayers. All deserve to chart their own courses, and forced labour should be extracted from no-one, except in cases of critical emergency need.

Conscientious refusal is not against the Hioppocratic Oath. Abortions, euthanasia, and medical school tuition, however, are specifically repudiated within the classical Hippocratic Oath, though they are predictably often omitted from modern reformulations.

Prominent cases of medical right to refuse service have generally revolved around abortion, but have occasionally revolved around other procedures such as routine circumcision of the newborn, as well as other body-modification procedures, and even non-medically-indicated Caesarian Section. (That last not recently, as sections are safe enough nowadays that fewer doctors object.)


It certainly seems arguable that medical professionals be forced to participate procedures they consider objectionable, where reasonable alternatives to safeguard the life and wellbeing of the patient are not available; but it does not seem arguable that such forced labour be condoned in the name of patient convenience.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Oops!

For some reason this turned up in my mailbox as being a new comment, and I replied to it.

Sorry!

adrian