"'There isn't a place for conscientious objectors in medicine.'
Of course, there is."
Moreover, conscientious objection to various procedures is an ineliminable part of the clinical judgment which is exercised daily by medical professionals.
But that's not really the question here.
The question is rather whether the exercise of that judgment ought to be protected by law such that no consequences can arise from it for the practitioner, or rather whether, while being required to exercise such judgment, overzealous or insufficient restraint can indeed lead to substantial consequences.
Using another's analogy: in fact we expect bus drivers to conscientiously object to applying the gas in a wide number of scenarios. But if their judgment on this manner sufficiently varies from their employer's expectations, they'll tend to face some consequences. Should we intervene to protect the bus driver from these consequences?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 22/2/11 21:34 (UTC)Of course, there is."
Moreover, conscientious objection to various procedures is an ineliminable part of the clinical judgment which is exercised daily by medical professionals.
But that's not really the question here.
The question is rather whether the exercise of that judgment ought to be protected by law such that no consequences can arise from it for the practitioner, or rather whether, while being required to exercise such judgment, overzealous or insufficient restraint can indeed lead to substantial consequences.
Using another's analogy: in fact we expect bus drivers to conscientiously object to applying the gas in a wide number of scenarios. But if their judgment on this manner sufficiently varies from their employer's expectations, they'll tend to face some consequences. Should we intervene to protect the bus driver from these consequences?