Since I've been doing research on the debate topic, lets make the blog this week about my debate topic. My debate topic was "members of professional staffs should be exempted from patient cae situation in which they have conscientious objections." I was told to do the negative, which was fine by me since I actually agree with it.
Most physicians practicing today were trained to be patient advocates. They have been taught that a physician’s duty is to rally resources for the patient’s benefit. Conscientious objection goes against what physicians have been taught to do. A doctors’conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care. What should be provided to patients is defined by the law and consideration of the just distribution of finite medical resources, which requires a reasonable conception of the patient’s good and the patient’s informed desires. If people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors. Doctors should not offer partial medical services or partially discharge their obligations to care for their patients.
Doctors have to take a
Hippocratic Oath to become doctors. With this oath, they have sworn to be patient
advocates and help their patients in any legal way. This is why I have a problem
with conscientious objection. If you
don’t want to perform certain surgeries or prescribe some type of medicine,
then don’t be in that area of medicine or in medicine in general. A cop can’t just not be physical
with someone or use their gun when people are in danger, because they have a
conscientious objection about violence. So a doctor shouldn’t be able to not do
certain procedures or prescribe certain drugs because they think it is morally
wrong or their religious beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment