Atheists doctors are more humane than religious doctors

Ush1

My name is URL wrote: »

Of course it is. Doctors don't base their decision on whether or not they carry out abortions on religion, they base it on law. A law that exists because of a socio-political agenda.. the people that voted against introducing abortions may have religious motives but it has nothing to do with how doctors are supposed to perform under any given rule-set.

On a side note, I'm sure some do.

The argument isn't about if doctors do their jobs or not under law, it's about changing the law for religious motives.

My name is URL

Zillah wrote: »

You do realise that despite our best efforts, many people end up suffering greatly as they linger before death, right? There are limits to what pain medication can do, and there are limits to what a doctor is allowed to prescribe. Not to mention the fact that physical pain is just one way that someone dying of cancer can suffer.

Even in the complete absence of pain, a dying person can still be faced with the terrifying horror of their own impending demise, as their body shuts down and rebels around them, they face the nightmarish indignity of an utterly powerless state. Were I given the choice of a clean death or a first row seat for the dissolution of everything that made me human, I know which I'd pick.

I'm not trying to say otherwise at all. Of course dying of cancer is a horrible way to go, but you cannot assume that everyone would simply choose euthanasia if it were an option. People do have the option anyway, they can go to Dignitas.. how many people look in to that as an option presently?

I think I'd make the same decision as yourself, but that doesn't mean that everyone else would. And it shouldn't mean that religious doctors are to blame for not allowing that choice to exist.

Ush1

opinion guy wrote: »

See I knew you were missing my point.

I am not disagreeing with you - yes I am an ape.

The point is - most people DON'T think like that. Most people, including most doctors think of humans as higher forms of animal than dogs, cats etc. Therefore - its is inappropriate to compare the attitudes of most people to euthanising animals to euthanising humans. They are two seperate issues - to most people. What you personally think is not going to change the societal view on things.

Personally, I do think humans are just another animal. But I also think there is a world of difference between euthanising an animal versus euthanising a human.

No I'm not missing your point, for probably the third time now you've just re-iterated what I said in my first post. I think it's you that is missing it, no actually, you clearly are.

Now, as for you claiming your own beliefs or societies, you said:

"Most people, even atheists, would consider a human life to be of more inherent value than animals (whether this is true or not is another days argument). To equate ending a human life with ending an animal life is simply not a valid comparison when you are looking at it from the point of view of evaluating peoples thoughts and decision processes."

Where are you getting these stats that most people including atheists consider non human animals of less inherent value than humans?

The part in bold you stated. You didn't add anything else. You said it as fact and certainly YOUR opinion. You didn't add this is what society et al believes.

drkpower

panda100 wrote: »

One thing as a doctor you just can't afford to be is judgmental. You spend your whole day treating people for lifestyle choices they themselves have chosen to make, be that smoking induced lung cancer, alcoholic liver disease or STD's.

It infuriates me that If a doctor refused emergency medical treatment for any other condition they would be struck of immediately. You have a choice to smoke,drink,eat crap or do no exercise,but your doctor will still have to treat your cholestrol induced MI. Why aren't women's reproductive choices afforded the same courtesy?

I agree with about 99% of this. But do you really advocate legally refusing to allow a doctor to remove himself from a therapeutic relationship based on his own personal views in all cases?

While we are predominantly discussing situations where 'religous' doctors refuse to treat patients, consider the reverse. The classical situation is where a surgeon is faced with a Jehovahs Witness patient who needs a serious operation and refuses a transfusion if needed. Should that doctor be obliged to perform the procedure in the knowledge that they will be obliged to allow the patient to die should they require a transfusion? Or should they be allowed to transfer the patient to an alternative suitably qualified practitioner with no detriment to the patient? Personally I think they should be so entitled.

Of course if the treatment is needed on an emergency basis or if there is no alternative suitably qualified practitioner, then the doctor should be obliged to treat; but otherwise, no.

opinion guy

Ush1 wrote: »

Where are you getting these stats that most people including atheists consider non human animals of less inherent value than humans?

I get it from the fact that the vast majority of people eat meat, use animal products and were animal hide in the form of leather, fur whatever. The vast majority to not eat human, wear human skin or use human products.

And we're done talking when you start asking for studies on that which is beyond obvious.
Bye

Ush1

opinion guy wrote: »

I get it from the fact that the vast majority of people eat meat, use animal products and were animal hide in the form of leather, fur whatever. The vast majority to not eat human, wear human skin or use human products.

And we're done talking when you start asking for studies on that which is beyond obvious.
Bye

Funny you should say about beyond obvious considering you kept re-iterating what I said in my first post and was confused by it.

So where is the mention of atheism in this study you have done?

I actually agree most people would consider non human animals life of lesser value, again, basically what was said in my first post.:rolleyes:

The question is why and what are the moral upshots? Does religion have a part to play?

There are many people who are striving to change these ideas.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056014579

ShooterSF

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not trying to say otherwise at all. Of course dying of cancer is a horrible way to go, but you cannot assume that everyone would simply choose euthanasia if it were an option. People do have the option anyway, they can go to Dignitas.. how many people look in to that as an option presently?

I think I'd make the same decision as yourself, but that doesn't mean that everyone else would. And it shouldn't mean that religious doctors are to blame for not allowing that choice to exist.

Why not give people the option though? Ok you can go to Switzerland and do your dirty deed at the bottom of the mountains where God can't see you (joke btw)

"but you cannot assume that everyone would simply choose euthanasia if it were an option."

That's fine. Just make it an option. It's not as if the minute it becomes an option there's going to be one atheist with his hand on the plug and another holding an open ketchup bottle over your baby!