Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free to post

Ethics at interview and the old cigarette

Announcements Posted on
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LPScot)
    Sorry in advance if I've completely misunderstood your comment.. But is your point that because smokers buy cigarettes and therefore pay tax on those cigarettes they are essentially paying more towards the NHS than non-smokers and are therefore more 'deserving' of treatment?
    the point i was making was that smokers should be treated equally to non smokers in the eyes of the NHS, not with any prefference of course not but i was saying that whilst it may be their fault for the illness they have through smoking they make up for that fact with the rivers of cash that are taken in through tax, but no sorry if it came across that i meant they should be given preferential treatment, of course not
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Well I don't see it as "wrong" to prioritise people whose condition is not mainly their fault as more deserving (the outcomes are better for patients with healthy lifestyles anyway if that is what you think priority should be based on; I find it too simplistic not to consider desert) , or expect the smoker to make an affordable financial contribution to their healthcare.

    It seems a lot of people do from the negs I've been hit with.... The last time I got a line of negs on the Medicine forum was for opposing abortion. Conservatives really get it in the neck here.
    Erm, right, i'm not sure you've quite got my point or not here, just to be clear, it was that regardless of personal opinion, you have to be able to accept the mainstream view to become a successful professional, especially in medicine. If a doctor suddenly woke up and decided he didn't want to treat Jewish people anymore, he wouldn't keep his job for very long. I'm not saying your opinion is comparable to racism but it is pretty far from the commonly held view.

    Furthermore simply claiming that people don't agree with you because of some imagined liberal-conservative divide is ludicrous and does nothing to help the debate. W/R/T abortion that's not a liberal-conservative argument. It's the law in the UK, all mainstream politicians and 99% of doctors support it, to come out against it is a fringe view.

    To be Honest i don't think either of the extremes are right, like most ethical dilemmas you have to find a balance. You can't not treat someone because of a 'self-inflicted' condition but equally you give someone a new liver transplant if you know that they'll ruin it with alcohol and you have other people in need who wouldn't.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Orinincandenza)
    Erm, right, i'm not sure you've quite got my point or not here, just to be clear, it was that regardless of personal opinion, you have to be able to accept the mainstream view to become a successful professional, especially in medicine. If a doctor suddenly woke up and decided he didn't want to treat Jewish people anymore, he wouldn't keep his job for very long. I'm not saying your opinion is comparable to racism but it is pretty far from the commonly held view.

    Furthermore simply claiming that people don't agree with you because of some imagined liberal-conservative divide is ludicrous and does nothing to help the debate. W/R/T abortion that's not a liberal-conservative argument. It's the law in the UK, all mainstream politicians and 99% of doctors support it, to come out against it is a fringe view.

    To be Honest i don't think either of the extremes are right, like most ethical dilemmas you have to find a balance. You can't not treat someone because of a 'self-inflicted' condition but equally you give someone a new liver transplant if you know that they'll ruin it with alcohol and you have other people in need who wouldn't.
    I will not agree with something just because it's legal in the UK. My morals are not related to UK laws in the slightest. The law tells me if I can be punished for doing something or not, it can't tell me whether it's right or wrong. It is as simple as that.

    I believe that human life should be protected from conception (i.e. sperm joining with egg, not the blastocyst implanting) and so morally abortion is murder; therefore all abortifacients should be banned including the morning-after pill. I supported the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi last autumn (unfortunately it got voted down 57%-43%) which would have criminalised all killing of unborn children. I will not support any means of killing a child before birth unless it is the only way of saving the mother's life, which is extremely rare. Even babies with abnormalities and babies conceived in rape do not deserve death.

    99% of doctors support abortion? Where did you get that from? 75% of the public are "pro-choice" according to the largest recent survey, but I am not sure what pro-choice means: that it's morally right, that it's morally wrong but should remain legal so other people can have a choice, that it's morally wrong but criminalising it would cause more problems for individuals and society so pragmatically it should stay legal, or that in certain circumstances (rape, very young age of mother, foetal abnormality, baby would be brought into abusive environment, mother with health problems that make being pregnant a bigger risk for her etc) but wrong in others. It is most definitely not a "fringe position" that abortions without good justification are wrong. In any case I will not just follow the multitude. Morality is not decided by majority vote.

    It IS a conservative/liberal issue, but social conservative, not fiscal (which is what the UK Conservative Party is more into.) Frank Field is a Labour MP and left-wing fiscally but is very much pro-life and pro-family. I am a "movement conservative", consistent across a wide range of social and fiscal issues.
    Although I am uncompromising on killing the preborn, I do have a balanced view on self-inflicted illnesses. The whole thing about not treating Jews is a red herring because I would not refuse to treat anyone, nor do I believe that smokers do not "merit" treatment. It is purely a matter of priority.
    • 44 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What exactly is the purpose of this thread? It's turned into the OP just preaching his views from a podium. Is there a point here?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    What exactly is the purpose of this thread? It's turned into the OP just preaching his views from a podium. Is there a point here?
    Well you're probably right but this is the internet so...

    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I will not agree with something just because it's legal in the UK. My morals are not related to UK laws in the slightest. The law tells me if I can be punished for doing something or not, it can't tell me whether it's right or wrong. It is as simple as that.

    I believe that human life should be protected from conception (i.e. sperm joining with egg, not the blastocyst implanting) and so morally abortion is murder; therefore all abortifacients should be banned including the morning-after pill. I supported the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi last autumn (unfortunately it got voted down 57%-43%) which would have criminalised all killing of unborn children. I will not support any means of killing a child before birth unless it is the only way of saving the mother's life, which is extremely rare. Even babies with abnormalities and babies conceived in rape do not deserve death.

    99% of doctors support abortion? Where did you get that from? 75% of the public are "pro-choice" according to the largest recent survey, but I am not sure what pro-choice means: that it's morally right, that it's morally wrong but should remain legal so other people can have a choice, that it's morally wrong but criminalising it would cause more problems for individuals and society so pragmatically it should stay legal, or that in certain circumstances (rape, very young age of mother, foetal abnormality, baby would be brought into abusive environment, mother with health problems that make being pregnant a bigger risk for her etc) but wrong in others. It is most definitely not a "fringe position" that abortions without good justification are wrong. In any case I will not just follow the multitude. Morality is not decided by majority vote.

    It IS a conservative/liberal issue, but social conservative, not fiscal (which is what the UK Conservative Party is more into.) Frank Field is a Labour MP and left-wing fiscally but is very much pro-life and pro-family. I am a "movement conservative", consistent across a wide range of social and fiscal issues.
    Although I am uncompromising on killing the preborn, I do have a balanced view on self-inflicted illnesses. The whole thing about not treating Jews is a red herring because I would not refuse to treat anyone, nor do I believe that smokers do not "merit" treatment. It is purely a matter of priority.
    Right, OK, so i'm as gratified as i am that you chose to write such a length rebuttal to a short point, i'm not really terribly interested in the abortion debate.

    But you have highlighted something useful. Somebody's duty as a doctor to comply with NHS regulations, for instance treating self inflicted illnesses the same as others, should come before their personal beliefs in most cases (obviously abortion is an exception to this).
    This is how the GMC sees it and how people are required to behave as a doctor.

    NB: the Conservative party in the UK is not socially conservative as you describe it, they support gay marriage and abortion, as much as you don't.
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    as a doctor your morals are irrelevant, your professional morality should be based purely on the question 'what can I do to make this patients life better?'
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Intentional self-harm is usually the result of a mental illness which the patient has no choice over. You don't choose to have the disorder so it would be unjust to determine a person's place in the queue in A&E, for example, because they had just had a cutting episode.
    Geting on to a different argument here, but shouldn't it be called involuntary?

    Back on topic: maybe there should be some kind of strikes system, where if somebody is told that they should stop smoking and they ignore the advice then they are pushed down the pecking order. Obviously ethics have gone to **** in this scenario, but from a Darwinistic point of view.....
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Orinincandenza)
    Well you're probably right but this is the internet so...



    Right, OK, so i'm as gratified as i am that you chose to write such a length rebuttal to a short point, i'm not really terribly interested in the abortion debate.

    But you have highlighted something useful. Somebody's duty as a doctor to comply with NHS regulations, for instance treating self inflicted illnesses the same as others, should come before their personal beliefs in most cases (obviously abortion is an exception to this).
    This is how the GMC sees it and how people are required to behave as a doctor.

    NB: the Conservative party in the UK is not socially conservative as you describe it, they support gay marriage and abortion, as much as you don't.
    I was saying that, exactly- they are more into fiscal than social conservatism. I am the other way around. I would go on a pro-life, pro-family demonstration but not the Rally Against Debt if logistical considerations were the same for both. 100% socially conservative but on certain fiscal matters I do not take the conservative view. I am not a "market fundamentalist" although the Austrian School had SOME good ideas, which is why for example I don't support a total dismantling of the NHS and privatisation of all schools with vouchers for parents who can't afford to pay fees. However the fact I believe progressive taxation is inherently unjust puts me well over the line to be considered a conservative.

    That's why I wouldn't vote Tory. In fact I have no intention of ever voting in any UK election as the positions I believe in are never represented by someone with a chance of winning a seat, let alone any power.
    • 44 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Now this thread is getting off topic. Let's keep it less political, more ethical.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah... don't go into medicine... you obviously don't understand people.

    Of course everyone should be given equal rights to healthcare...

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 2, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.