Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flashman13

(685 posts)
16. Let's try this hypothetical. Two young white male drug dealers get into an agument in the middle of a deal.
Thu Mar 28, 2024, 01:37 PM
Mar 28

One pulls out a gun and shots the other in the guts. The victim starts bleeding profusely from this very painful life threatening injury. He arrives at the ER accompanied by the police. The doctor on call at that moment is a member of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The doctor asks the officer what happened. The officer tells him that he was shot in a drug deal gone bad while holding a quantity of fentanyl. In a righteous shout the doctor says, "I will not treat this man because he is a sinner and I can not sully my person by saving his life". Before another doctor arrives the injured man bleeds out and dies.

So under the same argument made in the case of a medical abortion gone wrong, is it acceptable that the pious doctor allowed the man to die? We know that not only was he sinning at the time of injury, he was also taking part in a criminal act. Not only that, but he was endangering other sinning criminal drug users by pushing fentanyl. All around we will all agree he was a bad man. Does that further justify letting him die? Isn't the world better off with one less drug dealer?

Before you answer those questions let's look at a slightly different scenario. You are an emergency surgeon working in the MASH next to Hawkeye Pierce. One wounded man after another arrives at your operating table. The doctor doesn't check to see what uniform he is wearing. The doctor treats him and does his best to save his life. A wounded man is a wounded man and everyone gets treated the same regardless of the uniform. Never mind that he is "the enemy". Never mind that a hour before he had pulled the trigger and attempted to kill the wounded the man you had just treated. The doctors treat the wounded enemy not because they are covered by the Geneva Convention, but because doctors save lives because that is what they do. Something like all life is sacred.

Contrast a MASH doctor working knee deep in blood in a war zone with his sensibilities attacked every moment of the day by the madness and immorality of war, with the smug lovers of "unborn life", basically overgrown snow flakes, in a suburban ER. The first does everything he can to repair the damage. The second stands around passing judgement on his patient. Maybe war has something to teach us here.

Sorry about the length. Rant over.

Those evangelical seekers of purity should be selling shoes instead of practicing medicine. LastDemocratInSC Mar 28 #1
"First, do no harm..." intheflow Mar 28 #2
If a doctor isn't willing to treat everyone then they should find another profession. CrispyQ Mar 28 #3
I'm glad Erin Hawley is not my Mom. Midnight Writer Mar 28 #4
A couple of years ago, I had to take my beloved, 15-year-old fur kid to the vet for his final visit. In the vet's office LaMouffette Mar 28 #5
You've summarized the existential question that veterinarians face... WestMichRad Mar 28 #6
Your post sent chills through me. I hadn't heard of vets' high suicide rates before. My heart goes out to all of them, LaMouffette Mar 28 #11
We just had to take our very senior kitten in for his final visit. Hope22 Mar 28 #19
I'm so sorry, Hope22! You have my deepest condolences for the loss of your kitty. People who have never had a LaMouffette Mar 28 #21
Oh, thank you for your comforting words. Hope22 Mar 28 #25
Thanks, Hope22! I know our boy hung around for a few days right after he passed and has dropped in a few times in the LaMouffette Apr 2 #30
They don't think of women as being human. But unlike cats, women can be 'impure.' So they get even less respect. /nt localroger Mar 28 #14
Where is that Boeing door when you need it? LiberalFighter Mar 28 #7
Scary Times in SCOTUS yankee87 Mar 28 #8
Yesterday Randi Rhodes said that two of the doctors in the plaintiff's suit are DENTISTS!!!! OMGWTF Mar 28 #9
My thought too! get the red out Mar 28 #12
No. It's da X-rays--- 3Hotdogs Mar 28 #22
No. It's da X-rays--- 3Hotdogs Mar 28 #23
This group should be renamed the Alliance for Hypocritical Medicine. Lonestarblue Mar 28 #10
i propose moonshinegnomie Mar 28 #13
MoscowMitch and traitortrump gave us this Subversive Court and weaponized judiciary. Hermit-The-Prog Mar 28 #15
I disagree. "Did Not Vote" gave us this Supreme Court lineup. mahatmakanejeeves Mar 28 #17
Yes, that's more accurate. The GOP would not have had the power without "did not vote". Hermit-The-Prog Mar 28 #18
Let's try this hypothetical. Two young white male drug dealers get into an agument in the middle of a deal. flashman13 Mar 28 #16
The doctor takes the law in their own hand instead of letting the court decide. LiberalFighter Mar 28 #28
Let's say a woman is lucky enough to find a doctor to help her. Hope22 Mar 28 #20
She must have a shitty marriage to Josh if they only have sex to procreate kimbutgar Mar 28 #24
More proof that you cannot support republican policies and be a Christian nakocal Mar 28 #26
Morally pure??? Aren't there patients having other surgical or medical procedures that might be morally impure? nt LiberalFighter Mar 28 #27
My daughter died from not being able to have medical care-that's murder by a money hungry society Stargazer99 Mar 29 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Anti-Abortion Endgame...»Reply #16