![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This question is for all of those who say that the so-called "barbaric" doctors in Canada should be forced to perform this tracheotomy on poor baby Joseph Maraachli because his parents want it to be done, regardless of the wills of the doctors and the fact that all of them feel that it will be a needlessly painful, unhelpful procedure (and it is not a cost issue, despite whatever lies Faux Noise might be spewing). This question is for those who condemn the doctors who feel that this procedure would only inflict additional harm and pain upon this poor baby for no benefit whatsoever to him, and would only serve to make them, the parents, feel somehow more at ease. This question is for those who say that this is some kind of slippery slope toward "death panels" and other such nonsense.
Here is the question:
So, what about abortion, then? It is a fact that many doctors refuse to perform abortions because they feel it is unethical to do so. If these doctors in Canada should be forced to do *this* procedure against their will, a procedure that they feel will bring needless suffering to a helpless baby only for the benefit of the parents, then why shouldn't doctors who are anti-abortion be forced to do *that* procedure against their will as well, a procedure that they feel will bring needless death to a helpless baby only for the benefit of the parents? I mean, after all, if the patient wants it done, then it should be done no matter what, right? And it shouldn't matter how the doctors feel about it, right? Isn't this also a slippery slope leading toward all doctors being forced to do whatever procedures and operations that the patient (or the parents of the patient) demands, even if the doctors themselves feel that said procedure is essentially torture (or murder, in the case of abortion) and don't want to do it? See how retarded such slippery slope arguments can be?
Why can't there be some sort of compromise? The parents already know that Joseph is not going to make it anyway, so why can't they just request a quiet room in the hospital for family to stay with him until he passes? Why demand that the doctors perform this extraneous, painful procedure just for the dubious benefit of being able to take him home? It certainly won't matter to baby Joseph himself where he is when he finally passes, will it?
If they can find another doctor somewhere else willing to perform this procedure, then more power to them, I guess. But as I have already noted previously, there's already been at least one US hospital that has refused to take in baby Joseph for this. Good luck to them finding another one that will.
This is a tragic thing for those on both sides, and I think it is absolutely horrendous that it is being played up for cheap political points (or for cheap publicity, as in the case of that "Terri Schiavo Priest" mentioned in the first link above).
Here is the question:
So, what about abortion, then? It is a fact that many doctors refuse to perform abortions because they feel it is unethical to do so. If these doctors in Canada should be forced to do *this* procedure against their will, a procedure that they feel will bring needless suffering to a helpless baby only for the benefit of the parents, then why shouldn't doctors who are anti-abortion be forced to do *that* procedure against their will as well, a procedure that they feel will bring needless death to a helpless baby only for the benefit of the parents? I mean, after all, if the patient wants it done, then it should be done no matter what, right? And it shouldn't matter how the doctors feel about it, right? Isn't this also a slippery slope leading toward all doctors being forced to do whatever procedures and operations that the patient (or the parents of the patient) demands, even if the doctors themselves feel that said procedure is essentially torture (or murder, in the case of abortion) and don't want to do it? See how retarded such slippery slope arguments can be?
Why can't there be some sort of compromise? The parents already know that Joseph is not going to make it anyway, so why can't they just request a quiet room in the hospital for family to stay with him until he passes? Why demand that the doctors perform this extraneous, painful procedure just for the dubious benefit of being able to take him home? It certainly won't matter to baby Joseph himself where he is when he finally passes, will it?
If they can find another doctor somewhere else willing to perform this procedure, then more power to them, I guess. But as I have already noted previously, there's already been at least one US hospital that has refused to take in baby Joseph for this. Good luck to them finding another one that will.
This is a tragic thing for those on both sides, and I think it is absolutely horrendous that it is being played up for cheap political points (or for cheap publicity, as in the case of that "Terri Schiavo Priest" mentioned in the first link above).
