[displaced]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

I don't think that's a good way to look at it. A pharmacist can work at a Catholic hospital if they don't want to give out birth control. If you have a strong belief, you have to make sure that your job is in line your ethics.

And if I operated on every person who came through my doors, I'd do a lot of inappropriate surgery and probably kill a lot of people too.

you're entitled to your opinion.

clearly, you did not read the words "provided it's not harmful to them."

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by displaced

you're entitled to your opinion.

clearly, you did not read the words "provided it's not harmful to them."

That's the thing though. A pharmacist who's against dispensing birth control might believe that it is harmful, perhaps not medically but socially, psychologically, morally, etc.

[displaced]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

That's the thing though. A pharmacist who's against dispensing birth control might believe that it is harmful, perhaps not medically but socially, psychologically, morally, etc.

that is their opinion, which they are entitled to but they should keep it separate from their job and if they cannot, they should do what you mentioned and work within a religious setting.

[MossadConspiracy]

surgeons can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Nobody can tell them what they can and cant do to patients, least of all some mufti.

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

surgeons can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

Two words: informed consent.

[MossadConspiracy]

only a wimp lets that get in the way

[Budmano786]

Originally Posted by displaced

if you signed up for a job, you do what people want provided it's not harmful to them.

well I think part of the question is whether or not the job is permissible to begin with (i.e., before you sign up for it) and if it is, are all aspects of it permissible

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by SoSoHalalish

I just looked at my age on this thing and had a flash back to when I first joined this forum- I was 16. Now I'm 22. I am so old. WOW, when did it happen?

[Salika]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

Sorry for conflating the issue. I was thinking of all the medical treatments that have been mentioned for various problems.

No worries

Sigh. It's just not that simple. If it was, I'd still be planning to have a purely reconstructive practice.

No, I know it's complex. Please don't misunderstand me. Just like you have a medical take on it, I have a legal take on it. It's the job of the law, any law, to draw lines. It's not just sharia, even our own common law system, judges just have to draw lines, sometimes even arbitrary ones because the law has to have a sense of predictability and a way to balance factors when they hear cases.

The most prominent example is from the case Palsgraf, a very famous torts case which every lawyer knows. A man at a train station was carrying fireworks and he tripped in a way that caused them accidentally went off and hit some lady who was kind of far away causing injury to her legs (burns). She went to sue and lo and behold, the court said she was out of the "zone of danger" and could not recover. The courts, until the case was decided struggled with the whole causality issue between acts and resulting injuries. How far do you take it? The guy could claim he tripped over a defective piece of flooring and the people who made the flooring could claim whatever ad infinitum. Can you have a claim against parents for having bad raising techniques for the members of a street gang? In the end the court draw an arbitrary line.

Yes, sometimes there are people, particularly on the fringes (for lack of a better term), who end up getting the short end of the stick, but this is for the sake of the greater good. This happens in all specialties and I'm sure it happens in the medical field as well. It's not perfect, it's not ideal, but it's how life is.

We both agree that people who have gone through trauma that ends up in scars or deformities can get surgery amongst other things. The rest is blurry, it's complicated, and I guess it's just a matter of the paradigm we're seeing it through.

[MossadConspiracy]

Thats why we should have doctocracy

[Salika]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Thats why we should have doctocracy

doctocracy sounds like a painful medical procedure

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by Salika

We both agree that people who have gone through trauma that ends up in scars or deformities can get surgery amongst other things. The rest is blurry, it's complicated, and I guess it's just a matter of the paradigm we're seeing it through.

It's just a matter of where we place the line then. I guess I'm willing to offer surgical solutions to a larger number of people. Of course, there are definitely people who should be banned from getting plastic surgery. Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous people to cater to them as well.

[Bruinrab]

Interesting...

Pursuit of youth isn't always pretty - Buying Time? - MSNBC.com

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Salika

doctocracy sounds like a painful medical procedure

Not as painful as doctrectomy, or doctrostomy!

[ShotgunMessiah]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Not as painful as doctrectomy, or doctrostomy!

What about a septoplasty? Is that painful? I need that done.