tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post2881210671076011219..comments2023-09-24T08:22:14.199+01:00Comments on Joseph Shaw's Philosophy Blog: CFFC attack on conscientious objectionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-28666966760951461662008-04-21T19:39:00.000+01:002008-04-21T19:39:00.000+01:00You may be interested in the following confessiona...You may be interested in the following confessional statement of English-speaking Evangelicalism on the subject of conscience: <A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap20" REL="nofollow">Westminster Confession's chapter on Liberty of Conscience</A>.Timothy Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09623658481562728473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-54942217459348043142008-03-16T23:36:00.000+00:002008-03-16T23:36:00.000+00:00This issue is immense because it is not just this ...This issue is immense because it is not just this dissenting group who are behind this trend. I just do not have the feeling that the Magisterium is doing any extra work on fighting these new efforts in legislative bodies that will lead our doctors and pharmicists into temptation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-68661184618697825072008-03-13T22:31:00.000+00:002008-03-13T22:31:00.000+00:00Thanks for your Blog ;) God Bless youThanks for your Blog ;) God Bless youAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-24885599306527712192008-02-04T16:24:00.000+00:002008-02-04T16:24:00.000+00:00Interesting. I suppose you mean the drugs administ...Interesting. I suppose you mean the drugs administered to the mother to speed up delivery; surgically opening the womb etc.. I should say that with the mother's consent these are akin to organ/blood/bone marrow donation; you're right that this demands an extra clause in a summary of the justifications available for medical interventions to a person A: either for A's restoration of health or modification of a handicap etc., with A's consent it is legitimate to intervene for the restoration to health (etc.) of person B, who cannot easily be treated without such intervention in A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-4875082903864547252008-02-03T22:41:00.000+00:002008-02-03T22:41:00.000+00:00I take your point, Joe, about abortion's making no...I take your point, Joe, about abortion's making nobody better -- though I fancy that CFFC will rush in with cases of mothers suffering physically or mentally from being pregnant.<BR/><BR/>But what about a case in which the mother must be treated with a treatment that will harm her, all things considered, but benefit the baby? For example, suppose the baby is ill and must be removed by a Caesarian section or, indeed, by an induced delivery, but either of these will have the foreseen, but unintended consequence, of the death of the mother. In these cases one is treating the mother in a way that will harm her for the sake of the baby.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-89804846949135627572008-02-03T18:13:00.000+00:002008-02-03T18:13:00.000+00:00Lots of mother-and-baby cases raise the simple pro...Lots of mother-and-baby cases raise the simple problem that treatment of one can harm the other. That can be justified if the good sufficiently outweighs the harm. Bit that is quite different from saying that the treatment harms the patient for whom it is intended. The whole point of treatment is that it makes at least someone better! Abortion makes no one better. That's the point.<BR/><BR/>So with the twins I'd say: Yes, but that's not treatment of the weaker twin, although it impinges on him. Insofar as you think that you are indeed treating the weaker twin, and leaving him worse off, I'd say you undermine the moral justification of the treatment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-89595266395587545832008-02-03T00:27:00.000+00:002008-02-03T00:27:00.000+00:00Hmm. Is it not permissible to act contrary to the ...Hmm. Is it not permissible to act contrary to the patient's interests for the greater good of another? For example, the separation of conjoined twins might be performed in order to let the stronger twin survive and with the foreseen, but unintended, consequence that the weaker twin would die or suffer harm. Here one would be permissibly acting in a way that was contrary to the all-things-considered interests of the weaker twin. It would depend a bit on how the separation was done, of course -- but it can at least be imagined to be done permissibly.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-4824574864937626552008-02-02T20:25:00.000+00:002008-02-02T20:25:00.000+00:00I mean 'overall', 'all things considered'. Perhaps...I mean 'overall', 'all things considered'. Perhaps better than harm (though more long-winded) would be 'contrary to the patient's interests'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-54977985980493618142008-02-01T22:43:00.000+00:002008-02-01T22:43:00.000+00:00'it is never right for any doctor to give any pati...'it is never right for any doctor to give any patient treatment which he, the doctor, thinks will harm the patient' -- this cannot be quite right, Joe, since morphine harms a patient as well as deadening pain, and yet it is permissible to give a patient morphine to deaden the pain.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.com