Quote:
Originally Posted by oilyfan
I am not sure how it is circular logic? He would been given information related to why he needed to collect the DNA, to what extent i am not sure, he then made the decision based on that.
I would argue that his role is do his part where possible to reduce suffering, how is that ridiculous? Do you also find the role of a physician in new drug human clinical trials ridiculous? How about the role of a combat medic?
|
Using those as examples show you don't understand the problem that NF has with this.
You're looking at it based on the practical aplications of what happened.
Yes, getting the DNA MAY have prevented more casualties, and in that sense it could be argued that it was morally acceptable to do it.
However, the hypocratic oath is pretty black and white (for a good reason), and is pretty clear that potentially reducing harm to others is not a moral justification for harming someone else intentionally.
So did the doctor break his oath? Looks pretty clear to me that he did.
Is it morally defensible? Well that depends on who you ask, and what their particular philosophical leanings happen to be.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
