Moral dilemma on the 4th of July (hypothetical)...

[Nova Andromeda]

--Person X can perform a procedure that will save a person's life. This procedure fixes a health problem that randomly strikes certain people from birth until their mid 20's. There are far more patients that there are hours in the day to perform the procedure. Only Person X can perform this procedure.
-Person X refuses to perform the procedure and seems to really hate doing it (for some unknown reason). Many attempt have been made to convince Person X otherwise, but no amount or form of compensation changes the situation.
-You happen to be able to compel Person X to perform said procedure against his wishes and nothing bad (however you define bad) will happen to you as a result of this action.

[Frank Hipper]

Compel ahoy, sez I.

A person's life is at stake? You bet your sweet bippy I'd compel him to do it, his wishes or feelings be damned.

[Noble Ire]

Really, if it means saving the life of someone at the cost of inconviencing someone, I would think that the choice would be obvious. Compel.

[Alyeska]

So lets resdistribute wealth. Its the same principle.

[Ender]

So lets resdistribute wealth. Its the same principle.

?

I don't track how forcing one person to be unhappy to save the lives of a great many equals communism.

[Alyeska]

You are putting the needs of the many before the liberties of the few. Peoples lives could be saved today if the wealthy were forced to pay for the treatments of the poor who are sick.

Its the exact same concept.

Might as well take from the wealthy and give to the starving.

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

[Nova Andromeda]

So lets resdistribute wealth. Its the same principle.

--Be careful not to confuse this dilemma with wealth redistribution which can be justified simply on the basis of inequitable distribution in the first place.

[Frank Hipper]

You are putting the needs of the many before the liberties of the few. Peoples lives could be saved today if the wealthy were forced to pay for the treatments of the poor who are sick.

Its the exact same concept.

Might as well take from the wealthy and give to the starving.

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

What right to liberty?

To do as you see fit? There are mountains of legal paperwork, millions of of incarcerated people, and police forces that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the "right to do as you see fit" is limited to what society dictates is acceptable.

If it's in my power to inconvenience a doctor by compelling him to save a person's life against his will, believe me, I'll do so.

[Darth Wong]

You are putting the needs of the many before the liberties of the few. Peoples lives could be saved today if the wealthy were forced to pay for the treatments of the poor who are sick.

Its the exact same concept.

Might as well take from the wealthy and give to the starving.

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

So, are you capable of producing an ethical justification for your position, or do you think that simply restating it in more emphatic terms is a valid justification?

We do save lives by taxing people to pay for the sick and poor. We do take from the wealthy and give to the starving. These absolute "rights" to "do as you see fit" do not exist in any constitution I am aware of. And yes, people do have a moral obligation to lift a finger to help others, even if you don't think they do.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You are putting the needs of the many before the liberties of the few. Peoples lives could be saved today if the wealthy were forced to pay for the treatments of the poor who are sick.

Its the exact same concept.

Might as well take from the wealthy and give to the starving.

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

If compassion is an ethical principle, you should share what you have; if you don't, you are being unjust and should be forced.

If compassion is not an ethical principle, the poor should come to you, overpower you and take everything you own. If compassion doesn't matter, why should they care if it's unfair ?

The problem with your philosophy is that it's not symmetrical; you want the poor to give you more consideration than you give them.

[Alyeska]

No, my philosophy is I am not going to be forced into doing something I don't want to do.

That doctor has no obligation to save people from something he didn't cause. It would be nice of him to aide those people, but he has absolutely no obligation to help them. Being a dick is not grounds for forcing him to help the people. In effect he has no choice by what people say here. Making him a slave for all intents and purposes. He must save those people regardless of what his desires are. His liberty comes after other people.

And Mike, you are talking about functions of government. What this example is talking about is in effect slavery. You force this doctor to save those people on an absolute basis.

Why aren't doctors required to work for substanialy less money so that hospitals can then afford more supplies and more staff and thus save more people?

There is a limit to what you can do to people. Forcing them to do something they do not want to do and have no obligation to fix said problem is not just.

[spikenigma]

--Person X can perform a procedure that will save a person's life. This procedure fixes a health problem that randomly strikes certain people from birth until their mid 20's. There are far more patients that there are hours in the day to perform the procedure. Only Person X can perform this procedure.
-Person X refuses to perform the procedure and seems to really hate doing it (for some unknown reason). Many attempt have been made to convince Person X otherwise, but no amount or form of compensation changes the situation.
-You happen to be able to compel Person X to perform said procedure against his wishes and nothing bad (however you define bad) will happen to you as a result of this action.

as with all things, this situation depends on the specifics

if the procedure is something like a lobotomy to hinder the depressive/suicidal effects of a viral - chemical/hormonal brain imbalance up until the body corrects itself in mid-twenties, I'd not use my influence to make him perform the procedure

if the procedure is ethically sound (to me) with no long term debilitation, I'd make him do it. The needs of the many, and all that jazz...

[Ford Prefect]

He's a doctor. His job is to help people. Who gives a fuck about his personal feelings. A persons quality of life can be improved. Compel.

[Alyeska]

He's a doctor. His job is to help people. Who gives a fuck about his personal feelings. A persons quality of life can be improved. Compel.

A doctors job is not one of slavery. He is not required to save people absolutely and is not required to be forced to save people. He can quit his job even.

Your argument can be expressly used in support of communism. Take from people to make others better.

[Zero]

If he performs the operation, the only thing he loses is his time. If he doesn't, the other person loses something more valuable. This, to me, is a false comparison. Taking money from the rich to pay for medical services for the poor is actually TAKING something from the rich. The doctor loses only his time. And besides that, I'm not forcing him to do anything, I'm merely trying to help him to make a decision that he ought to have made on his own, if he gave a damn about the lives of others above his personal comfort level.

[Ford Prefect]

A doctors job is not one of slavery. He is not required to save people absolutely and is not required to be forced to save people. He can quit his job even.

Your argument can be expressly used in support of communism. Take from people to make others better.

He's a doctor who has gone to the trouble of learning how to deal with this illness. He is refusing to do it because he doesn't like it. The doctor, I'm afraid to say, is a selfish bastard who should be compelled into performing this procedure.

Isn't that a doctor's job? To help people? Isn't that why they went to all that trouble of learning how to be doctors? What use is a doctor who refuses to treat someone because they don't like performing a specialised operation which seems very, very rare?

[mr friendly guy]

If nothing bad will happen from the procedure as mentioned in the OP, then fuck yeah. Compel him.

If this is doctor, as long as they are indemnified I don't see a problem.

[Ghost Rider]

He's a doctor. His job is to help people. Who gives a fuck about his personal feelings. A persons quality of life can be improved. Compel.

A doctors job is not one of slavery. He is not required to save people absolutely and is not required to be forced to save people. He can quit his job even.

Your argument can be expressly used in support of communism. Take from people to make others better.

Wow...nice slippery slope there.

The OP is about mental discomfort or a life. And to boot, it's a doctor. Y'know the hippocratic oath they take, or did this slip your mind as you had to have your "It's akin to communism!!!!!".

[The Grim Squeaker]

Morally speaking it is similiar to communism after all the man has a right to do what he wants as long as it isnt against the law, on a non moral/personal basis if I knew someone who would need the treatment I would agree with ordering him to do it, morality is'nt the same when it affects you.

Is The hipocratic oath that they mustnt harm a patient or that they must help a patient?

[NecronLord]

Is The hipocratic oath that they mustnt harm a patient or that they must help a patient?

Have you ever 'read' the Hippocratic Oath?

Among other things, they swear by gods virtually none of them believe in,

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses

No Euthanasia, no abortions, interpret as you wish.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion

Celibacy, though this is intended to protect patients.

keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

Whup. No making medical textbooks. It includes a line to keep all medical knowledge secret. More liberally intepreted as patient-confidentiality, but still shit.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

[mr friendly guy]

Is The hipocratic oath that they mustnt harm a patient or that they must help a patient?

To do no harm is what was always drilled into my head.

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favour of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

I swear to fulfil, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

I suspect each country may have a variation of the modern version of the oath.

link

[mr friendly guy]

Also from the same link I posted above

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics articulates and promotes a body of ethical principles to guide doctors' conduct in their relationships with patients, colleagues and society.

This code has grown out of other similar ethical codes stretching back into history including the Hippocratic oath.

While the wording may have been changed to suit the current climate, the AMA's Code of Ethics is still based on the ancient oath written by Hypocrites.

A local Greek-Australian physician, who requested to remain anonymous, said the Hippocratic oath has become accepted practice in medicine, but was not a requirement of medicine graduates.
"While it is not necessary to be part of the graduation ceremony, the oath is still relevant and has become common practice for all doctors."

I certainly didn't recite any oath during my graduation ceremony.

[Nova Andromeda]

--There are serious problems with a several of the arguments made so far:
A: The OP didn't say anything about Person X being a doctor let alone swaring some oath or being trained as one.
B: Forcing Person X to do this procedure is not just taking his time (which he can easily be compensated for), but is also forcing Person X to do something Person X really hates. Something Person X hates so much that no form or amount of compensation will do. Since the OP didn't state that he was refusing based on religious grounds, just to be a dick, etc. such assuptions cannot be made.
C: The way to compare "mental discomfort" and other forms of discomfort and figure out which is worse (as judged by subject in question and not by someone else) is to let the subject (such as Person X) choose between the two (or know so much about the subject that you can predict their choice). At best, other methods only tell you what someone other than the subject thinks is worse or how someone else differs with the subject in question. This assumes that the subject is aware of all relevant information and is thinking rationally about the choice. However, the OP didn't state whether the subject was rational or well informed so such an assumption cannot be made.

[Korvan]

The OP also stated that there are far more patients than there are hours in the day to perform the procedure. So, to save lives, for how many hours to we compel the healer to work? 8, 16, 24? For the rest of his life?

Drug companies produce life-saving drugs and we do not compel them to make the drugs universally available, nor do we force researchers to find a cure for cancer.

[Darth Wong]

No, my philosophy is I am not going to be forced into doing something I don't want to do.

Why not? Because you say so?

That doctor has no obligation to save people from something he didn't cause.

Why not? Because you say so? You obviously reject both duty ethics and utilitarianism. What is your ethical system, exactly?

There is a limit to what you can do to people. Forcing them to do something they do not want to do and have no obligation to fix said problem is not just.

When lives are directly saved, why not? Your so-called "argument" is a classic example of rationalized selfishness.