Battle of Conscience

Battle of Conscience
2007.06.01 0:39

In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibitted it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be inquisited for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do. That's my idea so far on this matter.