Martyr

Friday, June 01, 2007
Martyr
What was a doctor's job
Some people don't accept some medical treatment even if when they are absolutely necessary to save their lives.
If a patient instructed a doctor not to do some particular treatments - for example, not to use some medicine or practice some medical treatment beside medical reasons, how a doctor ought to react?
If a doctor practiced some particular treatments when he judged that they are necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, then he did them deliberately with fully knowing the patient's wish of refusal to those particular treatments, and he successfully saved his life in consequence. Might he sue the doctor for not honouring his wish, or not?
It doesn't matter, because a doctor did what he had to do, this is a doctor's professional act within a range permissible by medical doctors. His first job is to save a life of patients. If he can do it within alternative treatments the patients allowed the doctor to practice, that'll be fine, too.
If the case involves in using the very treatments the patients directed him not to, his medical judgement ought to be prior to patient's wish. If you don't want particular measures when they're absolutely necessary, all he has to do is to leave a doctor. If he did so, the case will leave a matter a doctor concerns. That'll be fine, too.
Next case is even more troublesome. When a doctor judged a particular measure is necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, but he didn't it because he honoured the patient's wish and as a consequence, a patient died.
In this case, he might be questioned as murderer. He definitely honoured the patient's wish, but he not only violated doctor's ethics but also criminal code. Because he didn't do what he had to do enough in his job. The patient won't sue a doctor of course, if his family were understandable to the patient's wish, they won't sue him either. The problem was the third person like public prosecutors can sue the doctor for not fully responsible to his job. If the deceased were an influential person as company president, the company would have a possibility to sue the doctor.
If the patients leaves the matter to a doctor after he clearly states his wish not to accept a particular medical treatment, that'll be fine. My conclusion is that a patient cannot instruct a doctor not to practice some particular treatments as long as he is a patient of the doctor. This was my idea one week ago.

Martyr

Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to welcome this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.

Battle of conscience

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 prohibited 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 under inquisition 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.
Euthanasia often take places in hospice and it's not illegal these days when the patients themselves wished firmly. Even if the cases that involve the vegetable man, who has lost his consciousness and just live through the life maintenance apparatus. If the patient's family wished to take away the apparatus, some doctors do with this consent. This medical act is not publicly admitted yet, but it has been held these days under the tacit consent with society, law enforcement.
Refusal to transfusion ought to be understood in line with this current movement in society. The happiness of the individuals ought to be determined by each individuals, this is not a matter people other than himself have a say.