You have the courage to even a message on nutrition enforced? Well, this time I will "cheat" and make a case comment. For these times, everyone seems to have an opinion on what to do with the decision of 26 August of TF in the case between the DSAS Valais Bernard Rappaz. should apply. And they say that doctors are opposed to this. Apply it, yes. And I said, I do not think that physicians are opposed to it actually . Maybe you have another opinion? Give it. But first read the decision. It is a document worth reading. Well, I know, it's not necessarily easy legal access. But you're smart people. And it is not so long, it contains many interesting things, and it keeps the time being misquoted. So for ease of reading (the search tool of the jurisprudence of the TF is not the easiest of the world), I've put online. Here is the link, in words:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
And if you know someone who needs to read it, thank you to move ...
As this is a case to comment, and that the goal is not to debate stop, I said the question for the comments:
Doctors who oppose the forced nutrition the name because it would imply a significant violence thus preclude the application of the TF Case?
The question is not whether they are right or wrong. Or whether the TF is right or wrong. Or who should, in a case like this, decide. The question is whether an opposition by doctors on behalf of that argument is yes or no opposition the application of that decision.
Please motivate. It is a blog for Bioethics, is not it. Obviously, be careful: if you give an answer without having read the decision, it may be. But you do not like that, you say eh?
0 comments:
Post a Comment