Thread: Doctor's morality

yeah... for me they are violating their oath.... Im never going to trust a doctor anymore >_> jk..... but I mean if u know that someone can put someone elses life in danger u have to do something, like what u said that the person that cant drive... if u dont say anything... probably as the guy that couldnt drive was just leaving the hospital seeing U his doctor, and he gets in an accident..... u could have prevented that guy of being in an accident.... so I guess if a person can put in danger another persons life... its ok to say something to prevent this.....

I have like 4 doctors in my near relatives so according what they have spoke
they don't like that law either, but nevertheless doctors keep their oath
in any other kinda illnesses.

My grandfather lost his driving license cos' for stroke but he regained it after
few months and after taking driving test again. So in this kinda situations I actually
can understand why they made that law.

ah well... if there is a law in progress and patience are completely informed of it, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. It sucks but wat ya gonna do.

i can see that they place this law to help protect the patients, and isn't it a doctors duity so save patients lives. i mean if they can't safely drive they are placing themselve and others at risk of serious injuries or worst. and if the doctor knows this and does nothing, then is he helping that person to the fullest of his abilities? so isn't that a conflict between 2 oaths, and which one is more important?

anyway i don't really see this as a bad thing, but i can understand y ppl don't like this law, it takes aways or sense of trust that we have from our doctors, and ppl might not be so willing to talk about their medical condition if they think they might get their liences taken off them.

so i guess it isn't such a bad law, and but there is some definate issues with it though.

Originally Posted by dude101

i can see that they place this law to help protect the patients, and isn't it a doctors duity so save patients lives. i mean if they can't safely drive they are placing themselve and others at risk of serious injuries or worst. and if the doctor knows this and does nothing, then is he helping that person to the fullest of his abilities? so isn't that a conflict between 2 oaths, and which one is more important?

Yup doctors do oath to save patient but also that they don't tell patient records
to anyone, so it's kinda moral question which is more important.
I personaly would like that doctor would first tell me that she/he is gonna tell my
weakened driving ability to police, but still I think that it's wrong.

In our country, the doctor checks a person prior to the driving tests, so he has the power to not let him drive. But it doesn't work if the disease appears later, of course.
The question in the poll is invalid. Their "oath" is moralless itself, so it's no use if they violate it or not. But it has recently (history-wise) gotten better. At least such points as healing their teachers' children for free and keeping the potion ingredients secret have been removed.

Originally Posted by Zdenek

In our country, the doctor checks a person prior to the driving tests, so he has the power to not let him drive. But it doesn't work if the disease appears later, of course.

Ofcourse you have to take medical check-up before driving test, but also there
are few test later in Finland, like when ya 60.
yes oath, is moraless but when when adding something that affects feelings and etc
it moralises the whole deal. Cos' they made oath that they must obey, is it moraly right
to breack that oath to save human lifes(which is included in the same oath)
So it puts doctor between two options.