My good faith is so strong everyone in this thread hates it. I was compared to Newt Gingrich.
This is a fascinating revelation about both your worldview and the level of discourse in this thread.
It's really unrelated to my worldview even in procedural terms, save that I would rapidly make myself the most hated member of Congress on purpose.
This is funny because I'm not even conservative in any meaningful sense (I voted for Obama because I hoped he would be a reformer, even), but this is not in fact my mindset. My actual mindset is, "I would prefer that we all respect each other and abide by the principles of the Constitution, but, if you don't, it doesn't actually bother me as long as you do it the hell away from me".
You can hardly claim the kind of power philosophy you do and not be a conservative. It's arguably the
most important part of being a conservative, the rest is window dressing and cultural chauvinism.
For example, I think you and MSH should be perfectly free to have your own, separate country with borders that can be closed off from mine.
Sorry sweaty, but borders aren't real. Kappa, and such.
Now, about this other thing: Working in an emergency room under emergency room rules is "approximately" slavery. It turns out there are degrees of slavery and that is a little bit more slavery than other things. Paying taxes is also a little bit slavery.
Taxes aren't real either.
The question you specifically asked, and then grandstanded over--
Which, for clarity, was this question, and was the only question in your entire rant.
So you'll agree then, that working in the ER makes you a slave?
Is begging the question. It is so, because the condition of working in an ER does not necessiate "cannot refuse". There *ARE* conditions where the physician can indeed refuse. I listed at least two. Since the precondition that the doctor CANNOT refuse, is necessary for the conclusion you are seeking, it begs the question.
What you have just done, is called Moving the Goal Post, and is another tactic of argument in bad faith.
Care to go for a third round, or will you accede?
You continuously refuse to answer the question, because the only logical answer contradicts your position. It is no sin to point out your answer is a non-answer.
We started this out talking about a doctor's
personal ability to refuse to offer care. I even diverged this right at the start from fiscal reasons for refusing care, because that is just a system issue which could be abolished.
As such, "triage" and "lack of skill" are also not answers. They are unrelated to the doctor's person, only their resources and their professional qualifications. Because I am such a good faith participant, I did not think I needed to nail you to the wall on this after you initially acknowledged the distinction, but here we are.
Furthermore, unless you are saying that
any reason in
any category is enough to escape this category of doctoral """"slavery"""", it is a question you ought to answer. Because if you
are saying that any reason is enough, then I will be happy to include a clause that the right to healthcare should only apply to doctors with the skill to treat whatever condition you have, and then by that standard it is not "slavery" since there is a possible reason to refuse care.
Happy?