But at the end someone must do something. Perhaps, a majority of doctors are in inertia because they are very comfortable, very work oriented, very indiffernt to what’s happening outside their professional job scope to change.

That’s my lament.

But i take it to you if it were so easy, you should try being a doctor someday.

They are first principles of decent, moral people (doctors?)But they cannot apply in a context when abiding by/upholding them would result in deprivation of/in clear cruel violation of these same ideals for others, in the context of Burma, millions of other people.

Are doctors, by going by the letter without considering the spirit of their oaths, dishonouring their own code and themselves?

In the real world, taking refuge behind the H.O. in the context of helping a dictator perpetuate his misdeeds is an unconscionable cop-out.

Anon (Jan 4, 1.57am), actually i put up the Burma thing is just to kick off what i was about to say: “the point that in an ideal world, the health care profession is in no place to deny treatment because this is directly contradictory to the instincts and ethics of our age-old profession. However, that does not stop healthcare professionals from having political slants or viewpoints about matters.” i hope it wasn’t too abrupt. this should be contended for/agsinst, but it was done on purpose to spark some lively comment-exchange.

And this brings me to answer George’s comments:

great questions. however i doubt i can answer them, maybe we should leave it to the lawyers. but the 4 main tenets of biomedical ethics are clear: beneficence (do good), non-maleficence (first do no harm), equity/justice, and autonomy. these are ideals. i guess what i’m saying is that its not always easy (at least to me) to fulfill all of them. and this was told to me by a tutor who’s a medical lawyer. we were advised that as long as we can justify our actions, no one can actually sue you.

there’s still much to learn..

My ans: Yes, there is inertia among the healthcare professionals in Singapore with regards to politics. This is not surprising since the government has managed to depoliticized the various sectors within the Singapore society. If it can and has managed to muzzle the voice of the law society, surely, it has instilled the same discipline to the medical professionals.

Question 2: Do you think there is a great divide between what is being implemented by the Health Ministry and what the doctors actually want best for the patient? If so, why? What do you hope can be implemented?

Ans: Not so much about doctores but healthcare in Singapore should be made more affordable to the public, perhaps even free, at least to those who cannot afford it. This is in light of the obscene salaries our ministers are getting.

Because of the very nature of their profession and training, the difficulty for them is when they can/should make that take a back seat to another/a more fundamental issue.

Is it right or moral to treat someone who is well known to be harming others? Is the doctor not an accomplice when his treatment directly enables that someone to continue to do harm to others?

The right of a doctor NOT to treat such a person is a moral one. By ‘enabling’ the person, he (the doctor)is morally responsible for what that person can/will do to others.

However if we weigh the outcome of having the ability to AFFORD urgent medical attention, then this is a red flag.