Quote (Goomshill @ Sep 21 2022 04:11pm)
Ultimately the one to make the decision is the royal 'us'. We can see in this case how ethical canons are no sufficient safeguard alone, but medical ethics are still ultimately responsible to democratic society at large. Its the voters and their representatives who are charged with regulating medicine and people's rights, particularly in cases where rights are in conflict and controversies exist over whether one party's interests infringe on another's. Its not a personal choice between a 'woman' and her physician, its the life of a child that can't choose for himself.
And if somebody thinks that's the case they can bring it to court and get somebody assigned to represent the child's rights.
You don't get to decide others medical care because it makes you feel icky. It has to be based on evidence and that needs to be born out. If there are things that obviously have no utility and cause only harm, like lobotomies, then we use the evidence to bear that out, and the ones who intrepret the evidence are experts, not laymen.