From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.053904.11401@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.080258.14443@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov14.053432.20223@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>>Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>>
>>>"Killing a possible person" on purpose isn't malpractice -- it's
>>>manslaughter.
>>
>>Suzanne, are you talking about "pulling the plug" on humans who may or
>>may not be brain-dead?  
>
>No.
>
>>There is *no* other example besides abortion
>>that I consider killing a *possible* person.
>
>Well, if by 'killing a possible person' you mean taking actions designed
>to kill any person who might be there, I can think of two offhand: 
>shooting at a man-shaped pile of rags in a dark alley, and dropping large
>rocks off an overpass onto the busy highway below.  Manslaughter.

You seem to be confusing "possibly killing a person" with "killing a possible
person". Those are not interchangeable terms.

>Or do you mean to define a new legal category, inferior to personhood,
>called 'possible personhood'?  Have you thought about the implications of
>doing that?

Whereas you define a new legal category, even _more_ inferior to personhood,
called "human organism non-personhood"? Have _you_ thought about the
implications of doing that? You're criticizing her for a watered-down form
of what you take to extremes, hypocrite.

>>>If you mean to use that reasoning about third-tri abortion,
>>>you'd damn well better treat it seriously according to our legal
>>>tradition.
>>
>>I'm willing to treat third-trimester abortions [...]
>>quite seriously, or haven't you seen any of the posts in which
>>I advocate short jail sentences for women procuring illegal
>>third-trimester restrictions?
>
>I have.  Haven't you seen the legal system?  Laws carrying criminal
>penalties are enforced by pro-active criminal courts, not by passive
>judicial review.  What's your intention in departing from that process?

As I understand it, Beth is not proposing "passive judicial review" for 
any criminal charges -- only for regulating physicians. What do you find
inappropriate about that?

>>It's ye olde conflicting rights again: I think two entities possess
>>conflicting rights and need to balance these rights.  That isn't easy.
>
>Apparently not.  You're welcome to balance rights all you like in private;
>but no power in our society (outside military contexts) has the legal
>authority to 'balance' rights to survival among two living persons.  Not
>the courts, and certainly not doctors.  We may acquit self-defense
>afterwards, but we can't authorize manslaughter in advance.  Which is a
>very, very good thing when you think about it.

Balderdash. Legislators and judges balance rights all the time. Our entire
body of law is a gargantuan balancing act. Between parties in a civil suit.
Between "the people" and the accused in a criminal case. Between government
and the private citizen in a Constitutional issue. Often between justice and
economic efficiency. Do you think it's an accident that a popular icon for
justice is a blindfolded woman with a set of SCALES in her hand? Doesn't 
that say "BALANCE" to you?!?!?! Are you missing the POINT!?!?!?

>>I worked reasonably hard on the proposal I posted earlier in this
>>thread, 
>
>An A for Effort.  But your lovely details are resting on an infectiously
>rotten premise, and all your work can't justify it.

Please clearly identify this "infectiously rotten" [sic] premise.

								- Kevin