If lemmy.world finds this, please tell my starving children that I love them.

  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It sounds like you’re a moral absolutist, and that is absolutely right-wing. Context is key. You can say “It’s wrong to kill”, but what if the person you killed was trying to kill you, and you acted in self defense? What if killing them was the only choice you had to prevent them from killing you or somebody you love?

    Similarly, you can say “My body, my choice”, but the situation is different when you’re talking about getting an abortion vs. getting a vaccine.

    • mydude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You can call me whatever you like. Here is a text about the differences between ethics and laws, taken from a dentist journal, but the same laws apply here.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jopr.13493

      In general, the courts have determined how ethical principles translate into the requirements for how healthcare providers obtain a patient’s consent for treatment. Consent from a legal perspective involves respecting the “bodily integrity of the individual.” This dimension emanates from the philosophy of personal autonomy, defined as “an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance” or “the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one’s life.” The courts view the informed consent requirement for a healthcare provider as a requirement to disclose sufficient information for the patient to make a “controlled decision before undergoing irreversible treatment.”, A patient’s consent must be voluntary, meaning “no coercion or unfair persuasion and inducements” and can be withdrawn at any time.

      There is no special cut-out for vaccination within the law. In this context a vaccine would be defined as “irreversible [medical] treatment”.