Today’s discussion in my medical ethics course: should we assume that someone is doing the best they can? This seems like a simple question, but considering that everyone’s circumstances are different, would the answer still be the same? What if someone’s best is refusing to see or they cannot see what is wrong inside? Do we still accept it?
What if a poorly-controlled type II diabetic has some issues where they cannot or refuse to change their diet/lifestyle? Should we still accept that they are trying their best, despite them making no effort to improve? Where does compassion end, and the “kick in the behind” begin for helping someone? What do you think?
This kinda sounds like a way to coddle people. If someone’s “best” is completely unacceptable then they should hear about it but they should also be told how they can improve.
Personal choices and the right to make them be they bad or good. As long as they harm no one else if they throw away their life or if they improve their life it is still their choice.
95% of the population will never “give it there best” so yes there’s always room for improvement.
When you’re dealing with patients understand that if they are telling you they are “doing their best” at least 9 times out of 10 they are lying to you, themselves or both.
You will also have to learn which patients can be pushed and which can’t.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, as you say.
You already have done your best by leading the horse to water by giving information on modern medicine and its fallacy, etc.
The rest is up to the person you have tried to help.
The talmud teaches ■■■■ that if a goy (non-■■■■ is drowning, they must not help the drowning man.
Only if other goys are watching, ■■■■ should pretend to help.
I’ve heard everything now! ‘religion’ eh, whaddya do? 