From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Mar 08 2000 - 15:26:52 MST
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> After John Clark's:
> > I said it before I'll say
> > it again, medical ethicists are the lowest form of human life.
>
> I agree -- especially since my profession is all too often relegated to that
> position...
As much as I dislike Greg's profession, I did learn lawyers are both
necessary and useful during my last corporate adventure. Lawyers
are the "microcoders" of human intent. The reason lawyers are
held in disregard is that few humans recognize the degree to which
what they say, may not be what they mean. In contrast, the few
individuals capable of designing computer microcode know very exactly
how to say what they mean (if they are any good at it...).
[For the non computer literate, computer microcode are the actual
"bit patterns" in modern computers that allow them to execute
anything more complex than the simplest instructions. For example
most computers use microcode to execute "divide" instructions,
which if you think about how you learned it in school is actually
a rather complex operation.]
Now, the difference between lawyers and medical ethicists is that
the lawyers accept precedent, even when they may think it
is incorrect. [If they really think it is incorrect, they may
attempt to overturn it.] Medical ethicists, in contrast,
seem to either seem to either (a) think precedent should
never be overturned ("Everyone must die, I tell you, because
everyone has always died..."); or (b) define precedents
to suit their agendas (right-to-life, etc.). The problem
with most medical ethicists is that they are effectively
self-appointed, rather than "elected" as most judges are.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:15 MST