1, the other debater mentioned that medical skill is the foundation, and medical ethics is based on medical skill, saying that medical skills are necessary to talk about medical ethics. I think the other debater obviously doesn't know which is more important, medical ethics or medical skills. The premise should be that medical ethics and medical skills have a considerable standard, so isn't it more important to improve medical ethics? The other party said that medical skill is the foundation, and it is putting the cart before the horse. Then I want to ask each other, do you learn to be a man or learn medical skills first? Of course, adults first, talents later, virtue as the foundation of human beings, talents first, talents later, isn't medical skill the same for medical ethics? I still remember that we had just entered the sacred medical college and had solemnly sworn that "health depends on life." have you finished? Virtue is more important, medicine.
Morality is not limited to professional ethics, but has been sublimated into morality. As a person, you should have morality first. To learn medical skills well, virtue is the root of wisdom, wisdom is the fruit of virtue, virtue is the foundation, and wisdom is the high-rise building on the foundation. If the foundation does not exist, the building will be attached. ) 2、
The other side thinks that medical skills can cure diseases and save lives, but medical ethics can't, and medical ethics is a castle in the air. I think the opposing debater's point of view is too one-sided. When we say that medical ethics are more important, it doesn't mean that we don't talk about medical skills. You know, a doctor with noble medical ethics will do his job well and improve his medical skills, which is also an important content of medical ethics. And a doctor without medical skills and medical ethics, medical skills are no matter how good. At the critical moment, he only cares about his own interests and does not save people. Can he fulfill the mission of saving lives? You can give an example of SARS.
3、
The other party thinks that the doctor's behavior can be constrained by institutional norms, so there is no need for medical ethics. This is all wet (you know, institutions and legal norms also belong to the system of medical ethics, and laws and institutions are the lowest embodiment of morality. (Relationship between Law and Morality) However, it is far from enough to rely solely on the constraints of law and system, and it is always the cultivation of doctors' own morality that plays a leading role. For example, in society, law is enough, so why advocate morality? )
To sum up: it's really hard to stand in each other's perspective.
Second, defend yourself:
In the debate just now, the other party mentioned: "No matter how high the medical ethics are, the medical skills are not good, which leads to misdiagnosis." I think the other party obviously doesn't understand what is medical ethics. As we said in our defense, doctors with medical ethics will take the initiative to learn and improve themselves and recommend better doctors to patients if they know that their medical skills are low. He will not ignore the safety of patients, no matter how high his medical skills are, he will only care about his own interests at the critical moment, and he will not save people but will also harm others. Isn't the incident of stealing vegetables the best proof? Can he still accomplish the mission that his opponent has just given him? Say "no"
Doctors who fled the battlefield during the Canon period are obvious examples. Do other debaters also feel medical ethics?
More important than medicine?
Third, arguments:
So we think: "If you want to be a talent, you must first become an adult". When we step into the sacred medical hall, the first thing we learn is medical ethics. Only with "medical ethics" can you be called a good medical worker! The second is to study professional skills hard.