‘Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must get 2nd opinion in New York’!Not AGAIN?

[mindtrickz]

---

wala diay maayo na doc diri sa PHL na pwede mo-operate niya?

[elvandesantos]

wala diay maayo na doc diri sa PHL na pwede mo-operate niya?

specialized doctor. second opinion. higher rate of recovery. ring a bell?

[dadylemie]

sugtan nlng na sa admin ni abnoy2 nya pa.ubanan niya ug kaalyado para d motakas...sharo! daghan pang rason anang naa sa malacanang oi!

[Renz8]

Duna man jud sakit si GMA nya sa New York man pud sya mo adto tugtan na lng unta ni Pnoy kai total duna man ta extradition treaty sa US besides it's a humane act&being a former Pres it's a form of courtesy.......

[cobraKing]

eskapo ang show krn ni pandak..

[monroy]

kamo kuno ug masakit, contento kaha mo sa diagnosis sa mga doctors sa cebu ??

Di man mi parehas nimo nga mo adto ug NYC para lang magpa doctor.

[carmicael]

thank you sir for your interest in my question.

You're right, you didn't make any presumptions in your options but they require the people you are asking to make presumptions that nobody can be sure are right so it's impossible to say which of the two options is "morally safer".

i don't think it would be impossible to determine. the scenario(s) that i have presented are merely possibilities, therefore, choices made would be purely hypothetical. upon careful thinking, these would be the 4 most possible "realities", so to speak: [1]she is sick and guilty; [2]she is sick and not guilty; [3]she is not sick and guilty; [4]she is not sick and not guilty.

given these 4 realities, what then would be morally safer for people who are "in higher moral ground" (i.e. the judiciary)?

A just result requires an answer to a more definitive question that establishes which choice is moral and not merely which choice is more likely to be moral (or in your words "morally safer"). The question you asked and the options you provided won't trigger an answer that has any meaning because the person would have to make a judgment call based on possibilities rather than facts.

but this is where you misunderstood me sir. i am merely asking for an answer on "which is likely to be moral". the question itself is not definitive, not absolute in any way.

it is merely a gauge on what we, as a people, think. we may choose only one of two moralities: [1]let a person enjoy a right, risking escape from judgement (no indication whether or not guilty, or not guilty, sick, or not sick) [2]make sure judgement is rendered before treatment, risking death (again, no indication whether or not guilty or etc...)

i find no reason to judge any choice to be an "answer that has no meaning". remember that every "definite" reality (or perceived reality) in this world, in one way or another, can be attributed to early "hypotheses".

[monroy]

If those are mere possibilities and even you yourself couldn't tell if she is guilty, will run away or die then the choice between those options would be meaningless because any choice would be proven immoral the moment any of the possibilities turn out contrary to what one expects. What makes it worse is that many of the options you provided have false premises that you designed to trigger the response that you want. Getting treatment abroad is not a right, it's a privilege but you called it a right because you know rights are inviolable whereas a privilege is revocable. In option 2 you purposely said "with blood on our hands" which wrongly puts responsibility for her possible death on the person making the choice rather than the doctors because you know that people don't want to feel guilty about the choice they make.

In other words you asked a question with options that lead people to make the choice that you wanted so it's really just an opinion you disguised as a question. In surveys they call this a leading question which invalidates the results of the survey.

[Renz8]

Well we can't do anything about this issue only Pnoy has a say if he will let her go or not lets just wait&see instead of discussing the merits here..........

[carmicael]

If those are mere possibilities and even you yourself couldn't tell if she is guilty, will run away or die then the choice between those options would be meaningless because any choice would be proven immoral the moment any of the possibilities turn out contrary to what one expects.

It would not be meaningless, it would mean that one had made a lapse in judgement.

What makes it worse is that many of the options you provided have false premises that you designed to trigger the response that you want.

what "false premises" do you speak of?

Getting treatment abroad is not a right, it's a privilege but you called it a right because you know rights are inviolable whereas a privilege is revocable.

have you read the magna carta of patient's rights, by our very own Philippine Medical Association? (click on the link for reference)

In option 2 you purposely said "with blood on our hands" which wrongly puts responsibility for her possible death on the person making the choice rather than the doctors because you know that people don't want to feel guilty about the choice they make.

In option 1, i purposely said "risking escape from judgement" which puts responsibilty for her possible escape on the person making the choice rather than the authorities.

In other words you asked a question with options purposely worded in a way that forces people to make the choice that you wanted so it's really just an opinion you disguised as a question. In surveys they call this a leading question which invalidates the results of the survey.

how about i put a higher clause of responsibilty on option 1: "with the loss of justice on our hands."? how is that for fairness? let us agree that: there is no assumption of innocence or guilt. or of sickness. or of health. the question here is "what is morally safer?". [1]let her get treatment she desires: would you risk her escaping, running away from her crimes which she may have or may have not committed? [2]let her face trial first: would you risk causing her death because of your refusal to let her seek this "treatment" of a condition which she may or may not have?

please note both options have heavy moral responsibilities that come with them. it is perception of this "heaviness" that differs.