Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Fracking incentives will give councils 'contradictory roles' 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
jonlumb wrote:
TBH, it's not the doctor's actions that make me most angry in this situation.

Oh, I wasn't claiming she was the most reprehensible person in the situation by any means.

jonlumb wrote:
I wonder if there is an ethical argument to be made that in the long term she can do more good remaining as a doctor than having to deal with the ludicrous lawsuit that would inevitably follow, with all its repercussions. When you're talking a company the size of an oil firm, if they cannot win they can still drag a court case out to the point that the smaller party goes bankrupt still. That's not a definitive ethical position on my part btw, just an idle thought on the subject.

Yes, fighting the legal case would be an act of futility, even if she won it in the end. There's a definite 'greater good' argument there, certainly. However to me it came down to a simple fact - she has a job and she can't do that job as it stands. I'd argue she can do just as much good as a doctor elsewhere and if she moved out of the legal order's jurisdiction, she could make whatever she knew public.

If she moved to say Canada and then publicised what she knew, what would likely happen? I know the US can start extradition proceedings on very dodgy grounds, as we've seen, but I doubt even they could manage it for simply breaching an NDA. It's a bit of a 'Spycatcher' situation. OK, big choice to make but what if people start dying? At what point do her medical ethics become compromised to such a point she couldn't realistically carry on practicing there anyway?


Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:04 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
jonlumb wrote:
TBH, it's not the doctor's actions that make me most angry in this situation.

Oh, I wasn't claiming she was the most reprehensible person in the situation by any means.

jonlumb wrote:
I wonder if there is an ethical argument to be made that in the long term she can do more good remaining as a doctor than having to deal with the ludicrous lawsuit that would inevitably follow, with all its repercussions. When you're talking a company the size of an oil firm, if they cannot win they can still drag a court case out to the point that the smaller party goes bankrupt still. That's not a definitive ethical position on my part btw, just an idle thought on the subject.

Yes, fighting the legal case would be an act of futility, even if she won it in the end. There's a definite 'greater good' argument there, certainly. However to me it came down to a simple fact - she has a job and she can't do that job as it stands. I'd argue she can do just as much good as a doctor elsewhere and if she moved out of the legal order's jurisdiction, she could make whatever she knew public.

If she moved to say Canada and then publicised what she knew, what would likely happen? I know the US can start extradition proceedings on very dodgy grounds, as we've seen, but I doubt even they could manage it for simply breaching an NDA. It's a bit of a 'Spycatcher' situation. OK, big choice to make but what if people start dying? At what point do her medical ethics become compromised to such a point she couldn't realistically carry on practicing there anyway?


It’s not likely just her, but the practice she’s in that could be hit with legal action. She’s their representative, and the NDA could well be written to assume a wider scope for redress should she blab. So even moving to another country could land others in trouble. Without knowing what’s in the NDA (which we won’t as it’s an NDA), we can’t really say for sure what the outcome of some loose talk would be.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:08 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Emails reveal UK helped shale gas industry manage fracking opposition

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... opposition

Trebles all round! :evil:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:31 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
pcernie wrote:
Trebles all round! :evil:

Literally, it seems. I wonder if this is within the remit of the Standards In Public Life committee.

Jon


Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:36 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
This may have been done by civil servants who have their own eye on a career after the civil service. The fact that energy companies have been big political donors cannot harm the decisions made by Cameron. There needs to be a total ban on corporate donation or sponsorship to any party of individual. Then cap personal donations to £500 from all sources and you will find the parties will have to listen to the public.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:19 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.