"First, do no harm." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere

in the first example the doctor is compelling the patient to do something and the patient exercises her right to refuse. In the second example the patient is compelling to the doctor to do something and the doctor exercises her right to refuse. You never have a 'right' to compel another person to do anything. You may have legal, ethical or moral reasons to compel someone to do something, but you never have a right to.

I think this is mostly right but it is worth noting that in some cases doctors are obligated to act. If I run into the ER with a serious issue and a doctor says "sorry, I can't treat you right now, it's my coffee break" that can be malpractice.

Understood - but that is a legal or ethical obligation, not one of your rights.

>You never have a 'right' to compel another person to do anything.

There are plenty of instances where you have the right to compel another person to do things.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but your case would be stronger if you could provide some examples.

You walk into my house. I have the right to compel you to leave. You try to stab me. I have the right to compel you to stop with reasonable force. You arbitrarily try to deny my passport application because you don't like my face. I get a Writ of Mandamus issued against you and compel you to do your job. We enter into an agreement which you breach. I obtain an order mandating specific performance and compel you to personally do what we agreed upon. You're wanted for arrest and I'm a peace officer. I compel you to come down to the station.

I can go on all day.

The poster above you does not understand what a 'right' is and is trying to make a point about positive vs negative rights, but doesn't actually understand the distinction.

You just listed a bunch of examples where people are legally compelled to do something, which I mentioned.

> The poster above you does not understand what a 'right' is and is trying to make a point about positive vs negative rights, but doesn't actually understand the distinction.

Ok. Nice talking with you. Have a good day.

I know you mentioned it - you just weren't correct. Hope the clarification was helpful. Here's some additional reading if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I think it's fitting. In the US, we tend to side with supporting the rights of either party to choose not to preform an action. Patient has the right to not undergo treatment. Doctor has the right to not preform treatment.

It stems from respecting a persons right to liberty, and when trying to respect some other rights of one party involves the forced action of another party, it often may incroach on right to liberty of the latter party.

The idea of when it's acceptable to encroach on someones liberty using some type of forced complience is a complicated dance, as it should be. Personally, I usually lean on the side of respecting liberty above others. This necessarily involves respecting everyone's right to excercise their liberty in order to be an asshole, idiot, bigot, etc.

I think this is contained within "do no harm". There is an inherent risk in all treatment, even if it's 0.01% or 99%. We can't force that risk on the patient, even if the odds and upsides are objectively great.

In the latter there's no clear upside other than "for fun", and definite harm.

The line is drawn between "do no harm" and "force good".

It's not that weird. We also generally draw a legal/moral distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die.