Prior to the Nuremberg trials individual responsibility for disobeying unlawful orders was an implicit judgement and not explicitly stated.
And if we look at examples of people using the defence of I was disobeying orders due to them being in violation of international law they got arrested and locked up for the rest of their life (see David McBride).
It’s good to know that we have advanced as a society. We’re talking about now, not 80 years ago.
You also seem to be under the impression that making a “correct” choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that’s not always the case. That doesn’t chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn’t change their duty.
(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that’s not relevant here because it’s not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)
A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don’t like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.
A doctor’s agency does not supersede another’s right to live. A doctor doesn’t get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.
Prior to the Nuremberg trials individual responsibility for disobeying unlawful orders was an implicit judgement and not explicitly stated.
And if we look at examples of people using the defence of I was disobeying orders due to them being in violation of international law they got arrested and locked up for the rest of their life (see David McBride).
It’s good to know that we have advanced as a society. We’re talking about now, not 80 years ago.
You also seem to be under the impression that making a “correct” choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that’s not always the case. That doesn’t chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn’t change their duty.
(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that’s not relevant here because it’s not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)
A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don’t like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.
A doctor’s agency does not supersede another’s right to live. A doctor doesn’t get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.