Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Main Problem (Score 2) 91

There was one report on a radio station that there are like 10 doctors in a whole country

That would NPR's report as well which stated 50 doctors total in Liberia after some of left during the beginning of the infection.

http://wvpe.org/post/who-warns...

Of course considering the mess Liberia has been in for 20+ years this outbreak is relatively minor and only receiving attention due to sensationalism.

Comment: Re:Attn: Haselton (Score 1) 871

But, briefly: Of course the law might be unjust, but how are you going to create a rule that protects people who violated unjust laws, without also protecting people who violated the good ones?

That is an entirely different question than the legitimacy of the 5th amendment. It's also a question that is much more worthy of philosophical debate. The fifth amendment(self-incrimination) debate can conceivably be easily resolved by most people by asking "what happens if we remove it?".

Comment: Re:Attn: Haselton (Score 1) 871

by Galactic Dominator (#45087833) Attached to: Bennett Haselton's Response To That "Don't Talk to Cops" Video

They may interpret "client's best interest" to be limited to the outcome of legal cases.

That isn't fiduciary responsibility. While I'm sure occasions have happened that a cavalier lawyer focused only on the outcome of the case, an attorney is required by law to have a client's short and long term considerations figured into the situation.

If the client thinks he can make his neighborhood safer by turning in a criminal, a lawyer might plausibly claim he wasn't obligated to consider that when calculating his "client's best interest".

The scenario you've offered here is speculative at best. In your initial point, you argue as if the client is the offender. Here now the offender wants to turn someone else in to "make the neighborhood safer" which sounds suspiciously like "think of the children"..

  And I doubt you'll find many in the legal profession dispensing medical advice on anything other than enormously evident causes like treating substance abuse or food addiction. If a client is observably on a negative path concern food intake, it is their responsibility to inform them of it and failing action by the client to trigger some kind of treatment if possible.

Why do you avoid questions like "Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?"

Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter

Working...