[ExI] Right to medical information

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 March 2012 01:45, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For those who didn't read the article, there is a law winding its way
>> through the Kansas legislature allowing doctors who are opposed to
>> abortion to "opt out" of telling women information about their coming
>> baby that might lead the woman to get an abortion.
>
> Let me think.
>
> Should I be allowed as a lawyer, if I feel a deep respect for the sacredness
> of the life of corporate entities since conception, to "opt out" of telling
> a client that due diligence investigations revealed the target in
> prospective corporate deal to be a can of worms?
>
> That's an interesting concept. The client could not blame me for any breach
> of my fiduciary duties, because after all I would do that in the service of
> a Higher Justice... :-)

Isn't this already happening, in many cases?  Although the actual cited
reason tends to be because identifying the deal as a can of worms is
complex and uncertain enough that any human being - even a trained
professional with all the relevant data - could reasonably have
misdiagnosed.  Officially, that is.  (Unofficially, the reason is more
often, "non-yes-men don't keep this job".)