Cheers JT! How would you cope with the scenario where, say, engine, response is "different" but all the other pilots say "yes, but it's not a problem". It later turned out that, while the system was still operating, it was outside engineering limits - but, as pilots, we did not know what those engineering limits were...yada, yada.
I lost you when it turned into teenage sexual innuendo.
We're not talking about unresolved mechanical issues here. We're talking about properly deferred items which have been resolved and are approved.
OBVIOUSLY an unsafe or illegal condition must be rejected. However, that's not what's under discussion here, and that's not the condition to which is referred in the original post.
Clearly if one does not feel that one can abide a given mechanical condition, regardless of it's disposition in light of the MEL or other relief, then one has a duty to either refuse the flight, or make arrangements which are acceptable. That goes without saying.
A safe, deferred item, however, is not something improper. It is not something unsafe. It is not something which presents a hazard to society or legal jeopardy to the operator. It's a legal modification to the type certification for the duration of the deferral. The aircraft is being operated in accordance with approved maintenance procedures and conditions established by both the manufacturer, the overseeing regulatory body, and the airline or operator for whom the list is approved. This isn't a haphazard operation.