Home | Community | Message Board


RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
What happened to the hippocratic oath?
    #2592061 - 04/22/04 08:14 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

In my last post I was informed of my apparent complicity in a vast British conspiracy to portray Americans as extremists.  I found this curious as I felt that America doesn't seem to need much outside help with perpetuating this stereotype.  This source may be a little biased, possibly something to do with a scandalous gay plot to avoid being treated like 2nd class citizens.

It'll be just like old times, only this time instead of refusing to treat people because they have the wrong skin colour, it might be because they have the wrong god or lifestyle.

Go Michigan, I'm sure Michael Moore would be proud. :smile:


Quote:

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 21, 2004 8:14 p.m. ET

(Lansing, Michigan)  Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.




--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2592219 - 04/22/04 09:10 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

So you are saying that you favor legislation that tells private practitioners who they may and may not accept as clients?  The gays aren't given the "right" to have a doctor care for them.  I'm not saying that it wouldn't be irrational of a doctor to refuse to have a gay patient.  However, it comes down to an indivduals true RIGHT to choose who they offer their business to in a private practise. Or do you think otherwise?

Lets not let this develop into a thread that questions the morality or homoseuxality. This really isn't about that.  It's about which of these two rights you believe should exist.

1) A person who owns his own business, independant of any community funding, should be able to choose who to, or who not to, allow as a customer.

2) The right of an individual to be served by any private institution that he wishes.

I personally believe that the rights of the business owner take precedence over the "rights" of the individual, or group.  If an individual possesses the start up capital, the intelligence, the determination to start their own business, with no help from the government (thus, it would be covered under the Civil Rights Laws and would be a Federal matter), they should have the right to extend their business, or limit their clientele, based on whatever criteron thei desire.  While I don't belive that an examination of an HIV positive patient conducted with proper barriers (latex gloves) is a high risk task, that should be left up to the judgement of the doctor.

Thinking of a close friend of mine brings up two scenarios that I'd like your comment upon. He is a tattoo artist and owns a number of shops.

Scenario 1) To get a tattoo at this establishment, you must sign a waiver stating that you have no communicable diseases (AIDS, TB, Hep, all specifically mentioned) prior to recieving a tattoo.  This is for obvious reasons, as the carrier of some highly infections pathogens are blood and plasma, two secretions released during the tattooing process.  Do you think that this is "wrong", and shouldn't be done?

Scenario 2) My friend is vehemently anti-racist.  He won't even tattoo the Confederate battle flag (The "stars and bars") on a person unless he knows them and knows that it is either a sign of rebellion, or a sign of cultural appreciation for ancestors.  If their is any indication that it is being used as a hate sign, he won't tattoo them.  Swastikas, all other white supremacist logos are banned in his shop from being tattooed.  Should Nazi's have the right to DEMAND to be treated by him?

Now, the question that I always think of when a group is trying to get into a private instutition that doesn't allow them;
Why the HELL would you want to go there?  Do you think that gays would like to know that their doctor doesn't WANT to treat them? If I were in their situation, knowing that the doctor that is treating me is only doing so because he is compelled by law, I wouldn't feel that he would maintain the requisite objectivity to condut a proper examination. Why would you want to be somewhere you had to be forced into?

Sorry for the EXTREME rambling, my super-dank from 4/20 is still carrying me high :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2592337 - 04/22/04 09:36 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I'm curious as to what the objective of bill actually is. I don't the article really tells us that.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2612335 - 04/28/04 06:30 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Edame; I'm wondering why you'd start this thread and then fail to respond to the points that I bring up in relation to it. Please, if you aren't too busy answer my points that I brought up in post #2592219. If you have even more time, please explain why you believe that these actions violate the Hippocratic Oath, as posted below. The bold text in the following article seems to be the grounds for a post with this title as it seems to be violated frequently in our society today. I'm not saying that last sentance as a judgement just as a possible suggestion for contemplation. Thanks


Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2612989 - 04/28/04 09:29 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Edame; I'm wondering why you'd start this thread and then fail to respond to the points that I bring up in relation to it. Please, if you aren't too busy answer my points that I brought up in post #2592219.

Funnily enough it's because you failed to respond to my points in thread number 2579179, and the responses that I did get left me with the impression that you're not someone I want to spend too much time debating with (that and your uncanny similarity to a previous poster).

As your quote describes, you have posted the classical oath, and I'm not aware that modern doctors still use it. With regards to the "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy" line, as far as I understand it, at the time (over 2000 years ago) it was acceptable instead to abandon an unwanted newborn in the wilderness to die, so I don't think it's quite as you would suggest.

My point about the oath was that generally doctors are there to help everyone, not just people who share their belief systems. I think of it as similar to the US constitution, it is supposed to be for all the people. It opens up a nasty can of worms IMHO. What next, cops refusing to help or protect people who's beliefs differ from theirs? Firefighters refusing to take certain emergencies?

Call me crazy but I don't think that a doctor should be able to refuse to prescribe a morning after pill to a woman who has been raped (for example), just because it offends his beliefs.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2613207 - 04/28/04 10:28 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
Funnily enough it's because you failed to respond to my points in thread number 2579179, and the responses that I did get left me with the impression that you're not someone I want to spend too much time debating with (that and your uncanny similarity to a previous poster).




That post isn't even in this thread. I can't possibly convince you that my way of interpreting the article is the single, holy, a priori, objectively correct way of doing so anymore than you can convince me. If you really want that, I'll bring it back up in that thread and put a poll up and see if the majority of the people agree with my interpretation or yours. Lets get back on topic here, now.

summation of this; you still haven't answered my question about the rights of the patient-to-be versus the doctor. I think that answering them will be all that is necessary for each of us to totally understand the other and see if either of us can talk the other into our beliefs.

Quote:


As your quote describes, you have posted the classical oath, and I'm not aware that modern doctors still use it.




Right you are, I was going to post the modern one but I didn't, thinking that you might not want to use the edited one. Fortunatly for us both, going to that link that I provided earlier will bring us to [b"Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version". Can you find me any indication that the authors of that oath want doctors to be compelled to treat anyone that comes to them?

Quote:


With regards to the "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy" line, as far as I understand it, at the time (over 2000 years ago) it was acceptable instead to abandon an unwanted newborn in the wilderness to die, so I don't think it's quite as you would suggest.




I am not anti-abortion so I didn't put it in there to prove some point of mine. You brought up this document to support your position, so I figured that you'd stand behind all that it says, rather than picking and choosing. If the time we speak of did condone such actions by a mother it still doesn't apply to the conduct of the medical professional.

Quote:


My point about the oath was that generally doctors are there to help everyone, not just people who share their belief systems. I think of it as similar to the US constitution, it is supposed to be for all the people.




Similar in that it's quoted by people who wholeheartedly support one aspect, but totally are against another? Sure. Also, the hippocratic oath is not for all people. It is an oath that medical doctors take.
Quote:


It opens up a nasty can of worms IMHO. What next, cops refusing to help or protect people who's beliefs differ from theirs?




You seem to have entirely missed the point of my first assertation. The police work for the citizenry and the government. Thus they are not given the right to choose their clientele, if you will. If a private practitioner as the ones in the article decide to refuse service to groups of people, they have that right.
Quote:


Firefighters refusing to take certain emergencies?




You seem to have entirely missed the point of my first assertation. The police work for the citizenry and the government. Thus they are not given the right to choose their clientele, if you will. If a private practitioner as the ones in the article decide to refuse service to groups of people, they have that right.
Quote:


Call me crazy but I don't think that a doctor should be able to refuse to prescribe a morning after pill to a woman who has been raped (for example), just because it offends his beliefs.



Ok, lets go with this example. Lets say that Family Smith is travelling through Amish country. They stop in at a local Amish doctor who runs a practise that he supports totally on his own and say that they want a "morning after" abortificant. This is totally against his religion. Should the government stop caring about his personal convtions and force a man to go against his religion, in the interest of a patient that he doesn't wnat to see? Or should the patient go to a doctor who wishes to treat them?

Try and answer some of these, I'd afford you the same respect. I'll even say that you won the other arguement you alluded to, and that I'm entirelly wrong. Now, lets drop that and focus on this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2617321 - 04/29/04 06:05 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Funnily enough it's because you failed to respond to my points in thread number 2579179, and the responses that I did get left me with the impression that you're not someone I want to spend too much time debating with (that and your uncanny similarity to a previous poster).

That post isn't even in this thread.




I'm aware of that, which is why I provided the link.

Quote:

I can't possibly convince you that my way of interpreting the article is the single, holy, a priori, objectively correct way of doing so anymore than you can convince me.




I didn't say that you had to convince me, or that I was trying to convince you. I was pointing out that you left the last discussion we had as you made a point of noting my absence from this one.

Quote:

If you really want that, I'll bring it back up in that thread and put a poll up and see if the majority of the people agree with my interpretation or yours.




I don't post here to garner popular opinion, having other people vote on our arguements is of no interest to me.

Quote:

Fortunatly for us both, going to that link that I provided earlier will bring us to [b"Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version". Can you find me any indication that the authors of that oath want doctors to be compelled to treat anyone that comes to them?




I think you're asking a skewed question, but lets take a look at the oath, I have highlighted the parts I think are relevant:


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help
.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Quote:

You brought up this document to support your position, so I figured that you'd stand behind all that it says, rather than picking and choosing.




That's the problem with assumptions I guess. Would you agree that a person may support a particular politician or political group, but not neccessarily support every single position they hold?
Maybe my point was too vague. As the above oath shows, a doctor's duty is to care for all human beings, not just the ones that they like. That is what I meant when I chose the title I did, what happens when people of a profession like this go against the meaning of the oath that symbolises their work?

Quote:

Also, the hippocratic oath is not for all people. It is an oath that medical doctors take.




Yes, an oath they take to care for all people as human beings, not to refuse treatment to those they see as sinners or objects of disgust.

Quote:

You seem to have entirely missed the point of my first assertation. The police work for the citizenry and the government. Thus they are not given the right to choose their clientele, if you will. If a private practitioner as the ones in the article decide to refuse service to groups of people, they have that right.




I'm wondering where you are getting your info from, where does it say that this bill would apply to only private practitioners? I realise that I didn't link to the bill itself, but I can't see in the article that I posted any reference to this only applying to doctors who can choose their clients. Were you assuming this to be the case, or is your arguement confined to just the issue of private healthcare?

I have found a link to the bill here and it clearly shows that this applies to just about every medical facility you can find.

Quote:

Call me crazy but I don't think that a doctor should be able to refuse to prescribe a morning after pill to a woman who has been raped (for example), just because it offends his beliefs.

Ok, lets go with this example. Lets say that Family Smith is travelling through Amish country.




How exactly are you going by my example when you don't answer the question, and instead make up an example of your own? I didn't mention anything about an Amish doctor, I'm talking about your average Michigan doctor, who may now decide that contaceptives violate his morals or religion.

Quote:

They stop in at a local Amish doctor who runs a practise that he supports totally on his own and say that they want a "morning after" abortificant. This is totally against his religion.




I'm not aware that there are Amish doctors. According to this FAQ at Amish.net, the Amish visit regular doctors like everyone else:

Question: Do the Amish go for health care services? How do they deal with technological advances of health care? Do the Amish allow the Doctors to go all out when they are ill or do they place restrictions on medical care provided? Do they believe in immunizations?

Answer: The Amish use local doctors, dentists, eye doctors, etc., and will go to specialists and hospitals as needed. They make use of advances in health care that are used in hospitals, etc. They generally try home remedies for ailments first before going to a doctor or the hospital.


Quote:

Should the government stop caring about his personal convtions and force a man to go against his religion, in the interest of a patient that he doesn't wnat to see? Or should the patient go to a doctor who wishes to treat them?




If you read through the bill, you will find that in this case, you can't force a healthcare worker to perform an action that their facility doesn't already provide. This is about selective care. If a clinic does not prescribe contraceptive measures, then they can't be made to do so, but if they do provide them, this allows an employee (doctor, pharmacist etc...) to specifically refuse to offer this service to those that violate their beliefs.

Do you support the idea that a doctor should be allowed to pick and choose who they provide certain treatments too? Do you think that this is in the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath? [


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2617439 - 04/29/04 06:27 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Have you read this thread about what the crazy limeys are doing now?

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...ev=#Post2444976


(:smirk:)


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2617496 - 04/29/04 06:36 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Unless I was kidnapped and replaced by a robotic double posting on my behalf (how do I know I'm not still that robot?), I'm pretty sure I have.

                :lol:


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2617535 - 04/29/04 06:42 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

In "News of the Weird" Last Sunday I read that the same county in Tennessee where the scopes "monkey" trials took place the county commission voted 8-0 in favor of asking the state for funding to keep gays and lesbians out of their county.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2618227 - 04/29/04 09:24 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Thanks for posting that link. I think it will totally finish this discussion off for all logical thinkers. First of all, this bill isn't a bill that is specifically targetted to allow doctors to refuse treatment. Their are numerous ramifcations of the practise of the myraid caveats in this law. Since your article came from a site that caters to homosexuals it is apparent that this is their reason for focusing on this one particular application of the bill.

I tried to post the entire bill here so that it could be viewed by all but it is so off-kilter that I'd spend hours editing it. The link is; http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billengrossed/house/htm/2003-HEBH-5276.htm
I think that analyzing this document will prove my point that doctors should be allowed this right. Your post about the hippocratic oath is null, as you didn't mention weither you meant The Hippocratic Oath, or the re-write of it. You can't pick the re-write just because you disagree with the clauses of abortion renunciation found in the original, the true Hippocratic Oath I am now addressing the point of the general morality of the issue.

Quote:

A bill to allow certain health facilities to object to providing or participating in certain procedures under certain circumstances; and to provide for protection from certain
liability.




We see from the preamble to this resolution that it doesn't give carte blanch for a health facility to exercise the objections under any circumstance. The inital statement tells us that certain caveats will follow that clearly outline the parameters that this legislature covers.

Quote:


Sec. 2. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health facility may withdraw or withhold from providing a health care service, or may refuse to provide or participate in a health care service, on ethical, moral, or religious grounds as reflected in its organizational documents, charter, bylaws, or an adopted mission statement.




The first sentance fragment before the inital comma seperation detail that this isn't to counter any other existing law. For example; a "health facility" could not invoke powers of this law to withdraw life support from a person that their personal beliefs dictate should be removed from their pain. A prosecutor for any homosexual victim could say that a government institution is prohibited by law from refusing service based on these reasons, and he'd probably win it. But this doesn't deal with the morality of the issue, so I'll return to that.

If an organization has a charter document, it should not be forced to go against that. Imagine if the UN tried to pass a law saying that the laws that they make supercede the laws in America. That would not sit well. Now imagine a Catholic monk or priest at a 'health facility' being told that their religious beliefs that are contained in the health facilities charter don't matter because people are going to force them to do what they ethically do not want to do. That isn't the function of government, in my opinion.

Quote:


(2) A health facility shall not assert an objection described in subsection (1) under any of the following circumstances:




Here is where it gets interesting, we get to see what circumstances this bill puts forth;
Quote:


(a) The objection is to a health care service the health
facility routinely provides or participates in and is based on a disagreement with a member of a health profession employed by,
under contract to, or granted privileges by the health facility regarding the medical appropriateness of a health care service
for a specific patient if the patient has consented to the
provision of the health care service.




Now the truth begins to rear it's head and the slanted post by the homosexual lobby begins to crumble. We see that a health facility that routinely conducts a specific procedure or treatment cannot invoke the power of objection that this bill sets forth due to one single non-employee doctors ethical objection.
Quote:


(b) In the event of a public health emergency.




Now we see that a doctor can't use their ethical beliefs to slam the door in the middle of plague. Sounds pretty good to me.
Quote:


[(c) In the event of an emergency where a patient's condition, in the reasonable medical judgment of an attending physician or medical director, requires immediate action to avert serious injury, harm, impairment, or death or is such that a delay would create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function to that patient.




Now we come to the part where the hippocratic oath comes into play. If someone is in dire need of medical assistance they can't be turned away. If a Southern Babtist hospital was in Michigan and their charter denounced homosexuality and deemed those people not fit to be treated at the facility, they still couldn't, persuant to this bill, turn away a homosexual who was severely injured.
Quote:


(3) This act does not relieve a health care facility from a duty that exists under another statute or other law pertaining to medical standards of acceptable health care practice and procedures.




Again it clarifies that other laws still maintain precedence over this one.
Quote:


4)] A health facility's objection as described in subsection
(1) to providing or participating in a health care service shall
not be a basis for 1 or more of the following:
(a) Civil, criminal, or administrative liability.
(b) Eligibility discrimination against the health facility in
a grant, contract, or program, unless providing or
participating in the health care service is the exclusive
purpose for the grant, contract, or program.




Just some legal mumbo jumbo that states the bill protects health facilities who follow the parameters of the bill and object to certain procedures by certain groups.

So, to sum it all up;

If a government run institution did invoke this legislation and ban a homosexual that was not critically injured from being treated, that institution would still be prosecuteable under the Federal Civil Rights Laws, which specifically prohibit such actions.

If a private practise does same because their original charter or founding documents states that they have ethical obligations, they would be legally entitled to do so and immune from prosecution. Do you think that a Catholic Charities hospital should be forced to perform abortions? If this law was not passed, that would be the result.

I could go on, but I'm sure that my point has been proved. Maybe you can tell me how this is another totally objective article again, or you can tell me how you pick and choose from an article you choose to stand behind, or you could just demonstraet your remarkably short memory. Either way, I think that, once again, logical people will see that I've totally annhilated your arguments.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2618235 - 04/29/04 09:28 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
This source may be a little biased, possibly something to do with a scandalous gay plot to avoid being treated like 2nd class citizens.




Since their interpretation doesn't seemed to be based on the actual structure of the bill I think it's more than a "littie" biased.
Quote:


It'll be just like old times, only this time instead of refusing to treat people because they have the wrong skin colour, it might be because they have the wrong god or lifestyle.




Or because private practitioners have a long standing tradition in their written charter. And, I'll have to reiterate, this still doesn't supercede such things as the Civil Rights Act. I'm sure you'll pointedly ignore that in all posts I've made though.

Quote:

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Quote:


Hah. Pathetic twist. "little biased" he says.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2622045 - 04/30/04 04:39 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Their are numerous ramifcations of the practise of the myraid caveats in this law. Since your article came from a site that caters to homosexuals it is apparent that this is their reason for focusing on this one particular application of the bill.




Which is why I noted right at the start (with tongue firmly in cheek) that the source may be biased.

Quote:

I tried to post the entire bill here so that it could be viewed by all but it is so off-kilter that I'd spend hours editing it. The link is; http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billengrossed/house/htm/2003-HEBH-5276.htm<br />
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm aware of where the link is, I already posted it.

Quote:

Your post about the hippocratic oath is null, as you didn't mention weither you meant The Hippocratic Oath, or the re-write of it.




Here we go again. I so enjoy it when you dictate to me whether my posts are valid or not. In case you forgot, the only initial reference to the hippocratic oath was in the title, nothing else. You then apparently chose to assume that I was referring to the classical oath from thousands of years ago. You then selected one tiny part of it as topic for discussion which I then responded to and elaborated on. After our last discussion I'm not surprised in the least that you would now simply choose to declare the topic null on a technicality of your own choosing (you are apparently blaming me because you made an assumption). In my opinion the points about the spirit of the oath that I made are still valid.

Quote:

[You can't pick the re-write just because you disagree with the clauses of abortion renunciation found in the original,




There you go again dictating to me what I can and can't say. As you appear to suffer from a selective memory, I'll quote your own words here:

Fortunatly for us both, going to that link that I provided earlier will bring us to [b"Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version". Can you find me any indication that the authors of that oath want doctors to be compelled to treat anyone that comes to them?

As you can see, you yourself brought up the newer version and asked me to respond, which I did (at which point you threw the arguement out the window).

Quote:

the true Hippocratic Oath I am now addressing the point of the general morality of the issue.




Are you suggesting that the original oath is somehow more valid than the new one despite the fact that it is no longer in use? Do you think that it differs fundamentally? You may have noticed that my references to the oath also attempt to address the general 'morality' of it (ie the obligation to help all sick people).

Quote:

We see from the preamble to this resolution that it doesn't give carte blanch for a health facility to exercise the objections under any circumstance. The inital statement tells us that certain caveats will follow that clearly outline the parameters that this legislature covers.
...
The first sentance fragment before the inital comma seperation detail that this isn't to counter any other existing law. For example; a "health facility" could not invoke powers of this law to withdraw life support from a person that their personal beliefs dictate should be removed from their pain.





I think you have mis-interpreted. I think there is a clear difference between choosing not to treat someone for a non-life threatening condition, and killing them by removing them from life-support and I never implied that such a thing would be possible. As I already pointed out in the hippocratic oath that you now dismiss, I think a doctor has an obligation to offer treatment for everyone, so I would hardy agree with pulling the plug on someone because of their beliefs.

Quote:

If an organization has a charter document, it should not be forced to go against that. Imagine if the UN tried to pass a law saying that the laws that they make supercede the laws in America. That would not sit well. Now imagine a Catholic monk or priest at a 'health facility' being told that their religious beliefs that are contained in the health facilities charter don't matter because people are going to force them to do what they ethically do not want to do. That isn't the function of government, in my opinion.




I have no idea where you are going with this. Did you miss the part where I already said that a healthcare facility 'can't force a healthcare worker to perform an action that their facility doesn't already provide.' (ie in line with their charter).

Quote:

Now the truth begins to rear it's head and the slanted post by the homosexual lobby begins to crumble. We see that a health facility that routinely conducts a specific procedure or treatment cannot invoke the power of objection that this bill sets forth due to one single non-employee doctors ethical objection.




Again, I think you're mis-interpreting, and as a result I have no idea what you are trying to say. I'd ask you to explain in simpler terms that I could understand, but I have no desire to prolong this trainwreck of a discussion.

As far as I understand it, the point the bill is to protect the healthcare facility, or healthcare worker from being 'punished' (lawsuit, withholding funds etc...) for refusing to provide a service (that they normally provide) on ethical or moral (etc..) grounds.

Quote:

Now we see that a doctor can't use their ethical beliefs to slam the door in the middle of plague. Sounds pretty good to me.
...
Now we come to the part where the hippocratic oath comes into play. If someone is in dire need of medical assistance they can't be turned away. If a Southern Babtist hospital was in Michigan and their charter denounced homosexuality and deemed those people not fit to be treated at the facility, they still couldn't, persuant to this bill, turn away a homosexual who was severely injured.





Did you read the original article? This was already covered:

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Quote:

(3) This act does not relieve a health care facility from a duty that exists under another statute or other law pertaining to medical standards of acceptable health care practice and procedures.

Again it clarifies that other laws still maintain precedence over this one.




In this (for example) case that if a healthcare worker or facility chooses to treat someone, that they don't use this as an excuse to do a half-assed job. Something that is covered by the hippocratic oath that you decided wasn't relevant any more.

Quote:

So, to sum it all up;

If a government run institution did invoke this legislation and ban a homosexual that was not critically injured from being treated, that institution would still be prosecuteable under the Federal Civil Rights Laws, which specifically prohibit such actions.





I don't see anything about 'banning' a person, just refusing them treatment. I also think it means the opposite of what you are saying. This bill looks to me to specifically protect a facility or worker from legal action, otherwise the whole bill woud be meaningless. Look right at the start of the bill:

A bill to allow certain health facilities to object to providing or participating in certain procedures under certain circumstances; and to provide for protection from certain liability.

If you mean refusing treatment to people on the basis of race, then as far as I understand it, that is already illegal in the US (hence the 'certain' circumstances etc...)?

Quote:

If a private practise does same because their original charter or founding documents states that they have ethical obligations, they would be legally entitled to do so and immune from prosecution. Do you think that a Catholic Charities hospital should be forced to perform abortions?




What makes you think that a Catholic Charities hospital would regularly perform abortions? Why do you continue to imply that a facility or worker would be forced to perform procedures that they don't already offer?

Quote:

I could go on, but I'm sure that my point has been proved. Maybe you can tell me how this is another totally objective article again, or you can tell me how you pick and choose from an article you choose to stand behind, or you could just demonstraet your remarkably short memory. Either way, I think that, once again, logical people will see that I've totally annhilated your arguments.




I'll leave it there then, your style of logic in our last two discussions seems to basically equate to you seeing this as a pissing match. Your arguements here have done nothing but reinforce my opinions of you based on our last encounter (that you backtrack, dismiss whatever you don't feel like discussing, change your position, use bizarre analogies that are irrelevant, and parrot my own arguments back at me). This is why I initially chose to ignore you in this thread, and why next time I'll probably stick to that position.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2623797 - 05/01/04 12:57 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
Which is why I noted right at the start (with tongue firmly in cheek) that the source may be biased.



Cool. I think that gravity "may" be real. Just maybe though, not totally for sure.
Quote:

In case you forgot, the only initial reference to the hippocratic oath was in the title, nothing else. You then apparently chose to assume that I was referring to the classical oath from thousands of years ago.



Sorry that I assumed that you meant the actual original document, instead of one of the many re-writes that exist.
Quote:


You then selected one tiny part of it as topic for discussion which I then responded to and elaborated on. After our last discussion I'm not surprised in the least that you would now simply choose to declare the topic null on a technicality of your own choosing (you are apparently blaming me because you made an assumption).




Backpedaling is quite bad for your derailers and shifters, you might want to stop doing it sometime in the near future. You and Alex should start the "I never said what I said I didn't say" club, requisites: disingenious behavior.
Quote:


As you can see, you yourself brought up the newer version and asked me to respond, which I did (at which point you threw the arguement out the window).




*shakes head* So neither the older nor the newer version are what you meant in the topic. Care to enlighten me as to the hippocratic oath that you did mean? how about this, just write one up y ourself. It's not a copywrited document, just type
"D hipacratif oath
1) doctors should do what I say and leave their morals that don't like behind
Edame"

There, now you have a hippocratic oath that does support you.
Quote:


Are you suggesting that the original oath is somehow more valid than the new one despite the fact that it is no longer in use? Do you think that it differs fundamentally?




Summation of what you've typed
1) The old oath isn't the one that you meant
2) neither is the new one
3) both are accurate and don't differ fundamentally

Covering all your bases, aren't you?
Quote:


You may have noticed that my references to the oath also attempt to address the general 'morality' of it (ie the obligation to help all sick people).




And, as I've said about umpteen thousand times, the doctors still couldn't refuse to treat a patient that was in dire need of medical assistance.
Quote:


I think you have mis-interpreted. I think there is a clear difference between choosing not to treat someone for a non-life threatening condition, and killing them by removing them from life-support and I never implied that such a thing would be possible.




You need to learn how to read. I'm not saying that you did say that, I'm giving the best analyses and dissection of the law that I can. I was stating that OTHER LAWS SUPERCEDE THIS ONE, and I listed an EXAMPLE.
Quote:


As I already pointed out in the hippocratic oath that you now dismiss, I think a doctor has an obligation to offer treatment for everyone, so I would hardy agree with pulling the plug on someone because of their beliefs.




Where in the fucking world did I type that doctors could pull the plug on people who had different beliefs? Do you know how to read?
Quote:


I have no idea where you are going with this. Did you miss the part where I already said that a healthcare facility 'can't force a healthcare worker to perform an action that their facility doesn't already provide.' (ie in line with their charter).




honestly, I said that part, not you, so of course I didn't miss it.
This is the ENTIRE point of the argument! If an organization has a charter document that prohibits them from doing certain actions, and those actions aren't otherwise prevented (such as a racist doctor refusing treatment at a government hospital to an african american), then they ARE ALLOWED TO EXERCIZE THIS RIGHT. You really need to learn how to read.
Quote:


Again, I think you're mis-interpreting, and as a result I have no idea what you are trying to say. I'd ask you to explain in simpler terms that I could understand, but I have no desire to prolong this trainwreck of a discussion.




jibby flooba flumber
Quote:


What makes you think that a Catholic Charities hospital would regularly perform abortions? Why do you continue to imply that a facility or worker would be forced to perform procedures that they don't already offer?



The fact that I can read. I'm done with this converstaion. You are an inept illiterate. You can neither read an article and absorb the material contained within and apply it generally and abstractly, nor can you form valid arguments based on the actual text and material of an article. You cannot detect the tonal inflection of an author and interpret their meanings.

Also, thanks for not answering one single question that I asked. Don't bother now, you are to be summarily ignored as soon as I can figure out how to do so. Fibbajibby


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2625276 - 05/01/04 11:45 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I guess I'm a sucker for punishment (or a fool).

Quote:

In case you forgot, the only initial reference to the Hippocratic oath was in the title, nothing else. You then apparently chose to assume that I was referring to the classical oath from thousands of years ago.

Sorry that I assumed that you meant the actual original document, instead of one of the many re-writes that exist.
...
back-pedalling is quite bad for your derailers and shifters, you might want to stop doing it sometime in the near future. You and Alex should start the "I never said what I said I didn't say" club, requisites: disingenious behavior.





Lets see if I have this right (maybe I'm not reading the 'tonal inflection' correctly).  You yourself admit that you made an assumption of what I was referring to, but somehow this equates to me back-pedalling.  Your assumption = my back-pedalling.  Got it.

Quite what Alex has to do with this thread I'm not sure.  As for the "I never said what I said I didn't say" club, makes sense to me, how can I say what I didn't say?  Maybe you should look at why you seem to assume I'm saying things I'm not, rather than what I do say (which you then seem to ignore).

Quote:

As you can see, you yourself brought up the newer version and asked me to respond, which I did (at which point you threw the argument out the window).

*shakes head* So neither the older nor the newer version are what you meant in the topic.




There you go with those assumptions again.  If we go back to my second post in this thread:

My point about the oath was that generally doctors are there to help everyone, not just people who share their belief systems.

Quote:

Care to enlighten me as to the Hippocratic oath that you did mean?




I don't think it matters for two reasons.
1) Because I think the theme I alluded to above (a doctor's obligation to help all sick people) is central to both the classical and modern oaths.
2) Because when I did clarify points in the newer oath, you rejected the whole argument out of hand due to your ever changing criteria:

...I was going to post the modern one but I didn't, thinking that you might not want to use the edited one. Fortunatly for us both, going to that link that I provided earlier will bring us to [b"Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version". Can you find me any indication that the authors of that oath want doctors to be compelled to treat anyone that comes to them?

and then

Your post about the Hippocratic oath is null, as you didn't mention weither you meant The Hippocratic Oath, or the re-write of it. You can't pick the re-write just because you disagree with the clauses of abortion renunciation found in the original, the true  Hippocratic Oath...

Quote:

how about this, just write one up y ourself. It's not a copywrited document, just type
"D hipacratif oath
1) doctors should do what I say and leave their morals that don't like behind
Edame"

There, now you have a Hippocratic oath that does support you.





Once again I find you making assumptions about me or just plain dictating to me what I think.  I already made it clear many posts ago what my position on the oath was.  Even when I attempted to clarify by pointing out to you the parts I felt especially relevant, you threw the whole thing aside.

Quote:

Summation of what you've typed
1) The old oath isn't the one that you meant





I'll quote your own words again:

Sorry that I assumed that you meant the actual original document, instead of one of the many re-writes that exist.

Quote:

2) neither is the new one




Maybe you don't remember the bit where I quoted the new oath and highlighted the parts I felt relevant to the discussion, or maybe you do as you declared it "null".  I'll try and put this in some context:

germin8tionn8ion writes:
You can't pick the re-write just because you disagree with the clauses of abortion renunciation found in the original, the true  Hippocratic Oath


Edame writes:
Are you suggesting that the original oath is somehow more valid than the new one despite the fact that it is no longer in use? Do you think that it differs fundamentally?


My issue is with you referring to the 'true' oath when as I have already explained, I think the central theme of helping your fellow human beings can be found in both.  It seemed to me to imply that you felt that the original was the only one worthy of discussion.  As your quote above shows, this seems to be the case as you rejected my comments on the new oath, favouring the old 'true' one.

Quote:

3) both are accurate and don't differ fundamentally

Covering all your bases, aren't you?





As I've mentioned back in my second post, I think there is a central theme, I think they are both valid in this regard, and was my original point as I've tried to state all along.  I like to think of it as trying to be consistent.

Quote:

nd, as I've said about umpteen thousand times, the doctors still couldn't refuse to treat a patient that was in dire need of medical assistance.




My puzzlement is why you keep referring to this when anyone who read the original article I posted can plainly see this.  It looks to me like an attempt to bolster your position by stating things that were already perfectly clear from the start.

Quote:

You need to learn how to read. I'm not saying that you did say that, I'm giving the best analyses and dissection of the law that I can. I was stating that OTHER LAWS SUPERCEDE THIS ONE, and I listed an EXAMPLE.




I'll quote your 'example' here for context:

The first sentance fragment before the inital comma seperation detail that this isn't to counter any other existing law. For example; a "health facility" could not invoke powers of this law to withdraw life support from a person that their personal beliefs dictate should be removed from their pain.

As I keep trying to say, my interpretation is that this law would shield people from the repercussions of refusing treatment.  If someone is already on life support, they are already being treated.

Quote:

Where in the fucking world did I type that doctors could pull the plug on people who had different beliefs? Do you know how to read?




You seem to have made another assumption.  Where did I say you said that?  I said that I would hardly agree with your example (I'll quote you):

For example; a "health facility" could not invoke powers of this law to withdraw life support from a person that their personal beliefs dictate should be removed from their pain.

Seeing as my point about the oath, and this bill in general (my second post remember?) was that a doctor has an obligation to put helping other people above their own beliefs, I'm once again confused as to why you made such an example.  I didn't claim, or ever imply that this law could be used to withdraw life support from a person, it would run contrary to my entire point. We already know from the parent article that life-and-death situations supersede elements of this bill.

Quote:

I have no idea where you are going with this. Did you miss the part where I already said that a healthcare facility 'can't force a healthcare worker to perform an action that their facility doesn't already provide.' (i.e. in line with their charter).

honestly, I said that part, not you, so of course I didn't miss it.




Seven posts down the thread:

Edame writes:
If you read through the bill, you will find that in this case, you can't force a healthcare worker to perform an action that their facility doesn't already provide.


Eleven posts down:

germin8tionn8ion writes:
If an organization has a charter document, it should not be forced to go against that.


Quote:

This is the ENTIRE point of the argument! If an organization has a charter document that prohibits them from doing certain actions, and those actions aren't otherwise prevented (such as a racist doctor refusing treatment at a government hospital to an african american), then they ARE ALLOWED TO EXERCIZE THIS RIGHT. You really need to learn how to read.




I'd like to say the same thing, I still think you have mis-interpreted.  To me it looks like it allows a healthcare facility or worker to refuse a treatment that they normally do offer, on ethical or religious grounds.
An example of this would be a pharmacist working in a hospital that prescribes the morning-after pill.  A lady asks the pharmacist doing the morning shift (might be someone with different views in the afternoon) to provide her with a morning-after pill and hands the pharmacist a prescription.  The pharmacist refuses to do so on religious grounds even though another doctor has given the prescription already.  This bill would protect the pharmacist from disciplinary or legal action.

Quote:

jibby flooba flumber
...
The fact that I can read. I'm done with this converstaion. You are an inept illiterate. You can neither read an article and absorb the material contained within and apply it generally and abstractly, nor can you form valid arguments based on the actual text and material of an article. You cannot detect the tonal inflection of an author and interpret their meanings.

Also, thanks for not answering one single question that I asked. Don't bother now, you are to be summarily ignored as soon as I can figure out how to do so. Fibbajibby





If there is anyone left reading this clusterfuck of a thread, I'll spare them any more of my 'inept' and 'illiterate' ramblings. :nut: :drooling:


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2625357 - 05/01/04 11:57 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

This is my last chance. 1-800-ABCDEFG, just a little help for you later in life.
I'm going to snip out the gigantic part about how you keep choosing which oath you want to use to fit your purposes. And how you keep switching back and forth, and how their are numerous edits of the original, the only, the TRUE HIPPOCRATIC OATH (The one written by, oh lets say Hippocrates?).
Quote:


Once again I find you making assumptions about me or just plain dictating to me what I think.  I already made it clear many posts ago what my position on the oath was.  Even when I attempted to clarify by pointing out to you the parts I felt especially relevant, you threw the whole thing aside.




You sure did. You support part, but not all of, the original, and you aare ASSUMING what one of the numerous re-edits of it means to suit your purposes. That clears it up pretty well.
Quote:

As I keep trying to say, my interpretation is that this law would shield people from the repercussions of refusing treatment.  If someone is already on life support, they are already being treated.




how in the fuck does this relate to gay people being turned away?
Quote:


You seem to have made another assumption.  Where did I say you said that?




You can't be this stupid.
Quote:


Quote:


I'd like to say the same thing, I still think you have mis-interpreted.  To me it looks like it allows a healthcare facility or worker to refuse a treatment that they normally do offer, on ethical or religious grounds.




That is because you can't interpret what you read.
Quote:


An example of this would be a pharmacist working in a hospital that prescribes the morning-after pill.  A lady asks the pharmacist doing the morning shift (might be someone with different views in the afternoon) to provide her with a morning-after pill and hands the pharmacist a prescription.  The pharmacist refuses to do so on religious grounds even though another doctor has given the prescription already.  This bill would protect the pharmacist from disciplinary or legal action.




Are you retarded?  This bill SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO MORAL OR ETHICAL ACTIONS THAT GO AGAINST THEIR CHARTER. AND IT PROVIDES THAT A SINGLE EMPLOYEE CAN'T MAKE THE DECISION. IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT.  I CAN'T DO ANY MORE THAN CUT AND FUCKING PASTE IT.  IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO, OR DON'T CARE TO, READ THE FUCKING THING, THAT IS YOUR IGNORANCE.  IF THE CHARTER DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE AN ETHICAL CONTRADICTION TOWARDS DOING SOMETHING, THEN THIS LAW DOESN'T APPLY.
Quote:


If there is anyone left reading this clusterfuck of a thread, I'll spare them any more of my 'inept' and 'illiterate' ramblings. :nut: :drooling:



You could answer any of my numerous questions that I posed to you. Of course, when your "Ah no, you misinterpreted and assumed" byline won't work, you won't dare to go head to head about the facts and the ramifications of this.  Actually, don't bother. I'm done with this and with you. You don't know how to read. You don't know how to interpret, and you keep ignoring the actual text of the bill and instead replace it with what you think it might mean (example. the pharmacy, CLEARLY it only applies if it's in the CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION)  I mean, it fuckins says so in plain english in the body of the bill. It's not an "interpretation" issue anymore than me saying that I'm using a computer is an "interpretation" issue.  If the homo's at 357gay.com want to slant the article, thats their right. If you are so ignorant that you can't READ THE BILL and apply it ABSTRACTLY, then you don't belong on a board for adults.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2625643 - 05/01/04 01:01 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I've done a little more research on this, and still stand by my interpretation and my posting of the original article. Further analysis shows that there is more than one bill involved, Bill 5006 states that contraceptives can't be refused, so I withdraw my examples including those.

Quote:

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 5006 AND HOUSE BILLS 5276-5278 AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE 3-30-04

As a package, the bills would allow, under certain conditions, a health care provider or health facility to refuse to provide or participate in a health care service and allow health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to refuse to offer or provide a health care benefit.

House Bill 5006 would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act to allow a health care provider to object, as a matter of conscience, to providing or participating in a health care service on professional, ethical, religious, or moral grounds. A ?health care provider? would include members of professions regulated under Article 15 of the Public Health Code except for veterinarians and sanitarians. ?Health care service? would be defined as the provision or withdrawal of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical diagnosis, treatment, procedure, diagnostic test, device, medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of an individual, but would not include the provision of a contraceptive medication or device. The bill would:

? Provide a procedure for notifying an employer of a conscientious objection.

? Prohibit an employer from refusing employment or staff privileges to a provider who asserted an objection to providing or participating in a health service.

? Prohibit a medical school from denying admission to a person who filed a conscientious objection.

? Specify that a provider?s objection could not be the basis for civil liability, criminal action, administrative or licensure action, or termination of employment or refusal of staff privileges at a health facility.

? Provide a number of circumstances under which the protections afforded under the bill to a provider would not apply.

? Allow an employer to terminate a provider?s employment, with at least 60 days advance notice, if the service objected to constituted a regular or substantial portion of the provider?s current and defined position.

? Allow a provider to bring a civil action, including a petition for injunctive relief, if he or she was penalized or suffered discrimination for asserting a conscientious objection to providing or participating in a health service.

? Make a violation of the bill a state civil infraction and establish penalties.

House Bill 5276 would create a new act to allow a ?health facility? to withdraw or withhold or refuse to provide or participate in a health care service on professional, ethical, moral, or religious grounds reflected in its organizational documents, bylaws, charter, or an adopted mission statement.

A facility could not assert such an objection to a service if the facility routinely provided or participated in the service and the objection was based on a disagreement with a member of a health profession employed by, under contract to, or granted privileges by the facility regarding the medical appropriateness of a service for a specific patient if the patient had already consented to the provision of the service. Nor could an objection be made in the event of a public health emergency. A facility?s objection to providing or participating in a health care service could not be a basis for either of the following: civil, criminal, or administrative liability; or, with one stated exception, eligibility discrimination against the facility in a grant, contract, or program.

?Health facility? would be defined in the bill and include a health facility or agency as defined in the Public Health Code, a private physician office, medical clinic, or a public or private institution, teaching institution, pharmacy, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, sole proprietorship or other legal entity that provided a health care service to an individual. ?Health care service? would mean the provision or withdrawal of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical diagnosis, treatment, procedure, device, diagnostic test, medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of an individual. ?Participating in? a service would include counseling, referring, performing, administering, prescribing, dispensing, treating, withholding, withdrawing, diagnosing, testing, evaluating, training, researching, preparing, or providing medical advice or material or physical assistance in a health care service.

House Bills 5277 and 5278 would allow a health insurer, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to refuse to offer or provide a health care benefit on professional, ethical, moral, or religious grounds as reflected in its articles of incorporation or bylaws or an adopted mission statement. This would not apply to a health care benefit if the benefit was specifically covered under the certificate, contract, or policy. Further, the refusal to offer or provide a health care benefit could not be a basis for one or more of the following: civil, criminal, or administrative liability; or, with one stated exception, eligibility discrimination against the health care corporation in providing a certificate.

House Bill 5277 would add a new section to the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act (MCL 550.409a), which regulates Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

House Bill 5278 would add a new section to the Insurance Code (MCL 500.3406r) to apply to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and commercial insurers.

Legislative Analyst: S. Stutzky




--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2625726 - 05/01/04 01:27 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

A facility could not assert such an objection to a service if the facility routinely provided or participated in the service and the objection was based on a disagreement with a member of a health profession employed by, under contract to, or granted privileges by the facility regarding the medical appropriateness of a service for a specific patient if the patient had already consented to the provision of the service.

Looking at this even closer, I do appear to have mis-interpreted certain aspects of this. I think I have been trying to argue that bill 5276 contains elements from 5006.

I'd like to say the same thing, I still think you have mis-interpreted. To me it looks like it allows a healthcare facility or worker to refuse a treatment that they normally do offer, on ethical or religious grounds.

I think in that case I did interpret the meaning incorrectly. I think I was closer when I said this:

If you read through the bill, you will find that in this case, you can't force a healthcare worker to perform an action that their facility doesn't already provide.

If the facility already provides the service, then it doesn't look like they can object.

Now that I know that this is a combination of bills, I still think the points I made are valid, I was just mistakenly (ignorantly?) referring to the wrong bills in my arguments.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2629898 - 05/03/04 12:53 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

We've gotten so far off track it's not even funny. First, in your opening post, you were talking about how Americans are extremists. Which action do you consider to be "extreme", allowing doctors in private practises the right to choose to uphold their personal ethical considerations and organizational beliefs (without violating other laws), or forcing private doctors to use treatments they don't ethicaly agree with on patients that they don't feel they should serve? Which one takes away from the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of an individual.


Second, I could address your sarcastic comment of a 'scandalous' gay plot to not be treated like 2nd class citizens, and how this law would in no way lead to that, but you'd just say that it wasn't sarcasm, or overuse your 'misinterpretd" statement, so it wouldn't be worth it

Finally, you said "It'll be just like old times, only this time instead of refusing to treat people because they have the wrong skin colour, it might be because they have the wrong god or lifestyle." This, again, is a gigantic misinterpretaion of the truth. It would allow for certain institutions to not perform services or treat patients that they have ethical arguments against. Could it be used by a private doctor to refuse to treat african americans? Yes.COuld it be used by a hospital that receives any state or federal funding? No. So only a private organization could exercise it to be used against people due to having the 'wrong' god or lifestyle, and I think that is a right that private organizations should have.

Any chance you'll actually answer some of my questions from this post, o rshould I write it off? Incase you missed them, I'll repost.
Quote:


a) However, it comes down to an indivduals true RIGHT to choose who they offer their business to in a private practise. Or do you think otherwise?
1) A person who owns his own business, independant of any community funding, should be able to choose who to, or who not to, allow as a customer.
2) The right of an individual to be served by any private institution that he wishes.




Which one?

Quote:

Thinking of a close friend of mine brings up two scenarios that I'd like your comment upon. He is a tattoo artist and owns a number of shops.

Scenario 1) To get a tattoo at this establishment, you must sign a waiver stating that you have no communicable diseases (AIDS, TB, Hep, all specifically mentioned) prior to recieving a tattoo. This is for obvious reasons, as the carrier of some highly infections pathogens are blood and plasma, two secretions released during the tattooing process. Do you think that this is "wrong", and shouldn't be done?

Scenario 2) My friend is vehemently anti-racist. He won't even tattoo the Confederate battle flag (The "stars and bars") on a person unless he knows them and knows that it is either a sign of rebellion, or a sign of cultural appreciation for ancestors. If their is any indication that it is being used as a hate sign, he won't tattoo them. Swastikas, all other white supremacist logos are banned in his shop from being tattooed. Should Nazi's have the right to DEMAND to be treated by him?




Well?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2630940 - 05/03/04 09:34 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

We've gotten so far off track it's not even funny. First, in your opening post, you were talking about how Americans are extremists.

What I actually said was:

In my last post I was informed of my apparent complicity in a vast British conspiracy to portray Americans as extremists. I found this curious as I felt that America doesn't seem to need much outside help with perpetuating this stereotype.

Which was also a reference to this thread in which someone made a generalisation about the British press trying to portray Americans as extremists.

Which action do you consider to be "extreme", allowing doctors in private practises the right to choose to uphold their personal ethical considerations and organizational beliefs (without violating other laws), or forcing private doctors to use treatments they don't ethicaly agree with on patients that they don't feel they should serve? Which one takes away from the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of an individual.

When did you stop beating your wife?

I find it extreme when a country's president openly advocates discrimination against gays (the constitutional amendment), and then find what looks like another example in the parent article. Despite your comments on civil rights laws, I'm not aware that sexual orientation falls under them. To me these bills look like legalised predjudice. They would allow a doctor to refuse (object) to treat somene based on their sexual orientation or habits. I also don't see how doctors could be 'forced' to perform an action against their will without this bill either. The medical profession seems to have managed without it for quite a while.

The point I've been trying to make all along is the central theme in the oaths of helping your fellow human beings, no matter who they are. A doctor in a prison may not like some of the people they have to treat, but I always thought that being a doctor was supposed to be about rising above that, and helping everyone you can. If I give blood, I may not like who the eventual recipient may be, but why should I dictate who deserves my blood and who doesn't? I remember a line in the new oath that you linked:

Above all, I must not play at God.

If a doctor can refuse a treatment that would enable a person to live a better life, on the grounds that their particular god doesn't agree with that person's lifestyle, that sounds a lot like playing God to me.

Second, I could address your sarcastic comment of a 'scandalous' gay plot to not be treated like 2nd class citizens, and how this law would in no way lead to that, but you'd just say that it wasn't sarcasm, or overuse your 'misinterpretd" statement, so it wouldn't be worth it

It was sarcasm, but I do happen to think that legislation like this (and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage) would make Gays second class citizens. I thought the constitution says "We the people.." and not "We the heterosexual people...", gays should be able to have access to the same level of healthcare as everyone else, this would allow some doctors to deny them that.

Finally, you said "It'll be just like old times, only this time instead of refusing to treat people because they have the wrong skin colour, it might be because they have the wrong god or lifestyle." This, again, is a gigantic misinterpretaion of the truth. It would allow for certain institutions to not perform services or treat patients that they have ethical arguments against.

How would this be much different from a doctor in the 50's refusing to treat a black person on ethical grounds?

Could it be used by a private doctor to refuse to treat african americans? Yes.

Are you sure? I though earlier you were arguing that civil rights laws overrule these bills?

COuld it be used by a hospital that receives any state or federal funding? No.

Again, I'm not so sure, Bill 5006 looks to include all kinds of facilities:

(d) "Health facility" means any of the following:
(i) A clinical laboratory.
(ii) A county medical care facility.
(iii) A freestanding surgical outpatient facility.
(iv) A home for the aged.
(v) A hospital.
(vi) A nursing home.
(vii) A hospice.
(viii) A hospice residence.
(ix) A facility or agency listed in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) located in a university, college, or other educational institution.
(x) A private physician's office.
(xi) A medical clinic.
(xii) A public or private institution that provides health care services to an individual.
(xiii) A teaching institution that provides health care services to an individual.
(xiv) A pharmacy that provides health care services to an individual.
(xv) A corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, or other legal entity that provides health care services to an individual.


I don't know a lot about who does and doesn't get federal funding, but that list looks pretty comprehensive to me.

So only a private organization could exercise it to be used against people due to having the 'wrong' god or lifestyle, and I think that is a right that private organizations should have.

Again, maybe I'm misinterpreting, but some of the above in the list don't sound like they are all private institutions, and this bill would cover a doctor working at any of them.

Any chance you'll actually answer some of my questions from this post, o rshould I write it off? Incase you missed them, I'll repost.

a) However, it comes down to an indivduals true RIGHT to choose who they offer their business to in a private practise. Or do you think otherwise?
1) A person who owns his own business, independant of any community funding, should be able to choose who to, or who not to, allow as a customer.
2) The right of an individual to be served by any private institution that he wishes.

Which one?


Again, when did you stop beating your wife? Why do I only have 2 choices?

What about the right of an individual to have "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

That's from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed back in 1948. While this wasn't exactly legally binding, these new bills look like a bit of a step back to me. You might find it interesting that places like the USSR and Saudi Arabia abstained from voting on this.

Thinking of a close friend of mine brings up two scenarios that I'd like your comment upon. He is a tattoo artist and owns a number of shops.

Scenario 1) To get a tattoo at this establishment, you must sign a waiver stating that you have no communicable diseases (AIDS, TB, Hep, all specifically mentioned) prior to recieving a tattoo. This is for obvious reasons, as the carrier of some highly infections pathogens are blood and plasma, two secretions released during the tattooing process. Do you think that this is "wrong", and shouldn't be done?


What exactly is your point here? Do you think that hospitals don't ask similar questions before performing certain treatments? Or are you implying that people should have to declare their sexual orientation or religious beliefs to a doctor before treatment?

Scenario 2) My friend is vehemently anti-racist. He won't even tattoo the Confederate battle flag (The "stars and bars") on a person unless he knows them and knows that it is either a sign of rebellion, or a sign of cultural appreciation for ancestors. If their is any indication that it is being used as a hate sign, he won't tattoo them. Swastikas, all other white supremacist logos are banned in his shop from being tattooed. Should Nazi's have the right to DEMAND to be treated by him?

By what stretch of the imagination do you consider a tattoo to be a 'treatment'? What relevance in your analogy does getting a tattoo have to medical treatment. Are tattoos a medically proven way of making a person healthier? The only thing I can really say is that I think Nazis should be allowed the same medical treatment as everyone else.

Maybe you could answer one of my questions. Are your arguments here confined solely to private practitioners and facilities? The list I copied from the other bill looks like it covers all kinds of workers at all kinds of facilities, but you seem to be rigidly sticking to the idea of how this applies only to private ones.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Three charged with second-degree murder in Katrina hospital deaths lonestar2004 384 1 07/18/06 07:10 PM
by tak
* Are Canadian Hospitals really like this? Great_Satan 1,085 18 12/01/04 11:47 PM
by Phluck
* Obama Flubbing The Oath
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Madtowntripper 4,326 100 01/25/09 07:35 PM
by zouden
* Doctor Assisted Suicide afoaf 589 11 10/06/05 05:12 PM
by Silversoul
* Michigan and Florida, your opinions?
( 1 2 all )
dill705 2,051 39 03/12/08 11:45 PM
by Smackshadow
* Doctor assisted suicide.
( 1 2 all )
Phluck 1,135 25 12/15/02 04:29 PM
by Phluck
* GRrr ...awful politics in michigan rodfarva 406 6 03/05/08 02:36 PM
by lonestar2004
* Palestenian doctor's 3 daughters killed live on air
( 1 2 3 all )
supernovasky 2,605 52 01/21/09 04:39 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,724 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.346 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.