Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2663392 - 05/11/04 01:26 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

Answer for me then, If I'm not given the RIGHT to say no, doesn't that automatically mean my answer must be yes?

Maybe if you go about your life rigidly following Aristotelian logic then I could see how you might assume that. I don't think the right to say no is in question, it already exists, the point of the bills is to protect certain people from the consequences of saying no.

Quote:

I asked you first, how does not having this legislation actually force a doctor to provide a treatment they don't want to? If something is so morally repugnant to them that they would refuse treatment over it, what makes you think they could be physically forced to do so?

What other action would they have?



Plenty, to physically force them to do it would be assault (at least it is here in the UK).

They wouldn't have the right to say no, and any answer other than "yes" would be construed as further discriminatory action and they would be punished for doing so.

They already have the right to say no, it existed before this legislation, it exists now in other states outside of Michigan. They may open themselves to to certain actions (disciplinary etc...) by doing so however.

Does this mean that they would technically be "forced" to do it, not in the sense that a policeman would hold a gun to their head.

That's my point, they aren't 'FORCED' (I've seen you capitalise that for emphasis) to do something against their will, any more than you can force me to kill someone by telling me to.

But it would be a "Pay a huge lawsuit and lose your practise, or do the procedure" thing. It might not be the definition of force that you were thinking of, but it still is apt.

It's not force though, despite your repeated assertions that it is. If a hospital wants to find a doctor in breach of contract or go through disciplinary procedures because they won't treat gays (for example), I'm fine with that, it's not forcing them to to go against their morals.
I have strong feelings about piss tests, and it's possible that I'll be up for one later in the year. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might lose my job as a result of my refusal to take the test, because I feel so strongly on the issue. They can't force me to take the test short of assaulting me.

Quote:

These bills went through this year, somehow the medical profession seems to have gotten by in previous years without any doctors that I'm aware of being forced to perform treatments. These bills don't force people to do things against their will, they shield them from the consequences of their prejudices.

I had to re-read that about 15 times to understand it. I'm going with my best perception of it. If this shield you refer to isnt' in place, then their right to say "no" is taken away.



It's quite simple, these bills are new, and they only apply to Michigan. Therefore it's fairly safe to assume that before 2004, Michigan and the rest of the US didn't have these bills. If doctors are 'forced' to treat people against their will without these bills as you claim, then it would stand to reason that we'd have at least few instances of this happening. So far you haven't provided a single real example that backs up your assertions outside of abstract concepts.

Quote:

So are you saying that you are applying your arguments to workers and facilities funded by the government?

Yes. If a worker says "no" to a procedure, it is up to the hospital or health facility to deal with that person.



As I've already said, take a look at bill 5006, it protects the worker against disciplinary action. The hospital couldn't fire that person if they wanted to.

If it's a government funded hospital, I don't htink that any particular doctor should have his right to say "no" taken away, but punishments other than legal ones should be applied.

You're one of the only people I've seen who is claiming that the right to say no is being taken away.

Quote:

I'm not aware that any old doctor can perform an abortion either, or any cases where someone was forced to perform one against their will. I also think a doctor can say no if they want, but I also think they should face the consequences of their decisions.

Hold the train. Now you DO think a doctor should be able to say "no"



I think I've already made myself clear on this, the right to say no isn't the issue, it already exists and I support it.

but at the cost of, say, a 10,000,000$ lawsuit carried out with the support of pro<insert here> teams, such as the NAACP or GLAD with near unlimited funds. Nice to see how you treat the working man.

I notice that you take yet another extreme example. How about disciplinary procedures? These bills protect people from those too. If the reason for such an expensive lawsuit in your example is that the lack of treatment caused bodily harm to the denied patient, then why shouldn't they sue? It depends on the context and specifics of the case, I doubt a judge would award a person 10 mil purely because they had to drive 300 miles to another hospital.

Quote:

That's the entire point of this thread, going back to the first post. This allows for discrimination against certain people. I won't bother with the "Thats just the way it is" part, it only really works with children.

If you don't like it, then you can pass laws that require everyone to do anything that anyoen else wants.



Actually I can't as I'm in the UK (and bills like these would get shot down in flames anyway). I can however point out these laws to other people, say on a message board.

Quote:

I get where you're coming from, but I think you're massively over-simplifying. The doctor would still be free to refuse the treatment, he should then have to explain to his employers why he won't treat gays, and be prepared for the possibility of unemployment as a result.

Of COURSE the doctor should be able to say no, and of COURSE the hospital should reserve the right to fire him, or to support him. This bill deals not with that issue, but with the legal culpability of the doctor. It's not a matter of being fired, it's a matter of being sued! LEGAL CULPABILITY is what I don't want. I've said all along that the hospital has the right to fire whomever they want for decisions that they make.



I noticed that you omitted the part of my post where I pointed out that disciplinary action is covered by these bills. I'll paste it again:

The bill would:
? 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.

Let me give you a "for example" to show what I think;

A man walks into the Emergency Room of his local hospital. This hospital is funded through tax dollars and grants made available to health care insitutions. This man is a total "flamer", a very blatant and obvious homosexual. He wants to have his ears examined, as they are painful. Doctor Cleatus P Klansman says "Well gawrsh shit, I ain't dealin with no fudgepacking faggot, fuck you", when the patient enters his room. Another doctor at the hospital with more sense deals with the patient and heals him right up. In this instance, the hospital could either fire the redneck bigot or they could give him a stern warning. The patient, however, would not have any legal right to sue the doctor. It's just the doctors choice if he wants to say "no". Thats just how it should be. He should be required to answer to the man that signs his paycheck, but not in court. If you allow this, it will set a very bad precedent.

Your thoughts on situation?

You mention that this would set a precedent, but this bill only applies to Michigan. I've yet to see any real instances of such a precedent being set in any of the other states where bills like this don't exist.

What if the man with ear-ache has to wait for hours while another doctor is freed up to look at him? Should he have to sit through possibly unnecessary pain just because he's gay? Should the other doctors be expected to take on the extra workload just because one guy won't treat gays? What if it's an infection that then causes major damage and wasn't caught in time because the original doctor wouldn't examine the patient? I think he'd have a pretty good reason to bring a lawsuit.

Quote:

They can't make him do the treatment if he's so morally opposed to it that he refused in the first place. He'd also be free to take it to the courts for unfair dismissal if he likes.

no, they can't. They could, however, say that they will be punishing him for his actions, both criminally and civilly. He would lose his practise and his license. So you are correct, he really isn't forced to do the procedure, it's either 1) do the procedure or 2) lose everything you have. morals or money, why make a man decide that?



I think you're making assumptions again. You can't know what the result of a lawsuit or disciplinary procedure will be, so your choices are artificially restricted. There are many other possible outcomes, but you are again only using 'either/or' choices.

Quote:

I still haven't seen a decent illustration of how someone would be forced to treat another, or that this 'right to force' existed before the current legislation.

If you take away a mans right to sya "no", what other possible alternative would he be left with?



Repeating that ad-nauseum doesn't make it any more true. Who other than you is saying that not having these bills takes away a man's right to say no? Does that mean that doctors outside of Michigan don't have this right? I've seen no examples of this from you so far other than your abstract deductions.

Quote:

If you look back at my posts you would see that I think the same 'spirit' (helping your fellow humans) is there in both. I'm familiar with Animal Farm and I still have no idea what political allegory has to do with the Hippocratic oath.

The fact that the rules change as certain groups come into power. Liberal university doctors took out the part that they didn't like about abortions and, in so doing, changed the context of the part.



Can you prove that the oath was changed by 'liberal' university doctors? A source for that info would be nice. You still haven't addressed my point about the 'spirit' of the oath, for example:

Relevant lines from 'Old' Oath:

Quote:

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.



Relevant parts from the 'new' oath:

Quote:

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.

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.



Regardless of the changes made (medicine has changed over 2000 years), I can still see an underlying current about helping sick human beings.

Sound like the pigs and the horses?

Why compare it to a book about communism of all things? Are you trying to imply something?

Quote:

It is if it's used as the basis of a decision not to treat them.

A doctor isn't allowed to use what he hears from the patient in his interaction with the patient?
"Well, Mr Johnson said that his prostate was inflamed and about falling out of his ass, but I can't use that information in my dealings with him, no surgery!"



Are you being deliberately obtuse? I didn't say that at all, I'll post what I said again:

It is [being used against them] if it's used as the basis of a decision not to treat them

Quote:

...(do you still think the authors were 'lying gays'?), the reason I started the thread.

The authors most certainly are.



How so? You yourself admitted that these bills allow discrimination towards gays. Can you show where the authors lied?

Quote:

Sure. If a doctor at a public hospital doesn't want to perform a certain procedure or treat a certain patient, that is morally wrong. However, it's not LEGALLY wrong.

Surely that depends, as you said yourself, the civil rights acts apply. It would be legally wrong to refuse a black person treatment just because they were black. As you also said, gays aren't covered, that's what the issue is.

No. An individual doctor could refuse service. If it was at a clinic that wasn't publically funded and the organization or adminsitration of said clinic sided with the doctor, that would be that. No african americans. If they were publically funded, they would be required to fire him. They would also be required to provide service to the black guy.



You keep going back to private facilities and workers at every opportunity. Your claim was that it was not legally wrong for a doctor at a public hospital to refuse to treat someone, I pointed out that this wouldn't be the case if the civil rights laws were breached.

Quote:

This is a discussion about the legalised discrimination these bills allow towards gays and others. You can try to simplify it down to support your own argument with a constant use of yes/no arguments about individuals, but I'm not playing that game. The right to say no already exists, it's the consequences of saying it that are under the spotlight.

That is like saying the "right" to go into a bank with an Uzi and spray some people down exists. It hardly does. If you can be prosecuted or sued for your actions, then you don't have the "right" to do it, you have the ABILITY to do it.



There you go again with the extreme and irrelevant examples. How does killing people with an Uzi relate in any shape or form to doctors treating people? People have the right to freedom of speech and yet people can still be sued or prosecuted for using it.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2663687 - 05/11/04 02:36 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

the point of the bills is to protect certain people from the consequences of saying no.


The only way to do that is to force others to say yes.

You can't have it both ways.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2663720 - 05/11/04 02:45 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

So how are they forced? Where are the doctors all over the US being forced to treat people they don't want to?


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2663750 - 05/11/04 02:53 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

Loss of license, fines.

Quite a few states prohibit denial of medical care.

This bill is a step in the right direction.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2663870 - 05/11/04 03:27 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
Maybe if you go about your life rigidly following Aristotelian logic then I could see how you might assume that. I don't think the right to say no is in question, it already exists, the point of the bills is to protect certain people from the consequences of saying no.



Explain to me some other "Rights" that exist that have consequences for following them. It would seem to me that if you have the "right" to do something, but then get punished for it, it's not really a right. So, name other "rights" that people have that result in punishment.
Quote:


They already have the right to say no, it existed before this legislation, it exists now in other states outside of Michigan. They may open themselves to to certain actions (disciplinary etc...) by doing so however.



I think your ignorance of the word "right" is the root of some of the problems. The word right, in itself, means that you aren't punished for it. That would be like Hitler saying "Sure, you have the RIGHT to be Jewish in my country. Of course, we'll gas you". It isn't a right when punishments are applied for using it. Does that really escape you? Are you that daft?
Quote:


That's my point, they aren't 'FORCED' (I've seen you capitalise that for emphasis) to do something against their will, any more than you can force me to kill someone by telling me to.



Ok. Lets say that I take your wife and children hostage and put a gun to their head. Unless you do a certain action, i'll kill your family. Do you think you are being "forced" to do that action?
Your pathetic attempt at semantically arguing your way out of this isn't going to work.
Quote:


It's not force though, despite your repeated assertions that it is. If a hospital wants to find a doctor in breach of contract or go through disciplinary procedures because they won't treat gays (for example), I'm fine with that, it's not forcing them to to go against their morals.



You just want to punish them for doing so. Just like other right, like, say the right to free speech. "Sure Mr Journalist, you can write a story critical of the administration, you have that right. Of course, we'll then tie you up and stick a hot poker up your ass while we kill your family". Again, webster might help you with your lack of comprehension of the word "right".
Quote:


You're one of the only people I've seen who is claiming that the right to say no is being taken away.



how many friggin people have kept up with this? two. me and you. What about B_H's comments?
Quote:


You mention that this would set a precedent, but this bill only applies to Michigan. I've yet to see any real instances of such a precedent being set in any of the other states where bills like this don't exist.



Way to go totally ignoring the point. Maybe you could explain how precent has to be done on a national level, rather than on a state level. OF course, you can't because that isn't how it really is, but why let "facts" and "Reality"g et in the way of your opinion,
Quote:


[quoteRepeating that ad-nauseum doesn't make it any more true. Who other than you is saying that not having these bills takes away a man's right to say no? Does that mean that doctors outside of Michigan don't have this right? I've seen no examples of this from you so far other than your abstract deductions.



you are a fool. I'm done with this. Look up the word "right" and "Ability" and you should, if you had any grey matter, see the difference. Refer to the Hitler/Jews example if more help is needed.
Quote:


Can you prove that the oath was changed by 'liberal' university doctors?



No of course not, the wall always said that pigs didn't have to do the work. How dare you question it?
Quote:


Why compare it to a book about communism of all things? Are you trying to imply something?



*sigh*

Did you notice how the "constitution" that the animals wrote seemed to change to suit the needs of one party?

Did you notice how the hippocratic oath changed to remove that part about abortions?

If so, welcome to "Obvious 101". You just got your credits.
Quote:


There you go again with the extreme and irrelevant examples. How does killing people with an Uzi relate in any shape or form to doctors treating people? People have the right to freedom of speech and yet people can still be sued or prosecuted for using it.


You are a fool. I am done with you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2664593 - 05/11/04 05:59 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

Whatever, let me know when you can go more than 5 replies without name-calling. I'm done with this board for a while.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: What happened to the hippocratic oath? [Re: Edame]
    #2664678 - 05/11/04 06:15 PM (19 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
Whatever, let me know when you can go more than 5 replies without name-calling. I'm done with this board for a while.



*waves*

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 9/11 Allowed to Happen?
( 1 2 all )		 st0nedphucker 2,294 34 09/07/03 06:48 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* What will happen to the economy when robots take over?
( 1 2 all )		 Baby_Hitler 2,343 25 09/01/03 12:49 PM
by z@z.com
* No Gods (pt. 1) Abudiwa 1,063 7 04/11/02 06:58 PM
by Buddha
* We Need the State? Otherwise, Something Bad Might Happen!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Evolving 7,506 141 05/24/04 12:12 AM
by shamantra
* Help. Hooked on driving my SUV. Need treatment immediately Grav 478 6 06/01/04 12:36 PM
by Seuss
* House Bans Coloning of Human Cells
( 1 2 all )		 PotSmokinHippie 4,085 21 08/04/01 09:36 AM
by Phred
* gitmo detainees can challenge their treatment in US courts afoaf 482 5 06/28/04 10:54 PM
by Swami
* What Ever Happened To Peace On Earth Autonomous 438 1 01/03/04 11:35 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,789 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.