Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
LOL, she managed to work an accusation of "misogyny" into her transphobia. TERFs are so predictable.
#ThisIsWhyIDon'tWantOrNeedRadicalFeminism
There were always two big issues I saw with this philosophy:
- Do you think a Doctor should be allowed to deny a patient emergency care based on a non-financial matter? For instance, should an ER doctor be allowed to walk away from the table if they find out their patient is gay? A patient can often shop around for a general practitioner, but they may be unable to do so during an emergency (such as a car accident). Therefore, in such a decision, is it acceptable to deny the patient their right to life on personal grounds or is it more just to deny the practitioner/business their right to liberty and free association in order to protect the right to life of the patient?
Basically, do you think the Hippocratic Oath applies to such a libertarian view? Is a doctor obligated to treat a patient, even if that patient is someone who offends their views?
- Even in a place where they would face no governmental reprisals, it's still a good policy for businesses to hide their views from their customers. Bringing bigotry out into the open only serves the consumers, it does nothing to help a business that wishes to practice bigotry. Therefore, how does not making such things illegal help ANYONE? The market can only decide to act against a business if the business openly admits to it's practices or if those practices can be proven well enough through other evidence, which means businesses still have every incentive to hide their practices.
To put it another way, there are reasons that most klansmen hid their identities under a hood. It's not illegal to be a klansmen or to echo their beliefs, but there are consequences beyond the governmental.
Last edited:
I would assume that the majority of people who would have an issue providing care to certain groups just don't usually grow up to become doctors. When you're an engineer, for instance, there are problems that need solving. It doesn't matter whose problems they are, they just need solving, and an engineer is hard-pressed to resist the temptation to solve them. I expect that the sort of person who would suffer through the long grind of med school is also the sort of person who would not enjoy watching another person suffer.
--Patrick
--Patrick
The Tuskegee Experiments.
We don't usually pass laws because of what the majority does.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, first of all, I'm not sure the modern Hippocratic Oath has much bearing on the conversation, as it doesn't obligate a doctor to treat a patient - any patient. Rather it says to act ethically and responsibly in treatment. Basically, most of it can be summarized by "I will not be Gregory House."
As for "walking away from the table," though, that would be very irresponsible, if I'm correctly interpreting you to mean in mid-procedure. I'm pretty sure that's past the time for objections on whatever grounds. To intentionally abandon an ongoing procedure for any reason (other than the obvious exceptions, such as the room is found to be on fire, and even then some consideration for the patient is to be expected) is injurious and probably criminal.
One of the lines of (one of many) modern versions of the oath is "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." This implies that a Doctor who has sworn the oath is obligated to treat anyone, regardless of whatever crime or issue they have. This is generally only held to emergency life saving treatment, but as you say it's only an implied obligation; the Hippocratic Oath is not binding, though as someone who works with doctors on a fairly regular I would say that I can't think of a single one who would want to work with someone who didn't follow it.
The Osteopathic Oath (for DOs, not MDs) is a bit more explicit on this: "I do hereby affirm my loyalty to the profession I am about to enter. I will be mindful always of my great responsibility to preserve the health and the life of my patients, to retain their confidence and respect both as a physician and a friend who will guard their secrets with scrupulous honor and fidelity, to perform faithfully my professional duties, to employ only those recognized methods of treatment consistent with good judgment and with my skill and ability, keeping in mind always nature's laws and the body's inherent capacity for recovery.
I will be ever vigilant in aiding in the general welfare of the community, sustaining its laws and institutions, not engaging in those practices which will in any way bring shame or discredit upon myself or my profession. I will give no drugs for deadly purposes to any person, though it be asked of me.
I will endeavor to work in accord with my colleagues in a spirit of progressive cooperation and never by word or by act cast imputations upon them or their rightful practices.
I will look with respect and esteem upon all those who have taught me my art. To my college I will be loyal and strive always for its best interests and for the interests of the students who will come after me. I will be ever alert to further the application of basic biologic truths to the healing arts and to develop the principles of osteopathy which were first enunciated by Andrew Taylor Still."
Again, the Osteopathic Oath is not legally binding but it's much more blatant in it's implications: you are to treat all patients, regardless of your personal feelings on the manner, unless doing so is against the law.
So I guess the real question is if you would consider breaking an oath (freely given) to a profession for personal reasons a reasonable course of action in a libertarian society? Does a member of a skilled profession have obligations to that profession, even if they aren't enshrined in law?
Okay, that's my fault for using a bad example. It's CLEARLY a violation if someone is wheeled into the operating room and then left to die on the table. Lets use a different one: Let's say the President of NAMBLA (that would be the North American Man-Boy Love Association to the non-South Park fans) is caught in the act, on national television, in the act of violating a child. In the scuffle to arrest him, he is shot and in critical condition. However, the hospital he is brought to denies him entrance at the doors, claiming that no doctor there is willing to treat him. He dies en-route to a different facility. Were his rights violated? Should the doctors/hospital be punished for not treating him? If not for ether of those, why not?
There was a case in the news about this.
And while refusing to take a baby as a patient because the parents are lesbians is pretty shitty, the real asshattery comes from how the doctor behaved in this case. She met the parents before the baby was born and agreed to be their pediatrician. They were told to make an appointment once the baby was born. They did so. And on the day of the appointment, were met by another doctor, because the pediatrician they'd made the appointment with prayed that morning and decided she couldn't care for their baby after all.
So the moms had gone through the trouble of vetting pediatricians, found one they liked and who agreed to take their child as a patient, made the appointment, went to the appointment, and were met by a completely different doctor. And while that would be understandable in an emergency, this was because the original pediatrician didn't even have the decency to cancel the appointment ahead of time and let the women find a new doctor? Or speak to these women herself? Or not even agree to be their pediatrician in the first place? (I find it hard to believe that the homophobia suddenly appeared out of nowhere that very morning.) What an asshole. And a coward. But mostly an asshole.
If a doctor refuses certain patients or certain treatments due to religious/moral beliefs, then that should be made very clear to the the patients up front. Like, a big sign at the receptions desk and a disclaimer on the paperwork. That's NOT something you just spring on a patient all of a sudden when they show up for the appointment or get their diagnosis.
And while refusing to take a baby as a patient because the parents are lesbians is pretty shitty, the real asshattery comes from how the doctor behaved in this case. She met the parents before the baby was born and agreed to be their pediatrician. They were told to make an appointment once the baby was born. They did so. And on the day of the appointment, were met by another doctor, because the pediatrician they'd made the appointment with prayed that morning and decided she couldn't care for their baby after all.
So the moms had gone through the trouble of vetting pediatricians, found one they liked and who agreed to take their child as a patient, made the appointment, went to the appointment, and were met by a completely different doctor. And while that would be understandable in an emergency, this was because the original pediatrician didn't even have the decency to cancel the appointment ahead of time and let the women find a new doctor? Or speak to these women herself? Or not even agree to be their pediatrician in the first place? (I find it hard to believe that the homophobia suddenly appeared out of nowhere that very morning.) What an asshole. And a coward. But mostly an asshole.
If a doctor refuses certain patients or certain treatments due to religious/moral beliefs, then that should be made very clear to the the patients up front. Like, a big sign at the receptions desk and a disclaimer on the paperwork. That's NOT something you just spring on a patient all of a sudden when they show up for the appointment or get their diagnosis.
[EDIT: What the Hell? Where did all my text go? Let me try to recreate it.]
Hey, experimentation, enforced eugenics, or other "sacrifices" make 100% logical sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but only someone who is amoral or a psychopath would ignore the obvious ethics issues that blatantly run counter to the spirit of the profession.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Yet more dirty tricks by the DNC: http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/nevad...lection-fraud-jason-llanes-periscope-youtube/
The Nevada Democratic Convention was a complete clusterfuck, in which Roberta Lange, an appointee by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, appointed herself chair, someone on her staff seconded, and they made it official without giving an option for "nay" votes. Then she denied motions to do a recount. 64 Bernie delegates were delayed or denied entry. This was after they appointed "temporary rules" to use the first count from the NV primary (which Hillary won) and not the second count (which Bernie won).
In short, all standard procedure and attempts at fairness were thrown out the window by HRC goons. The goal was purely to deny Bernie supporters any voice and to steal his support. Then this happened:
The Nevada Democratic Convention was a complete clusterfuck, in which Roberta Lange, an appointee by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, appointed herself chair, someone on her staff seconded, and they made it official without giving an option for "nay" votes. Then she denied motions to do a recount. 64 Bernie delegates were delayed or denied entry. This was after they appointed "temporary rules" to use the first count from the NV primary (which Hillary won) and not the second count (which Bernie won).
In short, all standard procedure and attempts at fairness were thrown out the window by HRC goons. The goal was purely to deny Bernie supporters any voice and to steal his support. Then this happened:
I wonder if it's more about "sending a message," presumably a message about "party unity."
--Patrick
She's going to doom us to a Trump presidency if she keeps pissing off 40% of her party.
Maybe he's the president we deserve.
There's always a choice other than Dumb and Dumber.
The Wasted Vote Myth
Voting Third Party Isn't Just a Serious Choice, it's the Serious Choice
American Voters Must Let Go of the Wasted Vote Mentality
The first two articles have a Libertarian slant, but the points they make apply to any third party.
The Wasted Vote Myth
Voting Third Party Isn't Just a Serious Choice, it's the Serious Choice
American Voters Must Let Go of the Wasted Vote Mentality
The first two articles have a Libertarian slant, but the points they make apply to any third party.
GasBandit
Staff member
This. Dems could have a cakewalk to the White House if they run anyone BUT the one they are bound & determined to push through. She's still probably going to win, but anyone else wouldn't be close.
Yep, I'm one of those mythical left-leaning Libertarians. Apparently Libertarians aren't a hive mind after all!Yesss... YESSS... LIBERTARIANS ON THE MARCH!
No... not at all. This is so wrong. It is lazy and dangerous to think that only Bad People do Bad Things.
That's ... not what I said? I only said these were the ones who would ignore the "bad"-ness, not that these would be the only ones who do bad things.
[DOUBLEPOST=1463368231,1463368097][/DOUBLEPOST]
If only there were a way to limit him to only being able to preside over the ones who deserve him, I'd be all for it.
--Patrick
That conclusion sounds like it comes from circular reasoning to me.
Unless I misspoke, I said two things:
-Doctors (overwhelmingly?) tend to come from the pool of people who care about other people.
-Psychopathic/amoral ("...doctors" is implied) are less concerned
--Patrick
Last edited:
Yeah, this.
I guess I'm not sure how I see distinct groups, here? You seem to suggest there are:
People who do things, see the ethical issues that run counter to their field, ignore those issues, and continue their work: psychopaths, amoral, etc.
and
People who do things, see the ethical issues that run counter to their field, acknowledge those issues, and continue their work: somehow not psychopaths?
unless you are saying that the people who acknowledge the ethical issues would not continue the work, in which case we're back to what I was saying initially: that only bad people do bad things.
I would say some people do ignore the ethical implications, and continue, but these people are not psychopaths, and some people acknowledge the ethical issues, deal with them in whatever way, whether justification or callousness or what-have-you, and these people are just as (un)likely to be amoral monsters.
I think it's much more to do with the nature of ethical decisions, which are often conflicting interpretations of the Good, and people certainly ignore them and this doesn't require sociopaths or any particular trait other than being a human.
Basically, I absolutely contest that 'only' a psychopath would ignore the unethical nature of an experiment.
I wrote all that before you wrote this, to which I would say, it sounds a lot more like you were saying:
"Only a psychopathic or amoral doctor would run an experiment that inflicts pain and suffering upon patients." Which would seem to imply that you think experiments like the aforementioned Tuskegee experiment was conducted by especially bad people - a particularly unique confluence of amoral physicians, as opposed to ordinary men, with normal psychological profiles, who did a horrific thing. Evil does not require exceptionality, and frankly, thrives without it, because of the perception that it does.
Really, what I was saying was merely that it would not bother psychopathic/amoral doctors to run an experiment that inflicted pain and suffering upon patients, and not that such an experiment could only be run by such people. Other experiments have shown that non-p/a doctors can successfully be peer-pressured into it (Milgram) or that they care about other people more than they care about the subjects (Monkeysphere) and so go through with it anyway (e.g., "for the paycheck"). And let's face it, some people just plain enjoy doing it and I'd really rather not keep company with any of those folks.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Burlington College has announced today that it will have to shut down at the end of the month due to the massive, unmanageable debt in incurred when Jane Sanders, Bernie Sanders' wife, was president.
Dave
Staff member
Yeah that site is extremely pro Clinton. No surprise about the Bernie hit piece. And they can't even go after Bernie so they hit at his wife. Well done.
But let's address it. A church sold some land to Burlington College (to make some money for a priest sex scandal) and the backing of the loan fell through. The college was counting on donors and enhanced enrollment to help make up the money, which included loans from a bank, a private individual, and bonds. When the donor money and enrollment bump didn't materialize, their accreditation took a hit. And when that happens it has a domino effect that they were unable to recover from. Was it a risky venture? Yes. Did it have a major upside? Potentially. Was it fraud? Absolutely not. Was it her fault? Yup. She's the one that brokered the deal and had things turned out the way she wanted they'd be singing her praises.
Here's a more balanced report on it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/what-happened-at-burlington-college/482973/
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...rlington-college-shut-down-programs/84439890/
But let's address it. A church sold some land to Burlington College (to make some money for a priest sex scandal) and the backing of the loan fell through. The college was counting on donors and enhanced enrollment to help make up the money, which included loans from a bank, a private individual, and bonds. When the donor money and enrollment bump didn't materialize, their accreditation took a hit. And when that happens it has a domino effect that they were unable to recover from. Was it a risky venture? Yes. Did it have a major upside? Potentially. Was it fraud? Absolutely not. Was it her fault? Yup. She's the one that brokered the deal and had things turned out the way she wanted they'd be singing her praises.
Here's a more balanced report on it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/what-happened-at-burlington-college/482973/
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...rlington-college-shut-down-programs/84439890/
From what I read, "maybe" is better there. They applied to a Bank saying they had X pledged already as backing, and yet that didn't come through, when MOST pledges do. And we're talking either 5x or 10x the amount they USUALLY get pledged they "claimed" to the bank actually was.
So there's room for shenanigans there, that more than imply fraud IMO. Fraudulent claims on getting the loan in the first place I mean. But possibly not. They could have had 1 or two "big backers" back out and they were screwed. Absolutely possible. But it doesn't look that likely to me.
And this is coming from somebody with "kind of" no bias in this. I think Bernie is a neat guy. But this smells bad. And in general those you choose to associate with reflect on your own judgement, both good and bad. And no more closely than your spouse. So I'd say it's legit to examine those people when deciding on others.