Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/19/08 07:45 PM, n64kid wrote: Enough with abortion, it's denying a request to someone who is not ill because it conflicts with the doctors morals. Abortion is just an easier example because LGBT operations are a far more touchy subject.

You are the one who incessantly used abortion as an example; glad it's been dropped however.

You called into question my analogies which were perfectly fine with what I was dealt with and then. Then you called me dim after I told you that your practically nonexistent arguments suck. You attacked my post first then went after me personally first.

You are correct; I was personally insulted by your bombastic, abrasive manner. It mas immature to not seperate myself from my arguement and for that I apologise.

I'm calling into question your reading comprehension because obviously you have room to improve. I know what you wrote and that's where we DO agree............. If it's medically relevant, then people should put value and morals aside and treat the patient. For the reasons listed by the OP, they are not medical and only personal requests. Do you know the difference yet?

THe problem is, from my viewpoint, what we agree on is not what we're discussing. To thank me for conceding a point I never debated seemed rather odd.

You put a doctor ahead of every profession with disregard to similar practices of other industries? Lawyers have to pass the Bar, and have to abide by the rules and regulation of their association. Lawyers have control of helping to protect the innocent and can deny service for almost any reason. Accountants have the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination to become CPAs, and can refuse to represent clients during an audit, refuse tax service, refuse financial advisory, all which affect quality of life and well being.

Not to the same extent and nor are they accorded the same respect in society. Doctors deal with people when they are at their most vulnerable; the Hippocratic oath isn't about joining an organisation or agreeing to abide by the rules of any board. It is about accepting that one has a great responsibility to help those in need and should act accordingly: that is, with decorum, impartiality and proffessionally. This is why your analogies are flawed; you're failing to take in to account personal, societal and historic factors.

You continue to write posts with little substance. Saying the hippocratic oath exists because doctors have a great responsibility to their patients is analogous to lawyers having bar associations. Both patients and clients depend on professional help, both doctors and lawyers have control over more than their personal life, yet for some weird reason you cannot see this. It's true, deal with it. The analogy is not flawed just because you don't know that doctors perform a service as well and other professions have similar codes of ethics.

I do not deny the importance of other servicse nor do I feel that they do not have an impact on most aspects of a person's life. What I do deny is that they are equal in standing or power.

So how does the hippocratic oath come into question at times when the patient isn't sick. How could you justify purposely taking a life during an abortion while still being true to the oath?

I thought we weren't discussing abortion?

Prevention is better than cure does not contradict anything I have said. Why the hell did you write it? I haven't the slightest clue why you've decided to waste my time by saying this.

Well, connect the dots between abortion, prevention and the clause within the oath that states they must endeavour to prevent before curing. As I stated earlier I mainly take issue with doctors refusing to prescribe certain birth controls due to their personal beliefs.

:Please prove to me you understand medical operations because they are wanted versus necessary medical operations, then categorize the OPs claims under each, then use the hippocratic oath to justify why a doctor should be forced to go against his/her will.

Birth control - Unnecessary but prevents the necessesity for more extreme methods. Doctors are sworn to prevent difficulty where they can.

Birth control - as above but economic ramifications of children. Doctors are sworn to take in to account that area of a person's life.

Doctors shouldn't put their beliefs before a patients wellbeing - not a procedure but one of the claims and leads to happier people, in charge of their own bodies, who trust doctors (I honestly can't believe I have to argue the benefits of proffessional conduct). Doctors are sworn to show care and understanding, to respect the responsibiltiy of their position and to accept they have special obligations to both the well and sick.

Euthenasia - if you asked the patient (and they are capable of response) it would be necessary; others will argue otherwise but provides relief to those beyond help and allows people to make the ultimate choice themselves. One could argue the 'not playing god' clause suggests it shouldn't be up to them (ever for that matter, whatever the procedure)

Fertility treatments for LGBT community - necessary if they are to have children (albeit unnecessary in that having children is not a medical requirement) and helps people who have every right to raise young to do so. Again the warmth, understanding, more to a patient than just their lives and not playing god seem to support this.

Yes, I think you're very funny.

That's interesting, personally I find you a bit of a bore.

Good thing I have a solid reason.

Frankly I doubt you'd recognise solid reasoning if it paraded itself around your computer wearing a neon sign.

My conclusions that abortions that are not required for emergency purposes aren't needed but wanted are based on false premises? Premises that you have failed to either address or prove wrong? I think you're engaging in idiocracy. Ya digg?

How about the premise that I'm discussing abortion? Which I have stated I am not several times now. I'd digg but you have no rhyme (nor reason for that matter) daddio.

Hippocratic oath does not force doctors to treat patients that don't have health sensitive issues.

Prove otherwise.

I find the '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.' clause covers it fairly well. One could argue the '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.' as well depenidng upon personal interpretation.

So this has something to do with the topic..... how?

I was responding to your insults; if you'd rather we stayed on hand I'd suggest not using them at every opportunity. Something I would much prefer as frankly this is getting childish and I have no particular urge to continue acting peurile.

I still don't get if you're trying to troll me or if you think you've presented your own argument. So far you've just called into question the legitimacy of my analogies without providing any substance nor prove them wrong, you just fail to see a connection. Then you keep telling me that my conclusion is off and go on some wild tangent that doesn't prove anything you've said. You're repeatedly ignored my requests of how the hippocratic oath applies to cases where the patient isn't sick or in need of medical attention, and you show no promise in doing so.

Rightio; I'll say this because apparently this a part of debate you don't seem to grasp. I understand your arguements and I see where you are coming from in regards to your analogies. I just happen to disagree with them for reasons previously stated, re-stated and then stated again for the shear thrill of it. Your conclusion, in regards to abortion is not off. Your conclusion in regards to that actually being a valid arguement to what I am discussing is.

As for the hippocratic oath, I did outline the clauses.

At 8/20/08 11:28 AM, Pontificate wrote:

THe problem is, from my viewpoint, what we agree on is not what we're discussing. To thank me for conceding a point I never debated seemed rather odd.

I sarcastically thanked you because you stated what I wrote in a previous post, not for conceding your point. You don't happen to be British, do you?

Not to the same extent and nor are they accorded the same respect in society.

According to US laws, they have similar respect, and in my society, doctors and lawyers are equals.

Doctors deal with people when they are at their most vulnerable;

And lawyers don't? People who have their life on the line and need a quality defense, guilty or not, to keep them from getting life in jail?

the Hippocratic oath isn't about joining an organisation or agreeing to abide by the rules of any board. It is about accepting that one has a great responsibility to help those in need and should act accordingly: that is, with decorum, impartiality and proffessionally.

It's a code of ethics, in the US, the lawyers have a similar creed and accountants have one far more strict.

This is why your analogies are flawed; you're failing to take in to account personal, societal and historic factors.

Or maybe you're failing to emphasize the importance of other professions in society, personal life, and history.

I do not deny the importance of other servicse nor do I feel that they do not have an impact on most aspects of a person's life. What I do deny is that they are equal in standing or power.

Lawyers defend from prison, and in your country, historically death. Doctors defend people from death. Both patient and client cannot remedy their predicament on their own.

I thought we weren't discussing abortion?

Yet another response with no answer?

Well, connect the dots between abortion, prevention and the clause within the oath that states they must endeavour to prevent before curing. As I stated earlier I mainly take issue with doctors refusing to prescribe certain birth controls due to their personal beliefs.

So pregnancy is a disease that needs to be cured? Memorize was right about people like you.

Birth control - Unnecessary but prevents the necessesity for more extreme methods. Doctors are sworn to prevent difficulty where they can.

1) If the doctor doesn't want to give the pill, the doctor shouldn't be at fault if the person has sex anyways.

2) Gentlemen should wear condoms

3) Doctors are sworn in to prevent illness under their best judgment, you still haven't even remotely convinced me that the hippocratic oath appplies here to put their morals aside on maters not so pressing.

Birth control - as above but economic ramifications of children. Doctors are sworn to take in to account that area of a person's life.

Seems like every part of the hippocratic oath applies for the benefit of the sick. If you have a different one than this, please quote and cite the clause.

Doctors shouldn't put their beliefs before a patients wellbeing

So with this doctors still wouldn't be obligated to prescribe birth control medicine.
Try again.

Euthenasia - if you asked the patient (and they are capable of response) it would be necessary; others will argue otherwise but provides relief to those beyond help and allows people to make the ultimate choice themselves. One could argue the 'not playing god' clause suggests it shouldn't be up to them (ever for that matter, whatever the procedure)

Most people he want to die don't have a state of mind, that and euthenasia is kind of outlawed. The doctor not performing to a request still stands. No obligation.

Fertility treatments for LGBT community - necessary if they are to have children (albeit unnecessary in that having children is not a medical requirement) and helps people who have every right to raise young to do so. Again the warmth, understanding, more to a patient than just their lives and not playing god seem to support this.

Yet judgment, and the fact that this isn't for the benefit of the sick. Unless you think gayness is a disease.

That's interesting, personally I find you a bit of a bore.

How appropriate, you argue like a cow.

Frankly I doubt you'd recognise solid reasoning if it paraded itself around your computer wearing a neon sign.

I doubt you'd recognize logic in arithmetic.

How about the premise that I'm discussing abortion? Which I have stated I am not several times now. I'd digg but you have no rhyme (nor reason for that matter) daddio.

No response again, nor can you substitute what's basically the same thing for abortion.
BTW, are you high?

I find the '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.' clause covers it fairly well.

So..
-Member of society, which our society allows the doctor to choose under his judgments what's right and wrong, as stated in the oath.
-Special obligations which seem to be aformentioned in the oath, yet no specifics on unusual requests going against the doctors judgment.

If you can prove to me special obligations means the same as performing a non needed request that even the doctors judgment doesn't matter, then you have something. As far as just saying they must remember that they have special obligations (i.e. not playing God, saying they know not, have the power to take a life), the clause doesn't come close to covering it well at all.

Inference failed.

One could argue the '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.' as well depenidng upon personal interpretation.

One could argue it how? This is neither a life or death situation, denying someone the pill is not a play at God, especially if it's within what they think is "God's will" and not their own.

On a side note, the play at God line only means that a doctor can use drug therapy and surgery as treatment.

I was responding to your insults; if you'd rather we stayed on hand I'd suggest not using them at every opportunity. Something I would much prefer as frankly this is getting childish and I have no particular urge to continue acting peurile.

Then stop half-assing your responses and claiming clauses with meanings that don't fit into the oath. Doctors have a choice on whether to deal with non critical operations on the healthy, and I'm sticking to it.

Rightio; I'll say this because apparently this a part of debate you don't seem to grasp. I understand your arguements and I see where you are coming from in regards to your analogies. I just happen to disagree with them for reasons previously stated, re-stated and then stated again for the shear thrill of it. Your conclusion, in regards to abortion is not off. Your conclusion in regards to that actually being a valid arguement to what I am discussing is.

What, that doctors aren't obligated to take any request that a patient asks? It stands, and is valid. Your clauses failed to prove otherwise, you jumped the gun on special obligations which you have not outlined to mean anything more than the obligations stated in the actual oath. Nothing that's not required for the patients health and well being, nothing.

As for the hippocratic oath, I did outline the clauses.

Not their meanings. Maybe you need to grasp what you're actually defending.

At 8/20/08 05:12 PM, n64kid wrote: I sarcastically thanked you because you stated what I wrote in a previous post, not for conceding your point. You don't happen to be British, do you?

What on earth is the point of sarcastically thanking someone through text? With only two words and a complete lack of prosodies noone is actually going to notice. I am indeed British, not that that has any relevance.

According to US laws, they have similar respect, and in my society, doctors and lawyers are equals.

There is a clause in US law that states a doctor is equal to a lawyer? I'd like to see it because if this is so your legislators are incredibly frivolous. From what I have seen of American society (and indeed European society, it is much the same these days) both are seen as prestigious proffessions but one does not respect a lawyer in the same way one would respect a doctor. Nor does one make one's self as vulnerable to a lawyer.

And lawyers don't? People who have their life on the line and need a quality defense, guilty or not, to keep them from getting life in jail?

As I said I do not deny the importance laywers play but to humanity issues of the flesh, of health, of life are more important than liberty and for obvious reasons: we are animals with instincts and basic needs. Medical conditions are more vital, more immediate than others.

It's a code of ethics, in the US, the lawyers have a similar creed and accountants have one far more strict.

It is not just a code of ethics, it's an oath. A recognition of the responsibility and power in their hands as evidenced by all the other ethical conduct enforcing organisation in medicine.

Or maybe you're failing to emphasize the importance of other professions in society, personal life, and history.

Or maybe you're failing to emphasise the importance of the medical proffession in society, personal life and history. Well that was productive.

Lawyers defend from prison, and in your country, historically death. Doctors defend people from death. Both patient and client cannot remedy their predicament on their own.

The nature of the predicament is different in both cases however and in the former, due to a simple sense of preservation, it is viewed as more important.

Yet another response with no answer?

Largely because we are not discussing abortion.

So pregnancy is a disease that needs to be cured? Memorize was right about people like you.

I did not say it was a disease; it is, however, a medical condition that is better prevented than aborted.

1) If the doctor doesn't want to give the pill, the doctor shouldn't be at fault if the person has sex anyways.

So it is within the doctor's perogative to denote who can have sex with whom? Forcing your beliefs on others is unproffesional and, frankly, ignorant and I've yet to hear a rebuttal to that.

2) Gentlemen should wear condoms

Agreed but it is surely the patient's right to decide whether they want to or otherwise?

3) Doctors are sworn in to prevent illness under their best judgment, you still haven't even remotely convinced me that the hippocratic oath appplies here to put their morals aside on maters not so pressing.

I even italicised the relevant portion. '...those sound of mind and body as well as infirm.' rining any bells?

Seems like every part of the hippocratic oath applies for the benefit of the sick. If you have a different one than this, please quote and cite the clause.

My god; one would think emphasising it would be enough: 'those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.' and is found within the very same oath you presented to me.

So with this doctors still wouldn't be obligated to prescribe birth control medicine.

They're putting their beliefs before the wellbeing of a patient when they're sworn to aid both sick and healthy. Not seeing the obligation yet?

Most people he want to die don't have a state of mind, that and euthenasia is kind of outlawed. The doctor not performing to a request still stands. No obligation.

It's a touchy subject; I support it but because it is outlawed the doctor cannot be obliged. That, however, is the only reason. Otherwise they would be obliged to aid their patient in the only way left.

Yet judgment, and the fact that this isn't for the benefit of the sick. Unless you think gayness is a disease.

The 'judgement' part means doing what you can to help the patient till the point you would view the request/treatment as medically harmful. It does not mean, in cases where it is within the patient's decision and will not harm them, a doctor is allowed to withhold their seervices due to personal morals.

How appropriate, you argue like a cow.

You're as repulsive as a monkey in a negligee.

I doubt you'd recognize logic in arithmetic.

Now that was actually quite good, well done.

No response again, nor can you substitute what's basically the same thing for abortion.
BTW, are you high?

The majority of this arguement has been a back and forth concerning analogies and how abortion is not necessary. The reductio ad absurdum you engaged in was illustrating that doctors not being able to deny unnecessary abortions is ridiculous. The reason this is fallacious is because the premise, that doctors should be forced to perform abortions, was not one of my arguements. Oh and beatnicks everywhere are offended by your equating their sociolect with cannabis.

So..
-Member of society, which our society allows the doctor to choose under his judgments what's right and wrong, as stated in the oath.

No, the point of the society bit is accepting that, despite his position of responsibiltiy, he is no better than his patients and cannot defy the laws of that society: so if contraceptives and being homosexual are acceptable they have no right to defy this.

-Special obligations which seem to be aformentioned in the oath, yet no specifics on unusual requests going against the doctors judgment.

The 'special obligations' seem to me to be just an acceptance that the doctor IS obliged to help others.

Doctor's take a Hippocratic oath. Regardless of their religion, they have to follow that oath, which means administering care to anyone in need.

Christian doctors aren't going to be administering abortions because general doctors DON'T perform abortions. The fact is, have you known any doctor of any religion who's unwilling to administer treatment in order to save a patients life because of religious belief? Every doctor I've known (which has been a surprising number) has never let personal beliefs interfere with patient care. It would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath.

At 8/20/08 05:12 PM, n64kid wrote: If you can prove to me special obligations means the same as performing a non needed request that even the doctors judgment doesn't matter, then you have something. As far as just saying they must remember that they have special obligations (i.e. not playing God, saying they know not, have the power to take a life), the clause doesn't come close to covering it well at all.

If we take the obligations to be everything already outlined then its proximity with the part mentioning the healthy suggests it applies to them also (and therefore covers not just medical necessities). Ergo the doctor is obliged to treat them with understanding and warmth, take in to account more than just their medical condition and not play god with their lives.

One could argue it how? This is neither a life or death situation, denying someone the pill is not a play at God, especially if it's within what they think is "God's will" and not their own.

The arguement is simple enough: the doctor, as explicitly mentioned, mut be humble thereby stripping them of all rights to play god with other people's lives. Which is what they would be doing.

On a side note, the play at God line only means that a doctor can use drug therapy and surgery as treatment.

...How on earth did you infer that?

Then stop half-assing your responses and claiming clauses with meanings that don't fit into the oath. Doctors have a choice on whether to deal with non critical operations on the healthy, and I'm sticking to it.

My responses aren't half-arsed; you just immediately dismiss them because you disagree. Which really isn't the point of debate you know. I've explained my interpretations of the oath very thoroughly by now and if you wish to illustrate how that is incorrect then do so. Simply stating: 'I don't think so' followed by some very hit-and-miss wit serves no purpose whatsoever.

What, that doctors aren't obligated to take any request that a patient asks? It stands, and is valid. Your clauses failed to prove otherwise, you jumped the gun on special obligations which you have not outlined to mean anything more than the obligations stated in the actual oath. Nothing that's not required for the patients health and well being, nothing.

The special obligations do not have to mean anything more than the clauses within the oath to defend my point as previously explained; the fact that it applies to the healthy is undeniable and therefore non-medical necessities are also part of a doctor's obligation to aid their patient. Oh and I'd say euthanasia (law aside), birth control and fertility treatments fall under the category of 'wellbeing' especially when we consider the clause that explicitly states a doctor must consider more than just a patient's health.

Not their meanings. Maybe you need to grasp what you're actually defending.

Maybe you need to realise your interpretations are not gospel and frankly seem to be based on selective reading with a pinch of blustering.

At 8/20/08 06:18 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Christian doctors aren't going to be administering abortions because general doctors DON'T perform abortions.

Which is why abortion isn't the issue. That's been shoehorned in. There are special clinics for abortions (unless of course it's an emergency abortion in which the life of the mother is at stake) and no doctor that had a problem with abortions would work there.

Now, if a doctor refused to perform an abortion that would save a mother's life due to beliefs, that would be pretty damn relevant. I wonder if that's ever happened.

The fact is, have you known any doctor of any religion who's unwilling to administer treatment in order to save a patients life because of religious belief? Every doctor I've known (which has been a surprising number) has never let personal beliefs interfere with patient care. It would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath.

To save a patient's life, I don't know of any. However, it's not necessarily just about saving lives. I can't imagine a doctor putting his beliefs above a life. That, also, isn't the entirety of the issue.

A doctor in a general hospital is signing on to perform the procedures that the hospital tells him to. If there is any procedure that he is told to make or that he should make due to his beliefs, then there's a serious problem. I think that's something everyone should agree with. You don't sign on for a job without knowing what they're going to ask you to do and you don't bitch when they ask you to do something that you know is part of their policies and procedures. Working men and women have obligations and if they have a problem with the way a business conducts itself, then they shouldn't work there.

Pretty plain and simple.

At 8/20/08 06:14 PM, Pontificate wrote:

What on earth is the point of sarcastically thanking someone through text?

I'm just surprised it took you THAT long to realize you stated what I did about putting beliefs aside to save a patients life.

I am indeed British, not that that has any relevance.

Your false arrogance is relevant.

According to US laws, they have similar respect, and in my society, doctors and lawyers are equals.

There is a clause in US law that states a doctor is equal to a lawyer? I'd like to see it because if this is so your legislators are incredibly frivolous.

Seeing how the US is far superior to the UK per capita, we have a better legal system, and we have better hospitals, maybe your opinion is pretentious.

From what I have seen of American society (and indeed European society, it is much the same these days) both are seen as prestigious proffessions but one does not respect a lawyer in the same way one would respect a doctor.

Anecdotal evidence.

Nor does one make one's self as vulnerable to a lawyer.

Could mean death row, could mean economic unstability to the family.

As I said I do not deny the importance laywers play but to humanity issues of the flesh, of health, of life are more important than liberty and for obvious reasons: we are animals with instincts and basic needs. Medical conditions are more vital, more immediate than others.

We have the death penalty, ya know?

It is not just a code of ethics, it's an oath.

Many professions have an oath, the legal system has an oath, accountants have an oath, and it's all just ethics.

A recognition of the responsibility and power in their hands as evidenced by all the other ethical conduct enforcing organisation in medicine.

Code of ethics.

Largely because we are not discussing abortion.

Same concepts, just different situation, substitute abortion with requests that aren't necessary for health reasons.

I did not say it was a disease; it is, however, a medical condition that is better prevented than aborted.

Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon, and creates a physical condition, and prevention can be decided by judgment. Preventing pregnancy rather than curing it doesn't sit right with me.

So it is within the doctor's perogative to denote who can have sex with whom? Forcing your beliefs on others is unproffesional and, frankly, ignorant and I've yet to hear a rebuttal to that.

You telling a doctor to give a pill rather than letting him refuse is not your prerogative either, that way you're forcing your beliefs of what the hippocratic oath means to you onto the doctor. As you said, the doctor holds one of the highest respected professions, so would you dare defy what a doctor recommends?

Agreed but it is surely the patient's right to decide whether they want to or otherwise?

There are options besides the pill for having safe sex, and many alternatives don't need a doctors consultation to use them.

I even italicised the relevant portion. '...those sound of mind and body as well as infirm.' rining any bells?

Like I said before, special obligations to those sound of mind and body. Those special obligations do not include non necessary operations.

My god; one would think emphasising it would be enough: 'those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.' and is found within the very same oath you presented to me.

Special obligations.

They're putting their beliefs before the wellbeing of a patient when they're sworn to aid both sick and healthy. Not seeing the obligation yet?

It's not defined as special obligations.

You're as repulsive as a monkey in a negligee.

I look that much like your fiancée?

No response again, nor can you substitute what's basically the same thing for abortion.

No, the point of the society bit is accepting that, despite his position of responsibiltiy, he is no better than his patients and cannot defy the laws of that society: so if contraceptives and being homosexual are acceptable they have no right to defy this.

Yet it seems not be covered by the special obligations, hence no obligation.

The 'special obligations' seem to me to be just an acceptance that the doctor IS obliged to help others.

But it seems to me as the special obligations are:

-To respect the hard-won scientific gains
-To share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow
-To apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required
-To remember that there is art to medicine as well as science
-That warmth, sympathy, and understanding MAY outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug
-To not be ashamed to say they know not
-To respect privacy
-To tread with care in matters of life and death
-May also be within my power to take a life
-Must not play at God
-Prevention preferable to cure

These seem to be the "special obligations" to both the sick and healthy.

If we take the obligations to be everything already outlined then its proximity with the part mentioning the healthy suggests it applies to them also (and therefore covers not just medical necessities). Ergo the doctor is obliged to treat them with understanding and warmth, take in to account more than just their medical condition and not play god with their lives.

Doctor is obligated to take into consideration that understanding MAY outweigh actual condition. Sounds like the doctors choice to me.

The arguement is simple enough: the doctor, as explicitly mentioned, mut be humble thereby stripping them of all rights to play god with other people's lives. Which is what they would be doing.

I've heard that the playing God only means that they can use drugs and perform surgery to how they see fit, it still seems like the doctor has choice.

...How on earth did you infer that?

It's what I've come across as the meaning of that line in the oath. Seeing how thats basically the two main treatments of illness.

My responses aren't half-arsed; you just immediately dismiss them because you disagree. Which really isn't the point of debate you know.

It's that you stretch some clauses to assume things not stated, hence why I see it as a leap in logic.

I've explained my interpretations of the oath very thoroughly by now and if you wish to illustrate how that is incorrect then do so. Simply stating: 'I don't think so' followed by some very hit-and-miss wit serves no purpose whatsoever.

I listed literal interpretations of what I believe are special obligations that a doctor must perform for both the sick and well. I don't see how a personal request would obligate a doctor to do so and you still have not convinced me otherwise.

The special obligations do not have to mean anything more than the clauses within the oath to defend my point as previously explained; the fact that it applies to the healthy is undeniable and therefore non-medical necessities are also part of a doctor's obligation to aid their patient.

Special obligations yes, but those special obligations are not the same as requests that aren't listed within the oath, nor does it mean it covers all requests outside of the oath. Theres a consideration involved, but no obligation to perform the task.

Oh and I'd say euthanasia (law aside), birth control and fertility treatments fall under the category of 'wellbeing' especially when we consider the clause that explicitly states a doctor must consider more than just a patient's health.

Must consider, but not must perform.

Maybe you need to realise your interpretations are not gospel and frankly seem to be based on selective reading with a pinch of blustering.

I'm trying to look at it with a wholesome approach by interpreting clauses by itself and to the rest of the oath.

At 8/20/08 07:30 PM, n64kid wrote: I'm just surprised it took you THAT long to realize you stated what I did about putting beliefs aside to save a patients life.

I'm sorry but now you really are spluttering twaddle; in a debate one should stick to what is an issue of contention and not what is agreed upon. Whether we share some views (which we do) or otherwise is neither here nor there.

Your false arrogance is relevant.

It's not arrogance; it's condescension.

Seeing how the US is far superior to the UK per capita, we have a better legal system, and we have better hospitals, maybe your opinion is pretentious.

What on earth are you rattling on about? The hypocracy of accusing me of changing the subject then brining nationality in to a discussion concerning the morality of medicine is simply beyond me. The point, as you seem to have missed it, is not that your legislators are inferior. It's that I highly doubt your claim that there are actual laws ranking the importance of proffesions.

Anecdotal evidence.

You mean my view of society is subjective? You don't say. Besides I believe it's routed firmly when the media glorifies doctors but villifies most lawyers as money-grubbing scum.

Could mean death row, could mean economic instability to the family.

I'd list the many thousands of embarrasing, crippling or life threatening disorders doctors deal with on a daily basis but I suspect you already know this.

We have the death penalty, ya know?

A relatively rare occurence; especially when compared to the death sentences doctors diagnose daily.

Many professions have an oath, the legal system has an oath, accountants have an oath, and it's all just ethics.

An oath that crosses the boundaries of time and country? An oath that is so symbolic even the public are familair with it? It's just not on the same level and you know it.

Code of ethics.

As I've stated; the oath is more than just ethics (in medicine there are a great deal of ethical guidelines and enforces without the oath).

Same concepts, just different situation, substitute abortion with requests that aren't necessary for health reasons.

It's not the same concept because most doctors are not called upon to perform abotions; there exist clinics for that. Find a case of a doctor in an abortion clinic refusing to perform one and we'll talk. To answer your actual arguement: that whole 'whether they're sick or otherwise' clause.

Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon, and creates a physical condition, and prevention can be decided by judgment. Preventing pregnancy rather than curing it doesn't sit right with me.

If the pregnancy is unwanted it is better to prevent it than abort for both the fetus and the mother; abortion can lead to complications. Refusing a patient birth control is not caring for their best interests.

You telling a doctor to give a pill rather than letting him refuse is not your prerogative either, that way you're forcing your beliefs of what the hippocratic oath means to you onto the doctor. As you said, the doctor holds one of the highest respected professions, so would you dare defy what a doctor recommends?

The doctor isn't recommending anything medical; it is forcing its beliefs on others and I have every right to call it on that. I'm not demanding anything more than their proffesion asks of them: impartiality, proffesional conduct and humility.

There are options besides the pill for having safe sex, and many alternatives don't need a doctors consultation to use them.

Again: it is up to the individual what form of birth control one wishes to use and to question that right is to question the very right to make autonomous decisions regarding one's slef.

Like I said before, special obligations to those sound of mind and body. Those special obligations do not include non necessary operations.

I take the 'special obligations' to mean what is already outlined beforehand; the use of the term 'obligation' is just an acknowledgement that they are obliged to their patients.

Special obligations.

Read above.

It's not defined as special obligations.

The special obligations are the previous clauses. The previous clauses cover warmth, understanding, humility and other factors than medical health. The 'sound mind and body or infirm' implies these clauses apply equally to the sick and well and therefore, even if it is not medically necessary, the doctor must do what it can.

I look that much like your fiancée?

En Garde! Touché!

Yet it seems not be covered by the special obligations, hence no obligation.

Come now; you know as well as I the 'special obligation' part has nothing to do with the 'beholden to society's laws and views' part. That this would lead to performing what society deems acceptable is implied.

But it seems to me as the special obligations are:

-To respect the hard-won scientific gains
-To share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow
-To apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required
-To remember that there is art to medicine as well as science
-That warmth, sympathy, and understanding MAY outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug
-To not be ashamed to say they know not
-To respect privacy
-To tread with care in matters of life and death
-May also be within my power to take a life
-Must not play at God
-Prevention preferable to cure

These seem to be the "special obligations" to both the sick and healthy.

You forgot the 'more to a patient than the illness' part but that is largely correct, yes. Hence why they are obliged to help the well as far as they are able as much as the sick. Which means, despite personal feelings, aiding in non-necessities if it is in the patient's best interests to do so.

Hmm, a Christian doctor.
Wouldn't you want a doctor who would take the care of you or a loved one with a higher sense of urgencey rather than somone who doesn't care n its just doing their job?

I mean, people die every day from failed surgeries n bad medicine, why would you not want a person who would make it their responsibility to see that you or somone else is taken care of in the best way?
Some doctors deny responsibility if their method or perscription killed or seriously injured an already sick or injured person, so a moral compass of the highest power would be crucial towards a doctor who had it and the person the doctor is caring for wouldn't it?

But really, hating somone just because they are christian or some other religious belief, what a way to show yourself as you really are, an intolerable asshole who can't think as far as his yell covering up religious talk can carry, denial is a very bad thing.
Not to get into a debate or anything cuz I really don't think its an issue at all, if stheists had it their way we all probably would be dead by now.

At 8/20/08 07:30 PM, n64kid wrote: Doctor is obligated to take into consideration that understanding MAY outweigh actual condition. Sounds like the doctors choice to me.

The may is a hedge in order to appease the two camps of medicine. That aside I view the understanding/actual condition being the other way around in that if the condition requires either tough love (a repeated drug addict for example) or dangerous treatment then care and understanding must take a back seat to cold, hard biology.

I've heard that the playing God only means that they can use drugs and perform surgery to how they see fit, it still seems like the doctor has choice.

Considering the context and the mention of humility it seems to me it's more about remembering that one holds an actual person in one's hands and must therefore act accordingly: that is, not imposing your own beliefs, fighting to save a doomed, suffering life or question the wishes of the patient.

It's what I've come across as the meaning of that line in the oath. Seeing how thats basically the two main treatments of illness.

I do not feel the clause gives the doctors full reign to treat others for the reasons already covered, the fact that patient consent is required for treatments, that using those treatments are implied by being a doctor and that they're actually mentioned in a clause already.

It's that you stretch some clauses to assume things not stated, hence why I see it as a leap in logic.

Well I'm dealing not so much with the exact clauses but the implications of what they state and I feel the implications I have listed are adequately supported and perfectly reasonable.

Special obligations yes, but those special obligations are not the same as requests that aren't listed within the oath, nor does it mean it covers all requests outside of the oath. Theres a consideration involved, but no obligation to perform the task.

The obligation is implied: if they are obliged to care for their patient and the patient's best interests whether it is a medical imperative or otherwise then they are obliged to do such things as prescribe birth control.

Must consider, but not must perform.

That's not what I meant; it was that the doctor had to take in to consideration other factors and then 'perform' based upon these. The actual performing is covered in the whole 'caring for patient' bit I'm so tired of writing.

I'm trying to look at it with a wholesome approach by interpreting clauses by itself and to the rest of the oath.

Ultimately your interpretations are your own however I do not feel that you are taking the implications of the clauses to their logical conclusion.

At 8/20/08 08:53 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

A lot of nonsense

Either read the topic or stay out of it: it's quite clear you don't have the faintest grasp on what is actually being discussed. You have no business in debate beyond the person we laugh at and pity in equal measure anyway.

Oh thanks for the kind welcome, I'm sure you recieve the same from all of your freinds n family members/

dont listen to shaggy he is a undereducated high school drop out.

Even though I'm an atheist, I don't think it's right to exclude someone from a profession just because of religion. That's the same thing as saying blacks shouldn't be doctors because they won't treat patients of an opposing gang, or women shouldn't be doctors because they will wimp out at the sight of blood: your indulging in stereotyping and introlerance. If a relgious view gets in the way of a job there medical license should be reverted for awhile. Besides, most doctors are atheists in the first place, as are increasing numbers of people, espicially those with a higher education.

I've always been under the impression that if it's a non emergency procedure, shouldn't a business have the right to refuse service (face it people, fertility clinics are a business just like any other hospital or medical group) to anyone.

Of course, this also clashes with all those fun little anti-discrimation laws that we have.

Couldn't we simply have a way to mediate the problem. The said doctor that doesn't want to perform the procedure can refer the patient to someone that will.

His morals are secure, patient gets what there paying for.

Problem solved.

At 8/19/08 07:47 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/19/08 07:30 PM, Memorize wrote:

Therefore, their saying "no" to an abortion, is not based on a discriminatory mindset (the likes of which you're attempting to put forth).

Dude your argument is still retarded.
Hey "no jews".
"no accountants".
"no immigrants".

Pregnancy is perfectly natural and the result of someone else's actions. It's not due to someone's race, religion, or ethnicity.

Many people often opt out of abortions due to Ultra-Sound. I guess that's discrimination too, eh?

lol, fucking dumbass.

Plus now you're setting yourself up to have to try and figure out when something is someone's fault and when it's not.
Hmmmm this kid is jewish..but he's a kid.. hmmm should I treat him?
Hmmm this woman was raped... but it's an abortion... but she'll die...

Option 1 doesn't work as already mentioned.
Option 2 doesn't work because i've already said I wasn't talking about rape or the woman's life being threatend.

At least pay attention, you cock block.

That's just nonsense. Doctors aren't there to pass stupid moral judgments on people, they're there to treat as many people as possible. That's what you sign up for when you're a doctor, there's laws, there's regulations and no, you can't do whatever the fuck you want.

Sure I can.

You see, before Roe V. Wade, each state was allowed to make its own laws concerning abortion proceedures. It was legal in some states, but illegal in others.

That is because abortion is nowhere to be mentioned in the constitution and it, therefore, does not qualify as a "Right" protected by the constitution. As a result, it is merely a 'privilege' dictated by the states or doctors.

And since abortion was legalized across every state by a group of 9 people called the Supreme Court, it is then an Unconstitutional law as it bypassed the laws set in the Constitution to make such changes (ie. the proposal of an amendment with ratification by 3/4 of the Union).

Pregnancy is also a natural human quality. It is not a sickness or illness.

It is also not equal to that of breaking an arm since you'll want to be able to use that arm some time later in life rather than let it dangle at your side.

Pregnancy is your body doing exactly what it is suppose to do.

A broken arm is your body telling you to go fix it.

Haha welcome to the black and white world of memorize.
Plus this has nothing to do with abortion and I don't want to get into that.

The world is black and white.

Only fools delude themselves into believing in a world of gray.

"At least i'm slightly better than him/her." Right? What a wonderful mindset. A dangerous one too.

My points were about how the bible doesn't paint a picture that tells people to be doctors at all, unless you do like every christian and just read 1-2 lines and pretend like you really know your shit.

Kind of like you.

I love how the anti-religious are always the first to bring up religion.

Such hypocrites and liars.

'At least i'm better than you, Poxy', lol.

At 8/20/08 10:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I've always been under the impression that if it's a non emergency procedure, shouldn't a business have the right to refuse service (face it people, fertility clinics are a business just like any other hospital or medical group) to anyone.

A business, not an employee.

Couldn't we simply have a way to mediate the problem. The said doctor that doesn't want to perform the procedure can refer the patient to someone that will.

His morals are secure, patient gets what there paying for.

Problem solved.

Except if he doesn't think the procedure should be done at ALL. Helping you "sin" is just as bad as being the one to do it themselves.

At 8/21/08 02:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 10:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

A business, not an employee.

Well, couldn't they simply get another employee that also works at the fertility clinic that is also trained in this skill to do it?

Except if he doesn't think the procedure should be done at ALL. Helping you "sin" is just as bad as being the one to do it themselves.

Then get the secretary to do it, it doesn't matter if it's the doctor that refers the patient or the janitor from down the hall.

Just get someone from inside the clinic to refer to another practictioner.

At 8/21/08 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Well, couldn't they simply get another employee that also works at the fertility clinic that is also trained in this skill to do it?

If I were to refuse to do any work with the Science Teachers Association of Texas because I believed they were doing the devil's work by promoting evolution, opting instead to have someone else in the office handle my share for that client, I would be fired. Know why? Because I'm paid to do a job, not pass it to someone else.

At 8/20/08 10:06 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Besides, most doctors are atheists in the first place, as are increasing numbers of people, espicially those with a higher education.

No, you couldn't be more wrong.

I was tempted to call you a dumbass, but the rest of your post had a redeeming quality.

At 8/18/08 03:56 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I'm religious and Amen to all of your points above.

Damn Canime way to be objective, proud of ya mate.
Anyways, I think they should be allowed to practice so long as they prove they're able to make choices that will be based on the situation and not on their religious beliefs, or at the very least have to fill out a questionairre the way you do to apply for jobs. Y'know the whole "Agree, disagree, neutral=If a customer started screaming at you you would castrate them" Something like that...or a what would you do thing.

I ain't gonna lie, I'm no expert on this, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.

I wish it were this clear-cut, but if a doctor can't keep his religious beliefs out of his practice, then he shouldn't be one. Either that or he recommends his patient to another doctor.