TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I have never heard of a rapist trying to save someone's life.

flan

---

 Good grief.  You are stuck on the most common vernacular of the word rape, with a picture of some hooded guy holding down a woman and ripping her clothes off. 

 

 

And it doesn't matter their intent - people have rights.  You don't get to choose for them. 

---

 You're the one who brought it up. And it is NOT an accurate analogy.

flan

---

Yes, I don't think taking that to the "rape" comparison helps the discussion.  But, I do agree with you that her Mother has the right as her legal guardian to make those decisions for her child.  And, that really should have been the end of it. 

---

 You are correct.   I should have remembered that some people are incapable of understanding all the meanings and definitions of words, and too easily get stuck on their own general views.  My bad.  So a countryside can be raped by having it's natural resources stripped, but a young woman cannot by having her body violated.  Got it.

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Seems to me the doctors on this case have violated the Hippocratic oath completely.

---

 I read it before I posted, tyvm.

flan

---

 Obviously not.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I have never heard of a rapist trying to save someone's life.

flan

---

 Good grief.  You are stuck on the most common vernacular of the word rape, with a picture of some hooded guy holding down a woman and ripping her clothes off. 

 

 

And it doesn't matter their intent - people have rights.  You don't get to choose for them. 

---

 You're the one who brought it up. And it is NOT an accurate analogy.

flan

---

Yes, I don't think taking that to the "rape" comparison helps the discussion.  But, I do agree with you that her Mother has the right as her legal guardian to make those decisions for her child.  And, that really should have been the end of it. 

---

 You are correct.   I should have remembered that some people are incapable of understanding all the meanings and definitions of words, and too easily get stuck on their own general views.  My bad.  So a countryside can be raped by having it's natural resources stripped, but a young woman cannot by having her body violated.  Got it.

---

 I should have remembered that some people are never ever wrong...

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I have never heard of a rapist trying to save someone's life.

flan

---

 Good grief.  You are stuck on the most common vernacular of the word rape, with a picture of some hooded guy holding down a woman and ripping her clothes off. 

 

 

And it doesn't matter their intent - people have rights.  You don't get to choose for them. 

---

 You're the one who brought it up. And it is NOT an accurate analogy.

flan

---

Yes, I don't think taking that to the "rape" comparison helps the discussion.  But, I do agree with you that her Mother has the right as her legal guardian to make those decisions for her child.  And, that really should have been the end of it. 

---

 You are correct.   I should have remembered that some people are incapable of understanding all the meanings and definitions of words, and too easily get stuck on their own general views.  My bad.  So a countryside can be raped by having it's natural resources stripped, but a young woman cannot by having her body violated.  Got it.

---

 I should have remembered that some people are never ever wrong...

flan

---

 When I'm wrong, I admit it.   That's not something you are very good at, though.

 

I could go for a drink right about now...

flan

My favorite part of the hippocratic oath that was ignored by the doctors in this case -

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.

 

 

 

In forcing this treatment for cancer - he has ignored the wishes, feelings, and dignity of the sick human being.

How does "sympathy and understanding" fight cancer?

flan

I do find it odd that a 17 yr old girl would so willing accept death. I can understand it if you have lived life and had grown and had a career, kids, married, etc. Yes, maybe you can make peace with that. And, she doesn't have the type of cancer that is aggressive and lethal even if treated. This has a very HIGH success rate. If you are going to roll the dice, I think I would roll them for a 93% success rate flan.

However, I do believe the Hospital and doctors could have handled this much better.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I do find it odd that a 17 yr old girl would so willing accept death. I can understand it if you have lived life and had grown and had a career, kids, married, etc. Yes, maybe you can make peace with that. And, she doesn't have the type of cancer that is aggressive and lethal even if treated. This has a very HIGH success rate. If you are going to roll the dice, I think I would roll them for a 93% success rate flan.

However, I do believe the Hospital and doctors could have handled this much better.

---

 I really feel this is her mother's decision, rather than the girl's.

And I like your suggestion about having her talk to other patients.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Well, actually it does. Part of your healing is your mental and emotional health flan. And, people who have healthy support systems tend to fare much better. Forcing cancer treatment on someone who doesn't want it is not likely to be as effective.

---

 Oh, I definitely agree.

I should have specified "only" in my previous statement.

flan

I am officially AGREEING with husker on this thread.

flan

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I do find it odd that a 17 yr old girl would so willing accept death. I can understand it if you have lived life and had grown and had a career, kids, married, etc. Yes, maybe you can make peace with that. And, she doesn't have the type of cancer that is aggressive and lethal even if treated. This has a very HIGH success rate. If you are going to roll the dice, I think I would roll them for a 93% success rate flan.

However, I do believe the Hospital and doctors could have handled this much better.

---

 This is what I don't understand as well. 

 

If if she has the treatment,her chances are the best we could ask for. Without it she will certainly die. I just don't understand her thinking nor her mother's thinking. This is why I think the state took over, because her chances are so very high. 

---

 Because she is likely very aware of what chemo entails, especially now that she has been through it.  She probably was also educated on the life long effects it can have.  Even if chemo saves her now, she'll likely be affected by it for life and die from something caused by the side effects.  Nobody should be able to tell you that you have to live like that.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Seems to me the doctors on this case have violated the Hippocratic oath completely.

---

 I read it before I posted, tyvm.

flan

---

 Obviously not.

---

 Check my browser history...or do you just want to call me a liar?

flan

---

 Just tell me what part of that oath you are using to support your position. 

The part where it says a doctor will keep his patient's medical issues confidential? No, can't be it. I mean, he told child services, the court system, the lawyers......

The part where it says he should not play God? No, no, that can't be it, either.

The part where it says he should not administer poisons?  Well, that's the old oath - we'll just ignore that.

The part where it says his sympathy and understanding should sometimes outweigh the use of knives or drugs?  No - DEFINITELY can't be that.

 

What seems to be missing is something that says - "I will do do whatever it takes in my opinion to save a life, even over the objection of my patient or her parents." Didn't see that there.  Did you?

---

She's a minor, so most of that doesn't apply.

However, the oath you are talking about includes SAVNG lives--and in this case there is a HIGH probability that is exactly what would happen.  

---

 Where?  Please quote it. 

The only place it talks about saving lives is "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.

 

IF. 

Making medical decisions for someone without their consent simply because you think it is the best course of action to save their life IS playing God.

 

I'll quote the whole thing again, since people just seem to like to ignore what it says.

 

 

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Or she could suffer virtually no side effects and live a normal long healthy life. Mario Lemieux continued to play professional hockey in the NHL afterwards and has no lasting side effects.

The side effects being lasting and detrimental is iffy. The chances of her living from the treatment are in the mid 90's. She is silly to not at least give it a try. She is 17. Not 50.

---

 But that is not anybody else's decision to make for her except her parents and her mother is respecting her right to choose on this because she is 17, not 7, and would be able to choose herself in a few months. 

 

It is NOT about whether she will live or die - it is about whose right it is to decide what her treatment will be.

 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

If the state was withholding treatment saying that it was poison and could have lasting side effects...you would be complaining that it was a "death panel".

---

 If someone WANTED that treatment and was told no, you bet your ass.  The whole point is that the STATE shouldn't be deciding treatment at all.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Seems to me the doctors on this case have violated the Hippocratic oath completely.

---

 I read it before I posted, tyvm.

flan

---

 Obviously not.

---

 Check my browser history...or do you just want to call me a liar?

flan

---

 Just tell me what part of that oath you are using to support your position. 

The part where it says a doctor will keep his patient's medical issues confidential? No, can't be it. I mean, he told child services, the court system, the lawyers......

The part where it says he should not play God? No, no, that can't be it, either.

The part where it says he should not administer poisons?  Well, that's the old oath - we'll just ignore that.

The part where it says his sympathy and understanding should sometimes outweigh the use of knives or drugs?  No - DEFINITELY can't be that.

 

What seems to be missing is something that says - "I will do do whatever it takes in my opinion to save a life, even over the objection of my patient or her parents." Didn't see that there.  Did you?

---

She's a minor, so most of that doesn't apply.

However, the oath you are talking about includes SAVNG lives--and in this case there is a HIGH probability that is exactly what would happen.  

---

 Where?  Please quote it. 

The only place it talks about saving lives is "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.

 

IF. 

Making medical decisions for someone without their consent simply because you think it is the best course of action to save their life IS playing God.

 

I'll quote the whole thing again, since people just seem to like to ignore what it says.

 

 

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

 I don't even know where to start.  Your entire diatribe is simply absurd.

 

You bolded it, yourself, that he is sworn to save a life if it is within his ability to do so--which this is. 

---

 I love how you ignore the relevant qualifiers in that sentence and the rest of the paragraph.

Obviously the problem is your lack of reading comprehension.  I have no time to teach you today, so maybe you can go sign up for a class or something.

Most governmentally set ages are rather arbitrary--but they are a black line.

You can't legally drink before you are 21, even if you are just a few months short.

You can't legally drive unless you are 16 (not counting learner's permits--drive by yourself), even if you are 15 years, 11 months, and 30 days.

This is no different. In a few months, the legalities will be different.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Seems to me the doctors on this case have violated the Hippocratic oath completely.

---

 I read it before I posted, tyvm.

flan

---

 Obviously not.

---

 Check my browser history...or do you just want to call me a liar?

flan

---

 Just tell me what part of that oath you are using to support your position. 

The part where it says a doctor will keep his patient's medical issues confidential? No, can't be it. I mean, he told child services, the court system, the lawyers......

The part where it says he should not play God? No, no, that can't be it, either.

The part where it says he should not administer poisons?  Well, that's the old oath - we'll just ignore that.

The part where it says his sympathy and understanding should sometimes outweigh the use of knives or drugs?  No - DEFINITELY can't be that.

 

What seems to be missing is something that says - "I will do do whatever it takes in my opinion to save a life, even over the objection of my patient or her parents." Didn't see that there.  Did you?

---

She's a minor, so most of that doesn't apply.

However, the oath you are talking about includes SAVNG lives--and in this case there is a HIGH probability that is exactly what would happen.  

---

 Where?  Please quote it. 

The only place it talks about saving lives is "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.

 

IF. 

Making medical decisions for someone without their consent simply because you think it is the best course of action to save their life IS playing God.

 

I'll quote the whole thing again, since people just seem to like to ignore what it says.

 

 

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

 I don't even know where to start.  Your entire diatribe is simply absurd.

 

You bolded it, yourself, that he is sworn to save a life if it is within his ability to do so--which this is. 

---

 I love how you ignore the relevant qualifiers in that sentence and the rest of the paragraph.

Obviously the problem is your lack of reading comprehension.  I have no time to teach you today, so maybe you can go sign up for a class or something.

---

 Your last sentence was snarky and rude. We have come to expect better from you. 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Seems to me the doctors on this case have violated the Hippocratic oath completely.

---

 I read it before I posted, tyvm.

flan

---

 Obviously not.

---

 Check my browser history...or do you just want to call me a liar?

flan

---

 Just tell me what part of that oath you are using to support your position. 

The part where it says a doctor will keep his patient's medical issues confidential? No, can't be it. I mean, he told child services, the court system, the lawyers......

The part where it says he should not play God? No, no, that can't be it, either.

The part where it says he should not administer poisons?  Well, that's the old oath - we'll just ignore that.

The part where it says his sympathy and understanding should sometimes outweigh the use of knives or drugs?  No - DEFINITELY can't be that.

 

What seems to be missing is something that says - "I will do do whatever it takes in my opinion to save a life, even over the objection of my patient or her parents." Didn't see that there.  Did you?

---

She's a minor, so most of that doesn't apply.

However, the oath you are talking about includes SAVNG lives--and in this case there is a HIGH probability that is exactly what would happen.  

---

 Where?  Please quote it. 

The only place it talks about saving lives is "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.

 

IF. 

Making medical decisions for someone without their consent simply because you think it is the best course of action to save their life IS playing God.

 

I'll quote the whole thing again, since people just seem to like to ignore what it says.

 

 

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

 I don't even know where to start.  Your entire diatribe is simply absurd.

 

You bolded it, yourself, that he is sworn to save a life if it is within his ability to do so--which this is. 

---

 I love how you ignore the relevant qualifiers in that sentence and the rest of the paragraph.

Obviously the problem is your lack of reading comprehension.  I have no time to teach you today, so maybe you can go sign up for a class or something.

---

 Your last sentence was snarky and rude. We have come to expect better from you. 

---

 It's actually pretty par for the course, but it's her board, so no one to censure what she posts. 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?

---

 Apparently.

flan

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

---

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.  

---

 Excuse me?  I added NOTHING.  I copied it directly from a medical site.  So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense? 
Try again.

---

BS.  You added YOUR interpretation of it.  It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so. 

 

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God".  That is utter bullsh!t.   

When do those reading comprehension classes start? How much do they cost?

flan

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

---

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.  

---

 Excuse me?  I added NOTHING.  I copied it directly from a medical site.  So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense? 
Try again.

---

BS.  You added YOUR interpretation of it.  It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so. 

 

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God".  That is utter bullsh!t.   

---

It says IF I am given to save a life.  Clearly.  You are the one with the absurd denial of what is right there in black and white. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

---

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.  

---

 Excuse me?  I added NOTHING.  I copied it directly from a medical site.  So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense? 
Try again.

---

BS.  You added YOUR interpretation of it.  It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so. 

 

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God".  That is utter bullsh!t.   

---

It says IF I am given to save a life.  Clearly.  You are the one with the absurd denial of what is right there in black and white. 

---

 And that is the case here.  They made that choice when they walked in his office the first time.  He cannot just go away now when he can save her life. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 10th of January 2015 01:04:12 PM