Upon graduation, many medical students take a modern version of the oath written by Louis Lasagna in 1964.
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version:
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.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
So I see someone being mugged and I refuse to intervene. Why should I? It's a free country.
I refuse to let my house to someone Jewish. Why should I? It's a free country.
I have a son who lives with his mother. I'm earning a mint and I refuse to pay his school fees. Why should I? Free country.
In a free country, the state is not there to intervene on personal agenda, for better or for worse. That's just the way it is, like it or not. While I would probably try to help out in your mugging, it shouldn't be a requirement by any means. As for the divorce issue you brought up, the measures of divorces are settled in courts and do not apply to your argument, however, the precedents that divorces entail are, should you chose to make an example of those.
If you don't like freedom, then don't advocate it. That's fine.
Quote:
Posted by Kirkland:
People have a right to medical service. Why should a gay person die if the only doctor in their town is some sort of fundamentalist beast who won't care for fags?
If doctors want freedom, they shouldn't pledge to "do no harm." Denying someone services is doing them a harm.
What if every heart surgeon in the state decided they wouldn't treat gays? You would think that's okay? You would think that it's alright for thousands of gays to potentially die to protect the "freedom" of doctors to be worthless bigotted gits?
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should. Maybe the law is different now in the United States, but I don't remember any "right to medical service" in the constitution. If it's there, the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, for such institutions exemplify the decay of an ideal.
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege. If you have consistent logic and think otherwise, then you must certainly also believe in state control of the economy, nationalized health care, and, ultimately, a military draft. This is your obligation-based model.
But in a freedom-based model all doctors can make their own business decisions. In the unlikely case that many doctors resuse to treat gays, some will ultimately realize the lucrative market and make practices of treating gays. That's capitalism. It may seem crazy, but it works.
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should.
Why shouldn't they? If the majority of people contribute to society by paying taxes and following the rules that permit prosperity and progress, aren't there certain base line services that should be expected in return?
If your house catches fire, you expect the fire department to come and put it out. If a crazy person attacks you for no apparent reason on a crowded city street you expect the police to intervene and stop them. Why shouldn't people expect medical care to be available if they become sick or injured?
It's unbelieveable because they can't be forced by law into participating in an abortion. If the abortion is an elective procedure they can refuse. If the abortion is medically necessary they can quit working as a doctor and go get a job assembling hamburgers in McDonalds.
To a Catholic, the killing of a child is never medically necessary.
This is basic stuff. Why are you people forcing the 'Evangelical' on the board to defend Catholicism?
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should. Maybe the law is different now in the United States, but I don't remember any "right to medical service" in the constitution. If it's there, the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, for such institutions exemplify the decay of an ideal.
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege. If you have consistent logic and think otherwise, then you must certainly also believe in state control of the economy, nationalized health care, and, ultimately, a military draft. This is your obligation-based model.
But in a freedom-based model all doctors can make their own business decisions. In the unlikely case that many doctors resuse to treat gays, some will ultimately realize the lucrative market and make practices of treating gays. That's capitalism. It may seem crazy, but it works.
I don't know, man, doesn't seem like a very tenable argument.
Do people have a "right' to housing? Maybe not per se, but they cannot be denied such on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, disability, race or religion.
Ditto job opportunites, education, etc.
There is quite a bit of room between outlawing discrimination and some sort of socialist nightmare.
Why shouldn't they? If the majority of people contribute to society by paying taxes and following the rules that permit prosperity and progress, aren't there certain base line services that should be expected in return?
If your house catches fire, you expect the fire department to come and put it out. If a crazy person attacks you for no apparent reason on a crowded city street you expect the police to intervene and stop them. Why shouldn't people expect medical care to be available if they become sick or injured?
Between two or three thread I'm in, this is getting to be an echo chamber. Since you're asking me about my personal ideals, here it goes.
1) Assumptions: don't make them unless you're prepared to get shot down.
2) I don't expect the fire department at all. That's why I have a fire extinguisher and a rope ladder. I don't mind the fact that the fire department exists, though it's not even a good example for you since it's a fixture that can be very easily privatized. (and in some places it is)
3) I believe that it can be shown mathematically and historically that the "rules of prosperity" involve capitalism and little else. "The rules of progress" are more subjective since progress is subjective.
4) I expect my state to do very little. In fact, I would prefer it if my state did less and taxed less. I could put the money I saved to better, self-decided use.
I don't know, man, doesn't seem like a very tenable argument.
It's interesting for you to say that. The general libertarian argument is extremely easy to hold because it is so consistent. You might not agree with it, but nonetheless you're not going to beat it on logic.
nobody is ever forced to perform an abortion against their wishes or beliefs...speaking as a health care worker who works in ultrasound the very very rare times we were needed to help with a late term abortion a non-catholic went (our department had 10 sonographers, 5 were catholic)...a doctor is never forced to do the procedure, neither are the ancillary workers...
smoke and mirrors....
Then the U.S. situation must be different from the Canadian situation.
There was a big issue about the rights of Catholic nurses in Toronto some years ago, and the issue's been debated several times since
Since you're asking me about my personal ideals...
My fault. Perhaps the second paragraph of my post was less clear than it could have been. I was not, as you appear to have assumed, referring to your personal ideals. I was referring to the expectations the majority of Americans (and the majority of people living in the 1st world for that matter) have of the society in which they live. Substitution of the indefinite third-person should make things clearer.
Quote:
2) I don't expect the fire department at all. That's why I have a fire extinguisher and a rope ladder. I don't mind the fact that the fire department exists, though it's not even a good example for you since it's a fixture that can be very easily privatized. (and in some places it is)
Any public service can be privatized. My point is that some should never be entirely in the private domain because the service they provide is too important for the functioning of society.
Quote:
3) I believe that it can be shown mathematically and historically that the "rules of prosperity" involve capitalism and little else. "The rules of progress" are more subjective since progress is subjective.
I have no idea what you are going on about here.
Quote:
4) I expect my state to do very little. In fact, I would prefer it if my state did less and taxed less. I could put the money I saved to better, self-decided use.
Building security barriers around your property and stocking up on weapons?
You can probably have your libertarian utopia now if you are willing look outside of North America. No taxes, no socialized health care, no fire department, no police. I'm sure you'll love it. And I hear property prices are a snap in Sierra Leone
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should.
My God. The richest country in the world, and you're arguing we should just let people rot and die who have treatable conditions? You sicken me.
Quote:
Maybe the law is different now in the United States, but I don't remember any "right to medical service" in the constitution.
A right need not be specifically mentioned in the Constitutional text to exist. You do know that emergency rooms cannot turn people away, don't you?
Quote:
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege.
Ah, yes, of course. So only the privileged should have doctors.
Quote:
If you have consistent logic and think otherwise, then you must certainly also believe in state control of the economy, nationalized health care, and, ultimately, a military draft.
I do not believe in state ownership of the means of production. I do believe with a national health insurance system; that is not incompatible with the capitalist or republican principles this country follows.
Quote:
But in a freedom-based model all doctors can make their own business decisions. In the unlikely case that many doctors resuse to treat gays, some will ultimately realize the lucrative market and make practices of treating gays.
How many gays die in the meantime?
Or do you simply not give a shit about messly little details like that?
It's interesting for you to say that. The general libertarian argument is extremely easy to hold because it is so consistent.
It's also utterly heartless and basically hateful, for it would allow many to die or suffer needlessly when the community could more than provide for their basic necessities.
In a nation as rich as America, there is no excuse for anyone to have to struggle to keep a roof over their family's head, to keep their family fed, or to receive basic medical care. Anyone who would deny ANYONE access to medical care, for whatever reason, is a heartless shit, and a poor specimen of humanity.
I used to be a Libertarian. Even sent them money and signed ballot access forms for them. But considering the number of people who would suffer under a Libertarian regime because they weren't blessed with phenomenal business skills, or are sickly or disabled, or were from a poor background and were unable to secure a good education, I cannot in good conscience support such a heartless ideology. "Fend for yourself" is a philosophy that will reward few and punish many, and that's downright immoral.
I must have missed the nationwide epidemic of Christian doctors who currently refuse to provide treatment to prostitutes, gang bangers, rapists, mass murderers and Democrats.
And it's unbelievable that a Catholic health care worker can presently be forced by law to participate in an abortion.
As long as their on the public payroll, they can do whatever their damn well told. We all pay taxes, and as a result deserve proper medical treatment, emergency or elective.
They new and trained for all the proceedures they'd have to perform - how is it "unbelievable" that a Catholic be forced to participate in an abortion? What did they think they were going to do working in the medical field?
Quote:
There was a big issue about the rights of Catholic nurses in Toronto some years ago
We can thank god religion doesn't have the political pull in Canada it has in the U.S.
3) I believe that it can be shown mathematically and historically that the "rules of prosperity" involve capitalism and little else. "The rules of progress" are more subjective since progress is subjective.
4) I expect my state to do very little. In fact, I would prefer it if my state did less and taxed less. I could put the money I saved to better, self-decided use.
I certainly believe that there's a lot to be said for capitalism, but I also believe there's good reason to consider a fair share of the money out there in the world to be community wealth.
It takes more than simple sloganeering like, oh, the way Bush talks about taxes, to explain where I'm coming from about community wealth, but starting from that stance I think there's more than enough community wealth from which to provide for better public access to health care.
As for the main point of this thread: Not only do doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, but they are licensed by the State -- it's perfectly reasonable for the state to impose responsibilities along with privileges like the right to practice medicine. "Conscientious Objector Policy" is one those names like the "Clear Sky Initiative" which allows for dirtier air -- there's nothing conscientious at all about "objecting" to treating a person in need of medical help.
Comments
I refuse to let my house to someone Jewish. Why should I? It's a free country.
I have a son who lives with his mother. I'm earning a mint and I refuse to pay his school fees. Why should I? Free country.
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version:
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.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
So I see someone being mugged and I refuse to intervene. Why should I? It's a free country.
I refuse to let my house to someone Jewish. Why should I? It's a free country.
I have a son who lives with his mother. I'm earning a mint and I refuse to pay his school fees. Why should I? Free country.
In a free country, the state is not there to intervene on personal agenda, for better or for worse. That's just the way it is, like it or not. While I would probably try to help out in your mugging, it shouldn't be a requirement by any means. As for the divorce issue you brought up, the measures of divorces are settled in courts and do not apply to your argument, however, the precedents that divorces entail are, should you chose to make an example of those.
If you don't like freedom, then don't advocate it. That's fine.
Posted by Kirkland:
People have a right to medical service. Why should a gay person die if the only doctor in their town is some sort of fundamentalist beast who won't care for fags?
If doctors want freedom, they shouldn't pledge to "do no harm." Denying someone services is doing them a harm.
What if every heart surgeon in the state decided they wouldn't treat gays? You would think that's okay? You would think that it's alright for thousands of gays to potentially die to protect the "freedom" of doctors to be worthless bigotted gits?
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should. Maybe the law is different now in the United States, but I don't remember any "right to medical service" in the constitution. If it's there, the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, for such institutions exemplify the decay of an ideal.
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege. If you have consistent logic and think otherwise, then you must certainly also believe in state control of the economy, nationalized health care, and, ultimately, a military draft. This is your obligation-based model.
But in a freedom-based model all doctors can make their own business decisions. In the unlikely case that many doctors resuse to treat gays, some will ultimately realize the lucrative market and make practices of treating gays. That's capitalism. It may seem crazy, but it works.
To Sammi Jo:
The hippocratic oath is not law.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should.
Why shouldn't they? If the majority of people contribute to society by paying taxes and following the rules that permit prosperity and progress, aren't there certain base line services that should be expected in return?
If your house catches fire, you expect the fire department to come and put it out. If a crazy person attacks you for no apparent reason on a crowded city street you expect the police to intervene and stop them. Why shouldn't people expect medical care to be available if they become sick or injured?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
It's unbelieveable because they can't be forced by law into participating in an abortion. If the abortion is an elective procedure they can refuse. If the abortion is medically necessary they can quit working as a doctor and go get a job assembling hamburgers in McDonalds.
To a Catholic, the killing of a child is never medically necessary.
This is basic stuff. Why are you people forcing the 'Evangelical' on the board to defend Catholicism?
I would love it if there really were a Taliban on these boards, it would be nice to compare their equivocations with the excuses made by others here.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should. Maybe the law is different now in the United States, but I don't remember any "right to medical service" in the constitution. If it's there, the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, for such institutions exemplify the decay of an ideal.
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege. If you have consistent logic and think otherwise, then you must certainly also believe in state control of the economy, nationalized health care, and, ultimately, a military draft. This is your obligation-based model.
But in a freedom-based model all doctors can make their own business decisions. In the unlikely case that many doctors resuse to treat gays, some will ultimately realize the lucrative market and make practices of treating gays. That's capitalism. It may seem crazy, but it works.
I don't know, man, doesn't seem like a very tenable argument.
Do people have a "right' to housing? Maybe not per se, but they cannot be denied such on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, disability, race or religion.
Ditto job opportunites, education, etc.
There is quite a bit of room between outlawing discrimination and some sort of socialist nightmare.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
So I see someone being mugged and I refuse to intervene. Why should I? It's a free country.
And what if you were a police officer?
If you decide to become a doctor, be a doctor, not a small minded POS.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Why shouldn't they? If the majority of people contribute to society by paying taxes and following the rules that permit prosperity and progress, aren't there certain base line services that should be expected in return?
If your house catches fire, you expect the fire department to come and put it out. If a crazy person attacks you for no apparent reason on a crowded city street you expect the police to intervene and stop them. Why shouldn't people expect medical care to be available if they become sick or injured?
Between two or three thread I'm in, this is getting to be an echo chamber. Since you're asking me about my personal ideals, here it goes.
1) Assumptions: don't make them unless you're prepared to get shot down.
2) I don't expect the fire department at all. That's why I have a fire extinguisher and a rope ladder. I don't mind the fact that the fire department exists, though it's not even a good example for you since it's a fixture that can be very easily privatized. (and in some places it is)
3) I believe that it can be shown mathematically and historically that the "rules of prosperity" involve capitalism and little else. "The rules of progress" are more subjective since progress is subjective.
4) I expect my state to do very little. In fact, I would prefer it if my state did less and taxed less. I could put the money I saved to better, self-decided use.
Originally posted by addabox
I don't know, man, doesn't seem like a very tenable argument.
It's interesting for you to say that. The general libertarian argument is extremely easy to hold because it is so consistent. You might not agree with it, but nonetheless you're not going to beat it on logic.
Originally posted by thegelding
nobody is ever forced to perform an abortion against their wishes or beliefs...speaking as a health care worker who works in ultrasound the very very rare times we were needed to help with a late term abortion a non-catholic went (our department had 10 sonographers, 5 were catholic)...a doctor is never forced to do the procedure, neither are the ancillary workers...
smoke and mirrors....
Then the U.S. situation must be different from the Canadian situation.
There was a big issue about the rights of Catholic nurses in Toronto some years ago, and the issue's been debated several times since
Googling brought up this report
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Since you're asking me about my personal ideals...
My fault. Perhaps the second paragraph of my post was less clear than it could have been. I was not, as you appear to have assumed, referring to your personal ideals. I was referring to the expectations the majority of Americans (and the majority of people living in the 1st world for that matter) have of the society in which they live. Substitution of the indefinite third-person should make things clearer.
2) I don't expect the fire department at all. That's why I have a fire extinguisher and a rope ladder. I don't mind the fact that the fire department exists, though it's not even a good example for you since it's a fixture that can be very easily privatized. (and in some places it is)
Any public service can be privatized. My point is that some should never be entirely in the private domain because the service they provide is too important for the functioning of society.
3) I believe that it can be shown mathematically and historically that the "rules of prosperity" involve capitalism and little else. "The rules of progress" are more subjective since progress is subjective.
I have no idea what you are going on about here.
4) I expect my state to do very little. In fact, I would prefer it if my state did less and taxed less. I could put the money I saved to better, self-decided use.
Building security barriers around your property and stocking up on weapons?
You can probably have your libertarian utopia now if you are willing look outside of North America. No taxes, no socialized health care, no fire department, no police. I'm sure you'll love it. And I hear property prices are a snap in Sierra Leone
Originally posted by Splinemodel
People have the right to medical service? Personally, I don't think they should.
My God. The richest country in the world, and you're arguing we should just let people rot and die who have treatable conditions? You sicken me.
Maybe the law is different now in the United States, but I don't remember any "right to medical service" in the constitution.
A right need not be specifically mentioned in the Constitutional text to exist. You do know that emergency rooms cannot turn people away, don't you?
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege.
Ah, yes, of course. So only the privileged should have doctors.
If you have consistent logic and think otherwise, then you must certainly also believe in state control of the economy, nationalized health care, and, ultimately, a military draft.
I do not believe in state ownership of the means of production. I do believe with a national health insurance system; that is not incompatible with the capitalist or republican principles this country follows.
But in a freedom-based model all doctors can make their own business decisions. In the unlikely case that many doctors resuse to treat gays, some will ultimately realize the lucrative market and make practices of treating gays.
How many gays die in the meantime?
Or do you simply not give a shit about messly little details like that?
Kirk
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It's interesting for you to say that. The general libertarian argument is extremely easy to hold because it is so consistent.
It's also utterly heartless and basically hateful, for it would allow many to die or suffer needlessly when the community could more than provide for their basic necessities.
In a nation as rich as America, there is no excuse for anyone to have to struggle to keep a roof over their family's head, to keep their family fed, or to receive basic medical care. Anyone who would deny ANYONE access to medical care, for whatever reason, is a heartless shit, and a poor specimen of humanity.
I used to be a Libertarian. Even sent them money and signed ballot access forms for them. But considering the number of people who would suffer under a Libertarian regime because they weren't blessed with phenomenal business skills, or are sickly or disabled, or were from a poor background and were unable to secure a good education, I cannot in good conscience support such a heartless ideology. "Fend for yourself" is a philosophy that will reward few and punish many, and that's downright immoral.
Kirk
I must have missed the nationwide epidemic of Christian doctors who currently refuse to provide treatment to prostitutes, gang bangers, rapists, mass murderers and Democrats.
Originally posted by Frank777
And it's unbelievable that a Catholic health care worker can presently be forced by law to participate in an abortion.
As long as their on the public payroll, they can do whatever their damn well told. We all pay taxes, and as a result deserve proper medical treatment, emergency or elective.
They new and trained for all the proceedures they'd have to perform - how is it "unbelievable" that a Catholic be forced to participate in an abortion? What did they think they were going to do working in the medical field?
There was a big issue about the rights of Catholic nurses in Toronto some years ago
We can thank god religion doesn't have the political pull in Canada it has in the U.S.
Originally posted by the cool gut
What did they think they were going to do working in the medical field?
I'm think they thought they'd be healing people as opposed to killing children.
And FYI, Christians - Catholic or otherwise, have been in the medical field long before your 'public payroll' existed.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
3) I believe that it can be shown mathematically and historically that the "rules of prosperity" involve capitalism and little else. "The rules of progress" are more subjective since progress is subjective.
4) I expect my state to do very little. In fact, I would prefer it if my state did less and taxed less. I could put the money I saved to better, self-decided use.
I certainly believe that there's a lot to be said for capitalism, but I also believe there's good reason to consider a fair share of the money out there in the world to be community wealth.
I started a thread with a long, long, explanation of my stance on "Wealth, taxes, ownership" a little over a week ago. I guess I wasn't provocative enough (read: flame baiting enough) or I would have gotten more responses.
It takes more than simple sloganeering like, oh, the way Bush talks about taxes, to explain where I'm coming from about community wealth, but starting from that stance I think there's more than enough community wealth from which to provide for better public access to health care.
As for the main point of this thread: Not only do doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, but they are licensed by the State -- it's perfectly reasonable for the state to impose responsibilities along with privileges like the right to practice medicine. "Conscientious Objector Policy" is one those names like the "Clear Sky Initiative" which allows for dirtier air -- there's nothing conscientious at all about "objecting" to treating a person in need of medical help.