Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sally)
    Not only has a family been devastated by the condition of a family member, which in its self is a heavy burden, they are further compounded by the fact a doctor has murdered a member of their family. Now, the entire family will need treatment, for their psychological torment. The doctor has created 50 or more other people in need of treatment, as well as killing someone, well done!
    The doctor has not 'murdered' anyone, as you so blatantly put it. Was the patient on life support? That is what I want to know. And what were his/her calculated chances of living?

    If this person were on life support, it's a whole other story. The doctor wouldn't have murdered anyone. Give me a break - the person would have been using a machine to keep themselves alive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I've never met a modest doctor. I think arrogance and an extraordinary sense of self-importance goes with the territory. Shame they can't, for all their brilliance, improve their childish handwriting though.
    That's a pretty pathetic generalization if you ask me.

    My father is a doctor - and fact aside that I am his daughter - he is THE most humble person I have ever met. He was president of psychiatry in our province and never even told us about it until his term ended. I asked him why he didn't tell us at the time.

    His reply: "It wasn't a big deal - and I hate bragging"

    On the other hand, I was at the hairdressers the other day and some guy came in, yelling about how they owed him an appointment even THOUGH he was 2 and a half hours late. During the midsts of that frenzy I heard him state: "I am a doctor. I don't have time to check my voicemail" ...lol...

    Point in case - for those of you who generalize - your ignorance shines through quite clearly

    --------------

    (Original post by zooropa)
    Why do I need evidence? It's self-evident!
    No, of course you don't. I'm sure your... what... 17 years (?) of life experience have taught you everything.

    --------------

    (Original post by Sally)
    There are many doctors that kill the unborn; these doctors are acting in the dark, because the ones they kill have not been proven to be not human.

    So again it is not just one doctor, it is however, seriously arrogant and on par with the Nazis.

    NHS = Nazi Health Service.
    Do us all a favor perhaps, and if you are ever in the need for hospitalization or any health service (which I do hope you are not... but hypothetically speaking..) don't go to the Nazis. I'm sure you can treat yourself, hailing a better outcome than if a specialist nazi were to treat you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    So you agree that partial birth abortions to terminate the lives of those with congenital defects do happen.
    Of course I agree - that is exactly what happens. If an unborn foetus is diagnosed after 24 weeks with a serious birth defect that is incompatible with life (i.e. the baby will die soon after birth and/or be severely disabled) the mother can choose to terminate the preganancy. Or not. The choice is hers and hers alone.

    (Original post by yawn)
    My post was that there is a connection with what the Nazis did and the disgust we feel - and what is done now, albeit rarely.
    The connection is utterly false. The Nazis murdered adults, against their wishes. That cannot even be called euthanasia - it was simply murder pure and simple. Perhaps the argument you are trying to make is with regard to eugenics?

    (Original post by yawn)
    It is not the frequency of the occurrence that is relevant, but the fact it occurs at all.
    But the frequency is highly significant, since many so-called pro-lifers would have us believe that partial birth abortion is the norm, not an extreme rarity, reserved for cases of utmost medical need.

    (Original post by yawn)
    If it was not right for the Nazis to do it, is it right for us to do it?
    Section 1(1)d of the UK's 1967 Abortion Act allows termination of a pregnancy at any time if there is a significant risk of the baby being born seriously disabled (i.e. the child of the pregnancy would otherwise have an unacceptable quality of life).

    As is usually the situation with law, there are no strictly defined cut-off limits as to "how severe is severe", since the courts generally understand that doctors should be allowed a certain lattitude to make clinical decisions for each case individually but the unborn child would have been diagnosed with a serious physical handicap, genetic problem, or mental defect that only came to light at a very late stage.

    To reiterate: of the more than 180,000 women in England and Wales who had terminations last year, fewer than 1% were carried out between 22 and 24 weeks, let alone after that period.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sally)
    It describes how doctors murder humans, and tells of their torture methods on the youngest of society.
    OoOh like in medieval times??? :eek:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sally)
    So the law described black people as subhuman not long ago.

    Was the law right then?
    LOL... okay. The "law" back then listed black people as subhumans for... well we all know the reasons, let's not get into that debate. The point is that they were never scientifically classified as such, as is the case here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, of course you don't. I'm sure your... what... 17 years (?) of life experience have taught you everything.
    I'm not seventeen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I am not talking about abortions to save a woman's life!

    I was referring to late abortions carried out because the child has a congential defect. It could be a cleft palate (as indeed it was in one case) or it could be a heart defect that would be responsive to surgery.

    If the Nazis took lives of those who had congential defects, and we do the same - are we any different?
    Well, seeing as how we're throwing in vague comparisons, how's this one:

    What about the US bombing Iraq and killing countless innocent civialians because oh, their "Intelligent Missile Technology" went a little bit out of control? Which we all know it didn't. So, if we perform abortions - do we parallel ourselves with George Bush?? :laugh:

    lol... I think this thread is done. What started off as a quasi-interesting discussion has yet again ended in an abortion battle.

    --------------

    (Original post by zooropa)
    I'm not seventeen.
    Close enough I'm sure. Sorry, you just come off as a 17 year old..ish...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Close enough I'm sure.
    Not really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    Not really.
    Enlighten me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Screw you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    Screw you.
    How enlightening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    How enlightening.
    :laugh:

    I guess 17 was too high... 14 perhaps?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sally)
    It describes how doctors murder humans, and tells of their torture methods on the youngest of society.
    Yeah, they do ti for fun you know. like the animal experimenters who go into work everyday wondering what evil chemicals to inject the unsuspecting mice with.
    they even have sound proofed rooms in abortion clinics where the abortionists can give their evil cackles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sally)
    here
    you realise that 95% of terminations occur before 12 weeks yes?
    and that 95% of all abortions before 12 weeks are spontaneous. (or as you might say 'natural'.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can we get back on topic and be less rude to one another please?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Initially, this thread seems fairly straight forward: 'Doctors' describes an entire vocation, not a type of person or personality, to generalise on the basis of one or even several experiences with doctors seems a little unfair. As for whether doctors have become 'too arrogant'...again I feel we're straying into the subjective. Too arrogant for who? Society's given acceptable limit for arrogance?
    Surely arrogance of any kind in a doctor's bedside manner is a flaw. However, surely all a doctor can do is advise? That is to say, a doctor can feel qualified to determine what they feel is the best course of action in treating a patient, as a product of succesfully completing a training programme (studying medicine) which has been proven to cure patients. I would agree here that whether this is arrogance or not is entirely a matter of personal oppinion. I tend to side with the 'if you don't want this advice, then it's probably best not to seek it' school of thought though. It's not right or wrong, I guess its just where I stand. Fair?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is all to much down to what you read in the papers.
    Sure we hear increasing storys about doctors doing this sort of thing, but newspapers aint going to put up a story about how a local doctor did a wonderfull job of helping and treating people.
    If they did then the storys about good doctors would massively out weigh the storys about arrogant doctors.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Doctors can generally be trusted, and many of them are working damn hard right now. Most of them are handling far more patients than they would have been a decade or two ago...

    It is an intense profession, and there are literally tens of thousands of doctors, so it would be naive to expect them all to be perfect...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just to show that I'm not completely biased... here ya go. This is funny (in a tragic sort of way) and sad - mainly shocking.


    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...114?hub=Canada
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    "Hippocratic Oath
    The Hippocratic Oath is the most enduring tradition in Western medicine andhas been the guiding ethical code for physicians since ancient Greece.A continuing ideal and a strong moral force conditioning medical practice,the oath falls into two parts. The first specifies the duties of the physician to his teachers and his obligations in transmitting medical knowledge. The second, giving rules to be observed in the treatment of diseases, is a short summary of medical ethics expressing general principles.
    The oath is named for the famous Greek physician Hippocrates, but its authorship is uncertain. The content suggests that it was formulated during the 4thcentury BC according to the doctrines of the Pythagorean philosophy. Representing a small segment of Greek opinion, the oath was not universally accepted by ancient physicians. At the end of ancient times, however, medical practice began to conform to conditions envisaged by the document. The oath eventually became the nucleus of all medical ethics, and although it has been modified during the 20th century, the ethical strength remains. In its most compelling portions, it emphasizes the profundity of the medical covenant, patient dignity, the confidentiality of the transaction, and the physician's responsibility to guard against abuse or corruption of his knowledge and art.
    In 1948 in Geneva a modern version of the oath was drawn up by the World Medical Association.
    At the time of being admitted a member of the medical profession:
    I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
    I will give my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
    I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
    The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
    I will respect the secrets which are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
    I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of themedical profession;
    My colleagues will be my brothers;
    I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
    I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception;
    even under threat I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
    I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour."

    Do all doctors still take the Hippocratic Oath?
    Medical students no longer take the Hippocratic Oath upon graduating as doctors. Instead they take the oath outlined in Geneva which forms the second part of your post.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

    --------------

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Doctors can generally be trusted, and many of them are working damn hard right now. Most of them are handling far more patients than they would have been a decade or two ago...

    It is an intense profession, and there are literally tens of thousands of doctors, so it would be naive to expect them all to be perfect...
    Hear hear. :adore:
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.