Support NeoGAF

White Man · Feb 18, 2007

Onix said:
Refer to my previous post (#30).

Oh I know. Leviticus is one of the Torah books with longass lists of funky insane laws that most Christians write off as being out-dated or applicable to Jews only. . .unless you are talking about one of the statements they personally agree with, then the book is still applicable. For example, Christians ignore the dietary laws, but Leviticus is the most quoted source when Christians are asked for a biblical source condemning homosexuality.

So basically: "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you" == LOL THE OLD TESTAMENT SURE IS WACKY!

but a few chapters later. . .

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" == OH MY GOD HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG.

This is why my most modern day Christians (at least in the US) aren't really Christians. They don't know jack about the bible and maintain inconsistent beliefs do to their ignorance.

JCBossman · Feb 18, 2007

I am an Angnostic, NOT an Athiest (Hell I don't know for sure if there IS/ISN'T a God) I try to live a decent life, and follow the "Do on to other's Rule" I believe ALL business OPEN to the public should be REQUIRED to serve ALL customers(short of drunks,troublemakers etc) If you want to operate a PRIVATE club, fine than close your doors to the general public, and rely on a special entrance test.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JCBossman said:
I am an Angnostic, NOT an Athiest (Hell I don't know for sure if there IS/ISN'T a God) I try to live a decent life, and follow the "Do on to other's Rule" I believe ALL business OPEN to the public should be REQUIRED to serve ALL customers(short of drunks,troublemakers etc) If you want to operate a PRIVATE club, fine than close your doors to the general public, and rely on a special entrance test.

I totally disagree. A restaurant is not a public place. A private practice doctor's office is not a public place.

If the restaurant owner were to walk into his establishment and say, "Okay folks, I'm closing shop right now, you all need to leave," you'd have to comply or that would be trespassing. How can that be a public place?

So like when a city's local government passes a smoking ban in all public places, that's pretty much retarded based on the definition they use for "public." In theory, I'd agree with that policy but then you see it in practice and realize how broad that term has been stretched to give government far too much control over the private property of others.

The city has a right to ban smoking in the city library, the city park, city hall, whatever, but that bar down the street? Hell no. If bar patrons don't like smoking, that bar won't allow smoking, simple as that. If they do, it will. If you don't like smoking and the bar allows smoking, go to a different bar - you don't have to go to that bar, it's voluntary.

Getting back on track - this guy wasn't the only doctor in town or even on their insurance policy, and the girl's condition was not an emergency. It's the same thing.

JCBossman · Feb 18, 2007

SO what by YOUR definition IS a public place? If Not resturants, hotels, doctor's offices? No, those are all PUBLIC, would you wanna live in a socity, that Pizza Palor 1, has the right to deny a person some dinner, because they have tattoos? or are gay(percieved to be, you know gay people, don't USUALLY wear signs?) or maybe you go to a Pharmacy, needing a drug, (this ALSO has HAPPENED) and the pharmist say's thats a "birth control" product, I don't believe in BC, so no dice, but maybe the SERIOUSLY educated Doctor is proscribing the drug "Off label" for a menstration problem? Should Pharmist be able to to counter a doctors order? F that...

BTW: in your EXAMPLE NO you wouldn't be tresspassing if you PAID for food to be eaten in a resturant, (unless maybe it was an emergency)

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JCBossman said:
SO what by YOUR definition IS a public place? If Not resturants, hotels, doctor's offices? No, those are all PUBLIC, would you wanna live in a socity, that Pizza Palor 1, has the right to deny a person some dinner, because they have tattoos? or are gay(percieved to be, you know gay people, don't USUALLY wear signs?) or maybe you go to a Pharmacy, needing a drug, (this ALSO has HAPPENED) and the pharmist say's thats a "birth control" product, I don't believe in BC, so no dice, but maybe the SERIOUSLY educated Doctor is proscribing the drug "Off label" for a menstration problem? Should Pharmist be able to to counter a doctors order? F that...

BTW: in your EXAMPLE NO you wouldn't be tresspassing if you PAID for food to be eaten in a resturant, (unless maybe it was an emergency)

A pizza chain that refuses to serve to people with tatoos or anyone that sets off their manager's "gaydar" is going to go out of business, and fast, while it's competitors reap the rewards.

Pharmacies are a dime-a-dozen. If one allows its pharmacists leeway or refuses to stock certain items, the other places in town will capitalize on that.

Phoenix · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
While technically this is true, you can be sued by anybody for any reason at any time.

I'll rephrase, you can sue easily under malpractice and you can actually cause this guy to lose his license under a medical board review.

JCBossman · Feb 18, 2007

Card Counters in Casino's are a GOOD example. There is NOTHING in State/Federal Law that makes counting cards a crime.( How could there be?) BUT Casino's Don't LIKE people who can do it well, because they lose the edge, and can be taken for MUCHO Dinaros. They can't call the police(it isn't a crime) so they try and STRONGARM people into the basement to sign affadavids, saying they won't come back again or they can be arrested for tresspassing, the SMART card counters don't fall for this bullying, they IGNORE the PRIVATE security hired by the casinos(the private security ARE NOT allowed to touch you, you did NOTHING illegal) and just walk out, they can come back any time they desire because ther isn't a signed affadavid saying they can't, so why can't they? Also a Casino(if you were a card counter) wanted you to leave they would HAVE to pay you in CASH all your winnings and refund(if you paid for it) your hotel stay, you can't take someone's money for a product( a hotel room) and take it away (for No lawful reason)without compensating them...

bluemax · Feb 18, 2007

As someone who is religious I gotta say this is kinda, um out there.

I've been taught the whole thing about not getting a tattoo (your body is a temple, no unclean thing enters a temple blah blah, spiritual hyperbole whatever). HOWEVER, we are also taught that it's not our place to judge people on physical appearance. We are taught to treat everyone with kindness, do unto others, turn the other cheek etc etc.

Looking past a person's physical appearance and rendering service is like Christianity 101. Like if you take absolutely nothing else away from Church on Sundays you should take away the fact that you should be kind and so on to everyone around you.

It makes me sad to see people missing out on this fundamental tenet.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

Phoenix said:
I'll rephrase, you can sue easily under malpractice and you can actually cause this guy to lose his license under a medical board review.

Well, maybe, but to rephrase myself, the AMA's backs his position and I agree - I don't see a valid "malpractice" case here, nor do I see anything to indicate he should lose his license.

If there was an emergency situation or any reason to indicate that treatment needed to be immediate or any contraindications of a more serious problem... okay, maybe.

But in the absence of those mitigating circumstances...? You're not going to lose your license for "I don't like tattoos! Or chewing gum! Or loud noises!" It's crotchety, it's stupid, it's inane, it might even be hypocritical for a "Christian" to be doing, but one thing it isn't is malpractice.

Phoenix · Feb 18, 2007

Refusing care is a crime in most states and something that the STATE medical board has removed doctors for before. So lets see what the hippocratic oath says:

"To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians."

Doesn't sound like the good of the patient was of the highest priority in this case, or in the case of people chewing gum.

White Man · Feb 18, 2007

Phoenix said:
Refusing care is a crime in most states and something that the STATE medical board has removed doctors for before. So lets see what the hippocratic oath says:

"To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians."

Doesn't sound like the good of the patient was of the highest priority in this case, or in the case of people chewing gum.

But now JayDubya is going to post something stating about how the Hippocratic Oath is lame because we don't pledge fealty to Apollo or something else. Straw man, ftw. The hippocratic oath has been modernized, and there is no one hippocratic oath that is taken as the real one, as far as I know.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

White Man said:
But now JayDubya is going to post something stating about how the Hippocratic Oath is lame because we don't pledge fealty to Apollo or something else. Straw man, ftw. The hippocratic oath has been modernized, and there is no one hippocratic oath that is taken as the real one, as far as I know.

My whole point was that almost everyone making claims about the hippocratic oath or "duty" and what not seemingly have no understanding of how out-of-date the standard one is and how widespread and disagreed upon the variants are - I've never seen one including the line Phoenix quoted (edit: found it on Wiki).

The standard issue one that everyone cites is "first, do no harm" which isn't even there as such, but it is part of the text (and is generally a great ground rule), and that's the only relevant portion of the original oath that anyone could logically construct a valid argument against this doctor, claiming he was not doing his duty or forsaking his oath. Of course, I argued against this line of reasoning seeing as I don't see what he did as "doing harm."

Now, if we want to start including some modernizations Wikipedia lists but does not cite, what about "avoiding violating the morals of your community?" or do we want to ignore the ones we dislike and focus on the ones that help our argument? Of course, once we do that, are we any better than the Christian focusing on one line out of the same book of the bible as another line that is completely ignored? :lol

* * *

That, and I clearly don't think refusing care should be a crime, whether it is or not in a given country or state. In a private practice, I fail to see how the state has any right mandating that he provide service to anyone and everyone.

Aske · Feb 18, 2007

Just out of interest, do we know if Merrill treats women who wear pants?

The Bible said:
Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

White Man · Feb 18, 2007

Aske said:
Just out of interest, do we know if Merrill treats women who wear pants?

Well, we know he has to refuse to treat anyone that works on the sabbath. Whether that means Sunday (since he is a Christian) or on the tradition Jewish sabbath. . .who knows!

Leviticus said:
And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.

Phoenix · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
In a private practice, I fail to see how the state has any right mandating that he provide service to anyone and everyone.

Because he is licensed by the STATE and he must adhere to the rules and regulations of the state. What he wants to do is irrelevant, what the AMA says is irrelevant. He must adhere to whatever the state medical board has governed at their accepted practices and regulations.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

Phoenix said:
Because he is licensed by the STATE and he must adhere to the rules and regulations of the state. What he wants to do is irrelevant, what the AMA says is irrelevant. He must adhere to whatever the state medical board has governed at their accepted practices and regulations.

Again, whether or not existing state regulations in the state where this guy practices prohibits him from selectively declining patients is not of particularly great concern to me when discussing what I feel ought to be the case, or constructing an argument for or against a given practice of a given individual. I am of the opinion that any governmental regulation that forces him to give service is wrong and should be removed.

You might want to note that as a libertarian I'm generally in favor of removing a heaping crapton of existing laws that I think violate individual liberties (and are thus unjust), so a lot of my commentary is going to be colored by that.

If I say "I fail to see how the state has any right mandating that he provide service to anyone and everyone," and you say "Because it's the law," then we're not even arguing on the same level. You're saying the state has the right because there's a law on the books, whereas I was saying the state doesn't have the right to make that law.

Obviously, there are going to be people that disagree with me, and in general, these people have very little respect for private property rights.

I'm guessing whatever state he practices in (and I have absolutely no idea where Bakersfield is) allows him this leeway, or else the "gum = no service" policy would have probably been changed pretty quickly, or he would have gotten a letter from the state board, or some such. And of course, what the AMA says does matter because they are a huge lobby that helps set state policy in the first place.

Considering I have no idea what state we're talking about, I have no way of researching or knowing the policies of that state, so this is all speculation anyway. I suppose I could follow that news link or do a lengthy google search, but I'm guessing there are a lot of cities in the States with that name, so.... it's 4 AM, it's late, I'm going to bed, and probably someone else will have figured all that out by the time I wake up and post again.

White Man · Feb 18, 2007

I don't think there's anything libertarian about it, JayDubya. A doctor needs to be held to a certain level of standards, and refusing to treat a certain large segment of the population infringes on the well-being of other people, which is a libertarian no-no. Medicine is a field that NEEDS to be regulated.

Even moreso than in government, religious trash needs to be out of medicine.

bgassassin · Feb 18, 2007

White Man said:
Even moreso than in government, religious trash needs to be out of medicine.

Or at least when the person doesn't truly understand what he's following.

One of the things that disappoints me about some (probably most) fellow Christians is that they aren't "truly" grafted in to the tree like they believe they are (Romans 11). They read the Bible, but don't look at it from a Jewish perspective. As for the Torah, two of its main purposes are to:

1. Tell us what sin is.

2. Establish a way of living for Jews to separate themselves from the world and be God's special treasure. (613 Mitzvot)

If this doctor had done more studying (which is something I make an effort to do to improve myself), he would know why, at that time, the reason God put that law in place for Jews. From what I have learned one of the things pagans back then did was use tattoos to curse their enemies. They would cut themselves and bleed on the tattoo to invoke the curse, and while my memory is a little fuzzy, I believe they would chant something also. This is one of the reasons why no tats were allowed in Torah. This would keep the Jew from even putting themselves in a position to either honor other gods or curse their enemies.

Does that make a tattoo a sin? Well, one of the things that I have been learning is that it's about intent. God knows your heart and knows your intent in your actions. We do have to be careful in that sometimes our intent doesn't line up with what God says, which causes the need for your intent and His word to be on the same page. Me personally, I don't have and won't get any tattoos because my body is my temple and I believe that the Holy Spirit resides there so I don't want to put "graffiti" on it. I still have other areas though to improve on for the sake of my temple.

One of the things it boils down to is if we as Christians don't have an understanding of the context this Bible is used, then we won't follow God like we should and we come off looking like the doctor did. Someone one who says they follow God, but whose intent does not line up with God's word.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

White Man said:
I don't think there's anything libertarian about it, JayDubya. A doctor needs to be held to a certain level of standards, and refusing to treat a certain large segment of the population infringes on the well-being of other people, which is a libertarian no-no. Medicine is a field that NEEDS to be regulated.

Even moreso than in government, religious trash needs to be out of medicine.

Well, I'd agree with you that it's religious trash, but I don't think I have the right to legislate it away, only nudge it away collectively, vis-a-vis voting with my pocketbook.

I dunno, in the end I think (at least non-emergency) healthcare is a business, period, end of story. Private property rights are very important and I don't think they should be compromised. Most hospitals wouldn't want a guy like this with policies like these, but he bought his own place and fully runs his own clinic and now he's in direct competition with doctors that aren't religious authoritarian jackholes. He can set whatever retarded policies he wants - I certainly wouldn't go to him and I can't imagine anyone I know wanting to either.

Now if this kid was on death's door and the guy wouldn't treat her because her parents weren't dressed appropriately or were chewing gum? That's something else entirely.

Fatghost · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
The ear infection is causing pain / discomfort for a patient.

Presuming I was a pediatrician, I can prescribe medicine that might lessen that pain or discomfort. I don't do anything and instead tell the patient to go to a different doctor because of reason x.

Did I "do harm?"

I'd say no. I actually didn't do anything. From a pure medical ethics standpoint, not doing anything helpful is not even in the same ethical ballpark as doing something harmful unless we're talking in the context of an emergency situation requiring immediate action.

At the end of the day, I run a business, and as a business owner I can refuse to serve people. If people don't like the way I run my business, my business will die.

It's not just about pain or discomfort. The ear infection could have been something far more serious or urgent. You just don't refuse a patient because of how he looks. It's bad medical practice.

ronito · Feb 18, 2007

bgassassin said:
Not true.

I don't see how one could possibly be a good christian without being a good person. I mean if someone is full of charity, love, service, humility, long suffering, patience and good will the christian values you are supposed to espouse how could they not be a good person?

Fatghost · Feb 18, 2007

ronito said:
I don't see how one could possibly be a good christian without being a good person. I mean if someone is full of charity, love, service, humility, long suffering, patience and good will the christian values you are supposed to espouse how could they not be a good person?

It depends on how you define good Christian. There are lots of people who clearly think following certain rules make them good christians...this doctor is an example.

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
Wait, what? Ear infections are fatal?

What? Taken to an extreme, yeah, but that's not what I was talking about.

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
I dunno, in the end I think (at least non-emergency) healthcare is a business, period, end of story. Private property rights are very important and I don't think they should be compromised.

Actually, don't reply to what I wrote just now. I can't have any form of discussion with you if you honestly believe healthcare is a business.

Jesus ****ing christ :S

ronito · Feb 18, 2007

JetSetHero said:
Actually, don't reply to what I wrote just now. I can't have any form of discussion with you if you honestly believe healthcare is a business.

Jesus ****ing christ :S

that's just JayD. He'll save your life: if the price is right.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

ronito said:
that's just JayD. He'll save your life: if the price is right.

:lol

Like I've said in other medical threads, meh, that's what debt and payment plans / charity are for. No taxes needed.

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
:lol

Like I've said in other medical threads, meh, that's what debt and payment plans / charity are for. No taxes needed.

I'd say 'have you ever been around somebody who's not rich before?'. but I'm sure you'd reply with 'actually I grew up in a dirt hut blah blah'. I wouldn't believe you, though.

Essentially, you represent everything that's wrong re: modern healthcare. You're like a walking wrongess machine.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JetSetHero said:
Essentially, you represent everything that's wrong re: modern healthcare. You're like a walking wrongess machine.

I'm rubber, you're glue, and... um how does the rest of that go...? Oh yeah! Papa was a rolling stone that gathers no moss but is worth two in the bush.

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

Change: I actually want to understand your POV. I mean, I can see the logic behind the thinking that healthcare = business, but how does it sit with your... well I don't think souls exist, but I'll call it that. Surely you can see that some things are beyond logic and the weighing up of pos/neg and reason and stuff like that. Healthcare being one of them.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JetSetHero said:
Change: I actually want to understand your POV. I mean, I can see the logic behind the thinking that healthcare = business, but how does it sit with your... well I don't think souls exist, but I'll call it that. Surely you can see that some things are beyond logic and the weighing up of pos/neg and reason and stuff like that. Healthcare being one of them.

Okay. Look. The fundamental difference between your perspective and mine is what you think the role of government is, how large it should be, and how much control it should have over society and societal institutions. I of course would answer "to serve as the night watchman, tiny as hell, and very little."

At the end of the day, you think healthcare falls under neccessary governmental infrastructure, and I don't. That's really about it. Obviously, there's gonna be a lot of Canadian and European GAF posters that disagree.

To put this in perspective, even if there were socialized healthcare in the U.S., this guy could still hold his policies and operate his private practice how he wants - people would just have to pay taxes for public healthcare they don't use and then pay this guy for his services on top of that. Kind of like the division of public and private education.

Instigator · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
To put this in perspective, even if there were socialized healthcare in the U.S., this guy could still hold his policies and operate his private practice how he wants - people would just have to pay taxes for public healthcare they don't use and then pay this guy for his services on top of that. Kind of like the division of public and private education.

Very doubtful. Considering the state not only sets the rules, but pay the doctors as well.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135841

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
Okay. Look. The fundamental difference between your perspective and mine is what you think the role of government is, how large it should be, and how much control it should have over society and societal institutions. I of course would answer "to serve as the night watchman, tiny as hell, and very little."

At the end of the day, you think healthcare falls under neccessary governmental infrastructure, and I don't. That's really about it. Obviously, there's gonna be a lot of Canadian and European GAF posters that disagree.

To put this in perspective, even if there were socialized healthcare in the U.S., this guy could still hold his policies and operate his private practice how he wants - people would just have to pay taxes for public healthcare they don't use and then pay this guy for his services on top of that. Kind of like the division of public and private education.

Why doesn't it fall under neccessary governmental structure, though? You can't just say that you disagree and leave it at that. The role of the government is to serve and protect its citizens, surely?

Also: you say we disagree because we're Canadian/Euro, so: if you were born in another country, do you think you'd see things differently and also, it's not because of that. I'm sure that if I was American, I'd feel exactly the same.

Richard Cranium · Feb 18, 2007

Phoenix said:
Refusing care is a crime in most states and something that the STATE medical board has removed doctors for before. So lets see what the hippocratic oath says:

"To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians."

Doesn't sound like the good of the patient was of the highest priority in this case, or in the case of people chewing gum.

That's not part of the Hippocrattic oath I took. It's all a crock anyway. The original oath is pretty wacky, and there are a whole bunch of variations out there and it's mostly just for show.

As far as I remember, medical malpractice is limited to deviation from the standard of care that causes injury. I don't think refusing to treat a non-emergent situation qualifies.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JetSetHero said:
The role of the government is to serve and protect its citizens, surely?

Sure. Which is why we have a local police department, local fire department, and national military. Courthouses, prisons, etc.

Also: you say we disagree because we're Canadian/Euro, so: if you were born in another country, do you think you'd see things differently and also, it's not because of that. I'm sure that if I was American, I'd feel exactly the same.

Actually, all I was suggesting that obviously the majority of Canadians and Europeans disagree, since they have the policies in place that they do. Seems logical enough.

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
Sure. Which is why we have a local police department, local fire department, and national military.

Actually, all I was suggesting that obviously the majority of Canadians and Europeans disagree, since they have the policies in place that they do. Seems logical enough.

So how is medical care any different? And don't say 'those are emergency services', because medicine isn't as simple as ermergent cases and non-emergent cases. Obviously things can get worse if they're not looked at in and diagnosed in an early state.

I don't see the logic in your second point. It's presumptious.

Instigator · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya argues Yurpeans and Canucks support socialized medicine because that's what they already have. It's not just a matter of ignorance, but of national pride. Just like Yankees will have a tendency to support whatever neocolonial adventures from their country.

Mandark · Feb 18, 2007

Wouldn't forcing emergency care basically be the government telling people that they must aid other people? Slippery slope towards the dreaded fallacy of positive liberty oh no!

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JetSetHero said:
So how is medical care any different? And don't say 'those are emergency services',

Actually I wouldn't make that distinction on those lines at all.

I'm gonna go with "Because you don't have a right to have some other guy go to school for 10 years and then make him serve you for less than his market worth and then have someone else pay for it?" No more than your car has a right to a mechanic, anyway.

Whereas the other infrastructure has to do with protecting your rights.

Mandark said:
Wouldn't forcing emergency care basically be the government telling people that they must aid other people? Slippery slope towards the dreaded fallacy of positive liberty oh no!

You raise a good point, but at the end of the day, based on our relative positions on that slope and the relative velocity with which we're sliding, I'm not really swayed. My wife would agree with that position however.

Warm Machine · Feb 18, 2007

Christianity is a salad bar. You take what you want and you leave the rest.

Nikashi · Feb 18, 2007

First, let's take religion out of the equation, because to be honest this has nothing to do with it.

A doctor refused to serve patients because of his own personal biases and rules (I don't recall chewing gum to be in the bible), and he was a dickhead for doing so. End of story. He has the right to do so, and they really should just find another doctor so this doesn't happen to them again.

I also expect this doctor to lose many patients based on the negative publicity.

White Man · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
Well, I'd agree with you that it's religious trash, but I don't think I have the right to legislate it away, only nudge it away collectively, vis-a-vis voting with my pocketbook.

I dunno, in the end I think (at least non-emergency) healthcare is a business,

Health care should most certainly not be treated like a business. Similar to education, this is an area that most certainly needs to be legislated. The masses can not be expected to know better, and do a ton of research before getting treatment to make sure their doctor isn't doing the best thing for them.

For example, what if there were some stem cell-related treatment that my doctor didn't inform me of due to his religious beliefs? What if he just didn't mention it? The average person wouldn't even know the treatment existed if their doctor didn't tell them about it. Apply the same situation to diabetes: what if a vegan doctor wasn't telling diabetic patients about insulin?

Medicine is absolutely a field that needs to be legislated. It can not be treated like a business. From snake oil to the shady supplement market of today, no matter how much information is freely available, we can not expect the public to be able to make decisions. The exploitation of the public in the scenarios of consumerism and medicine not comparable: the medical complex has no right to bleed the public, whether for profit or religion.

Fatghost · Feb 18, 2007

White Man said:
Health care should most certainly not be treated like a business. Similar to education, this is an area that most certainly needs to be legislated. The masses can not be expected to know better, and do a ton of research before getting treatment to make sure their doctor isn't doing the best thing for them.

For example, what if there were some stem cell-related treatment that my doctor didn't inform me of due to his religious beliefs? What if he just didn't mention it? The average person wouldn't even know the treatment existed if their doctor didn't tell the patient about it. Apply the same situation to diabetes: what if a vegan doctor wasn't telling diabetic patients about insulin?

Medicine is absolutely a field that needs to be legislated. It can not be treated like a business. From snake oil to the shady supplement market of today, no matter how much information is freely available, we can not expect the public to be able to make decisions. The exploitation of the public in the scenarios of consumerism and medicine not comparable: the medical complex has no right to bleed the public, whether for profit or religion.

Medicine needs to have standards applied. And the standards have to be based on the patient's wellbeing, not the doctor's religious wellbeing.

whytemyke · Feb 18, 2007

Anyone actually look at the article on the page? I just saw this.

Morton said certain ethics apply if a persons life is in danger, but besides that, there is no requirement to serve anyone they dont approve of.

I felt totally discriminated against, like I wasnt good enough to talk to, Tasha Childress said, like he didnt have to give me any reason for not wanting to see my daughter because I have tattoos and piercings.

17 News found other patients who had a different experience with Merrill.

I have tattoos, actually, and no, nothings ever been said about it, Brandi Stanley said, Merrills patient.

Childress insurance company, Health Net of California, who referred her to Merrill, said in a statement: We provide our customers with a wide breadth of doctors that meet certain medical quality standards If a customer doesnt feel comfortable with a particular physician, it is our responsibility to provide that customer with access to another doctor who does meet their needs.

But thats not enough for Childress who wants the policy changed immediately and an apology from the doctor for making her feel like an outsider.

Really, it didnt matter what he didnt want to see us for. It isnt right, she said.

If you have a story idea, mail it to 2120 L Street, or submit it at KGET.com by clicking on Your Stories.

Merrill said he will continue to enforce the rules he has in place, which even include no chewing gum in his office.

He said if they dont like his beliefs, they can find another doctor.

So the guys a hypocrite?

White Man · Feb 18, 2007

Fatghost said:
Medicine needs to have standards applied. And the standards have to be based on the patient's wellbeing, not the doctor's religious wellbeing.

Exactly. I'm all for individual rights, but letting doctors mistreat patients due to their beliefs (or for profit) is taking advantage of people in the worst possible situation: a situation where they generally don't know their options, and even if they do know them, a situation where can not tell which option is best for them.

adamsappel · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
Now if this kid was on death's door and the guy wouldn't treat her because her parents weren't dressed appropriately or were chewing gum? That's something else entirely.

Why is that situation any different, from your libertarian respective? To you, he runs a private practice and can treat whomever he chooses and under whatever circumstances. I understand you think he's a dick, but not treating a dying person should only make him more of a dick, but still be perfectly within his personal rights.

Richard Cranium · Feb 18, 2007

Medicine needs to have standards applied. And the standards have to be based on the patient's wellbeing, not the doctor's religious wellbeing.

Medicine most certainly should and does have standards. However, I wouldn't want politicians telling doctors what to do.

Flynn · Feb 18, 2007

whytemyke said:
Anyone actually look at the article on the page? I just saw this.

So the guys a hypocrite?

He's a Christian who turns patients away. So yes.

Spainkiller · Feb 18, 2007

JayDubya said:
Actually I wouldn't make that distinction on those lines at all.

I'm gonna go with "Because you don't have a right to have some other guy go to school for 10 years and then make him serve you for less than his market worth and then have someone else pay for it?" No more than your car has a right to a mechanic, anyway.

Whereas the other infrastructure has to do with protecting your rights.

The phrase 'market worth' has no place in the world of healthcare. And as for comparing the human body to a car...

:lol

PS. The fact that you believe Canadians and Europeans would defend a socialist healthcare system simply because that's what we have really exposes your bizare through processes.

JayDubya · Feb 18, 2007

JetSetHero said:
The phrase 'market worth' has no place in the world of healthcare. And as for comparing the human body to a car...

:lol

PS. The fact that you believe Canadians and Europeans would defend a socialist healthcare system simply because that's what we have really exposes your bizare through processes.

So, before I jet off out of the house, yes it does - the doctor sure pays a lot of green to get his license afterall.

And Christ, I don't think people that live somewhere automatically believe as the majority around them do.

Fatghost · Feb 18, 2007

Richard Cranium said:
Medicine most certainly should and does have standards. However, I wouldn't want politicians telling doctors what to do.

No. I would want the College of Physicians to tell doctors what to do, and I would want their opinion informed by what is best for the physical or emotional (but not spiritual or religious) well being of the patient.

Support NeoGAF

Christian pediatrician denies child service because parents are tattooed

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Gas Guzzler

Member

Gas Guzzler

the man who sold the world

the man who sold the world

Member

Banned

the man who sold the world

Banned

the man who sold the world

Banned

Banned

the man who sold the world

Member

Banned

the man who sold the world

Banned

Small balls, big fun!

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Gas Guzzler

Honorary Canadian.

Member

Member

Member

Member

the man who sold the world

Banned

Gas Guzzler

Similar threads