geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
- Thread starter
- #81
Asinine is asinine...
If my dog....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg]Holy Grail - Killer Bunny - YouTube[/ame]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Asinine is asinine...
If my dog....
A right, no, since theres no government involvement but an obligation to save a life, most definitely.
Concerning government involvement, the First Amendment right pertains to the doctor, not the patient; the doctors right to not be compelled to be personally subjected to a blood transfusion does not extend to the patient. The patient decides whether or not to have a given treatment, not the doctor based on the physicians religious beliefs. And if the patient is unable to communicate his wishes, the treatment is administered the doctors religious convictions are irrelevant.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Physicians, as I understand it, are required to give life saving services to all patients who are presented to them. If they allow the patient to die due to negligent behavior they are liable for the death. Hospitals cannot send patients away who need life saving care for any reason.
They agree to perform life saving services when they become medical professionals. They do not agree to give any and all potential medical services that are available today or may become available throughout their professional careers.
In re providing life saving services, hell, when I was in the Coast Guard and had been trained in CPR and first aid, I was told that if I was seen driving by an accident and did not stop to render aid, I could be held liable for the consequences. I believe though that those laws have changed in the last thirty years.
Immie
A young female goes to an emergency room at 0300 and complains of pain and bleeding. Clearly the pregnancy has gone bad in both the patient and Doctors opinion. However, the MD is oppose to abortion under an circumstance.
The patient calls a taxi and is driven to the nearest hospital, 5 miles away. During the ride she dies of exsanguination.
Q. Should the MD be charged with a crime?
Q. As a member of the jury, should the MD be charged and the facts are as stated, how would you find?
Q. As the judge, and if the MD were found guilty of (F) Manslaughter would you send her/him to prison; place him/her on probation with a county jail sentence or before deliberation set aside the finding of the jury?
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Physicians, as I understand it, are required to give life saving services to all patients who are presented to them. If they allow the patient to die due to negligent behavior they are liable for the death. Hospitals cannot send patients away who need life saving care for any reason.
They agree to perform life saving services when they become medical professionals. They do not agree to give any and all potential medical services that are available today or may become available throughout their professional careers.
In re providing life saving services, hell, when I was in the Coast Guard and had been trained in CPR and first aid, I was told that if I was seen driving by an accident and did not stop to render aid, I could be held liable for the consequences. I believe though that those laws have changed in the last thirty years.
Immie
So an exception in the law for life saving services?
Physicians, as I understand it, are required to give life saving services to all patients who are presented to them. If they allow the patient to die due to negligent behavior they are liable for the death. Hospitals cannot send patients away who need life saving care for any reason.
They agree to perform life saving services when they become medical professionals. They do not agree to give any and all potential medical services that are available today or may become available throughout their professional careers.
In re providing life saving services, hell, when I was in the Coast Guard and had been trained in CPR and first aid, I was told that if I was seen driving by an accident and did not stop to render aid, I could be held liable for the consequences. I believe though that those laws have changed in the last thirty years.
Immie
So an exception in the law for life saving services?
Explain what you mean. Where is the exception? A doctor is (as this layman understands) required to perform life saving services and can not simply sit back and let a patient die for any reason. They are not required to perform any other duties.
A woman who wants to look thirty years younger can't enter an emergency room and demand that the doctor on staff perform a face lift because she is going out on a hot date next week and wants to get lucky. No requirement that the doctor perform those duties as there shouldn't be.
Immie
So an exception in the law for life saving services?
Explain what you mean. Where is the exception? A doctor is (as this layman understands) required to perform life saving services and can not simply sit back and let a patient die for any reason. They are not required to perform any other duties.
A woman who wants to look thirty years younger can't enter an emergency room and demand that the doctor on staff perform a face lift because she is going out on a hot date next week and wants to get lucky. No requirement that the doctor perform those duties as there shouldn't be.
Immie
An exception to this notion that a physician can legally refuse treatment based on religious grounds.
Explain what you mean. Where is the exception? A doctor is (as this layman understands) required to perform life saving services and can not simply sit back and let a patient die for any reason. They are not required to perform any other duties.
A woman who wants to look thirty years younger can't enter an emergency room and demand that the doctor on staff perform a face lift because she is going out on a hot date next week and wants to get lucky. No requirement that the doctor perform those duties as there shouldn't be.
Immie
An exception to this notion that a physician can legally refuse treatment based on religious grounds.
The law has always required that a doctor perform life saving tasks. Religious exemptions have never been allowed. You are turning the issue around here. Allowing religious exclusions would be the exception to the law not the way you are stating it.
A physician has a legal responsibility to save a life... but that is where it stops. He does not have a legal responsibility to make the patient healthy or happy. Once the patient is stabilized his legal responsibility is complete. At least that is how I understand things.
Immie
Do you have a documented case that this scenario has ever taken place? What were the results of the lawsuit? How much did the jury award?
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
An exception to this notion that a physician can legally refuse treatment based on religious grounds.
The law has always required that a doctor perform life saving tasks. Religious exemptions have never been allowed. You are turning the issue around here. Allowing religious exclusions would be the exception to the law not the way you are stating it.
A physician has a legal responsibility to save a life... but that is where it stops. He does not have a legal responsibility to make the patient healthy or happy. Once the patient is stabilized his legal responsibility is complete. At least that is how I understand things.
Immie
The law is obviously changing via the religious exemption statutes. That's the point of this thread.
The issue of legal responsibility to save life is also a little vague. If I am driving down a country road and come upon an accident, I am not legally compelled to stop and provide care. I can't be prosecuted for continuing to drive off. The "Good Samaritan" laws try to provide legal cover for physicians who do so, but there is no obligation to provide care.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Several reasons why this is a pig-stupid post:
1) I have never in my life seen an ER, no matter how small the town or what time of day or night, that only had one doctor on-shift.
2) Typically, doctors don't set up the transfusions. They have nurses and other staff who do that.
3) A doctor who converted to being a Jehovah's Witness would most likely either change specialties OUT of emergency medicine into something less conflicting, or just change professions entirely. What you're suggesting here is just shy of priest converting to Judaism and wondering if he can still administer communion.
Watching liberal dirtbags twist and turn to justify their bullshit is like watching a worm in hot ashes. Who knew you fools could wriggle like that?
Telephone orders can be given.
And while the head nurse is frantically trying to raise another doctor in this small town, the patient is actively dying.
You mean this hypothetical hospital wouldn't have an on-call doctor?
What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?
You mean this hypothetical hospital wouldn't have an on-call doctor?
What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?
Why do they need an on call doctor when they have an attending one?
To the second, they don't get much trauma. It's a small town.
Small towns don't have car crashes?
It was an interesting hypothetical though.
And while the head nurse is frantically trying to raise another doctor in this small town, the patient is actively dying.
You mean this hypothetical hospital wouldn't have an on-call doctor?
What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?
Somehow, they're envisioning a hospital so small it only has one doctor in the entire building at night, with no backup.
It was an interesting hypothetical though.
No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.
No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.
No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.
I'm pretty sure it looks like you're trying to instigate something with someone who continues to respond to you in a courteous manner. He said it was hypothetical.
I'm sure you're aware that many conservatives argue against things such as gay marriage because of the doomsday possibilities that may result - like bestiality and incestual marriage. And I never, ever see them act courteous and say it's just hypothetical.
And those scenarios are equally ridiculous and improbable.