Bush writing laws on his way out...

[lasix]

This will be the last post where I am polite to you unless you take some time to address what I ask of you. Please do not pick and choose what part of my post to respond to. Please re-read the prvious post and start addressing more than just what you want to discuss.

The number is critical so as to demonstrate that your example is not an extreme minority, a flook.

Why do you have such a hard time understaning things? Currenlty laws exist that prevent the staff from opting out when there is not one to relieve the staff member. Such laws fall under patient abandoment. This rule changes that - and this rule is not yet in effect. Any numbers from the past will not reflect the future due to the rule change. IN OTHER WORDS, ANYONE WHO FELT THEY HAD TO DO THEIR JOB, NO LONGER HAS TO DO THEIR JOB.

Are we talking about 3-4 people opting out annually? 1,000-10,000 people?

Currenlty there are law

Of that number, how many instances of opting out occurred during an emergency?

So you are conseeding that this DOES effect an emergency?

how many patients died... If you can show that your example represents ≥1% of deaths which occur as a result of hospital error (I consider misplacement of personnel an error on the hospital’s part), then I will accept your claim as valid and proceed with the discussion.

You admit being ignorant regarding the medical field, now you are setting the standards. How can you possibly set the acceptible death rate standard when you know nothing of the subject? How do you decide what is an acceptible number? Why is any number ok? 1 out of 100 deaths due to failure to act is OK with you?

 

[Jerry]

This will be the last post where I am polite to you unless you take some time to address what I ask of you. Please do not pick and choose what part of my post to respond to. Please re-read the prvious post and start addressing more than just what you want to discuss.

Why do you have such a hard time understaning things? Currenlty laws exist that prevent the staff from opting out when there is not one to relieve the staff member. Such laws fall under patient abandoment. This rule changes that - and this rule is not yet in effect. Any numbers from the past will not reflect the future due to the rule change. IN OTHER WORDS, ANYONE WHO FELT THEY HAD TO DO THEIR JOB, NO LONGER HAS TO DO THEIR JOB.

Currenlty there are law

So you are conseeding that this DOES effect an emergency?

You admit being ignorant regarding the medical field, now you are setting the standards. How can you possibly set the acceptible death rate standard when you know nothing of the subject? How do you decide what is an acceptible number? Why is any number ok? 1 out of 100 deaths due to failure to act is OK with you?

Ahh, so if you and I can simply arive at a number that I will accept as a representative sample, then you will begin providing links to credible sources citing those actual numbers?

Very well. If there is a death rate, which I doubt, what is it?

 

[Orion]

Well I don't see how being ok with you expressing your opinion is in any way a personal insult, but to each his own I suppose :2wave:

Out of my entire post, which included actual responses to the things you asked for, that was what you honed in on. I wish you would have responded with consideration to the things I said, instead of dishing out the above and totally avoiding me.

Nonetheless, I accept your concession once again.

:2wave:

 

[Wessexman]

I thought you both argued well. There is no need to talk of concessions.

 

[lasix]

Ahh, so if you and I can simply arive at a number that I will accept as a representative sample, then you will begin providing links to credible sources citing those actual numbers?

Very well. If there is a death rate, which I doubt, what is it?

Please read and do not skim.

What part don't you get of this rule is not yet in effect, so it is impossible to track stats related to staff refusing to treat?

Furthermore, you do not even follow what we are discussing. You are very frustraiting, and intentionally difficult, because of that, I will no longer offer you my time.

The road we took to get here was because you accused me of lying and misrepresting the rule, claming bias.... Personal attacks that you still have not either appologized to, or shown proof of. Then it became 3 pages of you claiming this rule is void durring AN EMERGENCY. After you finally read the rule, you have no longer addressed your prior claims. Now you are slidding down the slipper slope that I am not willing to play. So either start catching up on your end, or stop posting. Either:

A. show facts proving me of biasis, lying, and misrepresenting the rule
B. appologize
C. Shut-up

You support the staff's rights, I suppor the patients rights. You don't care if patients are effected by this and die, I do. You find a number of patient deaths related to staff deciding to practice medicine without a license OK, I don't. Now you seem to be debating that the potential for this to be a problem is not worth the patients life. I answer your questions, you answer nothing. You demand to see facts, yet you never show any facts in any of your claims. I want to discuss, you just want to be heard.

You wasted enough of my time on this.

As you continue to show, nothing is good enough for you. I am not a fool. I will not play your games. When you become a man and wish to have a discussion, like adults, please make a new thread discussing the 90% of abortion bans you are against. Untill then, be quite, the grown-ups are talking.

 

[Jerry]

Please read and do not skim.

What part don't you get of this rule is not yet in effect, so it is impossible to track stats related to staff refusing to treat?

Furthermore, you do not even follow what we are discussing. You are very frustraiting, and intentionally difficult, because of that, I will no longer offer you my time.

The road we took to get here was because you accused me of lying and misrepresting the rule, claming bias.... Personal attacks that you still have not either appologized to, or shown proof of. Then it became 3 pages of you claiming this rule is void durring AN EMERGENCY. After you finally read the rule, you have no longer addressed your prior claims. Now you are slidding down the slipper slope that I am not willing to play. So either start catching up on your end, or stop posting. Either:

A. show facts proving me of biasis, lying, and misrepresenting the rule
B. appologize
C. Shut-up

You support the staff's rights, I suppor the patients rights. You don't care if patients are effected by this and die, I do. You find a number of patient deaths related to staff deciding to practice medicine without a license OK, I don't. Now you seem to be debating that the potential for this to be a problem is not worth the patients life. I answer your questions, you answer nothing. You demand to see facts, yet you never show any facts in any of your claims. I want to discuss, you just want to be heard.

You wasted enough of my time on this.

As you continue to show, nothing is good enough for you. I am not a fool. I will not play your games. When you become a man and wish to have a discussion, like adults, please make a new thread discussing the 90% of abortion bans you are against. Untill then, be quite, the grown-ups are talking.

So you're saying that there is no death rate resulting from medical mistake, but there will be once this rule is enacted?

Wow.

We don't know that ANYONE will die from this ruling. If you claim that there will be then please present the data you base that knowledge off of.

Sure, we obviously can't track the results of the rule until the rule is enacted, but I didn't ask you for the results of the rule.

I asked you to identify the number of staff who are likely to be a problem.

Likely. Not will be, not are...*likely*; as in "likely voter".

 

[lasix]

So you're saying that there is no death rate resulting from medical mistake, but there will be once this rule is enacted?

Wow.

We don't know that ANYONE will die from this ruling. If you claim that there will be then please present the data you base that knowledge off of.

Sure, we obviously can't track the results of the rule until the rule is enacted, but I didn't ask you for the results of the rule.

I asked you to identify the number of staff who are likely to be a problem.

Likely. Not will be, not are...*likely*; as in "likely voter".

You are misinterperting my response. Did you skim again? Either answer questions that are posed to you, or do not expect to have a conversation with me. It is really that simple.

I will not play you cat and mouse game. If you want me to hear you and answer you, then you must be willing hear me and answer me. You have not shown an ability to engage in a fair give and take. I've had enough of your slipper slopes, and you poisoning the well.

If you are not going to demonstrait in your own posts what you expect from others, then do not expect me (or anyone else) to answer any of your question.

Appologize, prove it, or don't bother looking for anything more than the above from me.

 

[Jerry]

You are misinterperting my response. Did you skim again? Either answer questions that are posed to you, or do not expect to have a conversation with me. It is really that simple.

I will not play you cat and mouse game. If you want me to hear you and answer you, then you must be willing hear me and answer me. You have not shown an ability to engage in a fair give and take. I've had enough of your slipper slopes, and you poisoning the well.

If you are not going to demonstrait in your own posts what you expect from others, then do not expect me (or anyone else) to answer any of your question.

Appologize, prove it, or don't bother looking for anything more than the above from me.

132 posts later, you still have not provided any data to support your position.

I invite you to provide that data once again.

 

[lasix]

read them and figure it out on your own time.

 

[Jerry]

read them and figure it out on your own time.

I would love to if only you would provide them. Please do.

 

[emdash]

I invite you to provide that data once again.

read them and figure it out on your own time.

I would love to if only you would provide them. Please do.

impasse, gents?

 

[Jerry]

impasse, gents?

I suppose the whole thread is an impasse as no data has been presented by any party in support of arguments against the ruling.

 

[emdash]

I suppose the whole thread is an impasse as no data has been presented by any party in support of arguments against the ruling.

certainly seems that way.