• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Physician's Oath,

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
18,794
Reaction score
5,161
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If a government should choose to say that abortion is not for politicians to decide but is a decision best left as a medical concern. When the government says it will set no limit to abortion. That does not mean they are the only arbiters in this decision. So in turn we should look at the medical profession and in particular the ethical standards that they abide by. Because they will not be guided by law but instead law may be guided by medical knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics
A common framework used when analysing medical ethics is the "four principles" approach postulated by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress in their textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics. It recognizes four basic moral principles, which are to be judged and weighed against each other, with attention given to the scope of their application. The four principles are:[24]

  • Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.[25]
  • Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient.[25]
  • Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" – to promote more good than harm.[25]
  • Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.[25]

The practice of ethical standards is not a choice in the medical profession as committees of ethical practices do have powers to ban people from practicing. Many medical schools still administer a version of a modern hippocratic oath. While there is no legal binding to the oath there is still a legal equivalent in modern times in medical malpractice.

Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions under this standard for abortion, rather than make abortion a political football?
 
Some in the medical field have a god complex. Others worship money and power. and some don't care.

Doctors learn that they really don't make a difference, so they either work to get rich, or they experiment.
 
Some in the medical field have a god complex. Others worship money and power. and some don't care.

Doctors learn that they really don't make a difference, so they either work to get rich, or they experiment.

Do you guys never stop trying to make america great again?
 
If a government should choose to say that abortion is not for politicians to decide but is a decision best left as a medical concern. When the government says it will set no limit to abortion. That does not mean they are the only arbiters in this decision. So in turn we should look at the medical profession and in particular the ethical standards that they abide by. Because they will not be guided by law but instead law may be guided by medical knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics


The practice of ethical standards is not a choice in the medical profession as committees of ethical practices do have powers to ban people from practicing. Many medical schools still administer a version of a modern hippocratic oath. While there is no legal binding to the oath there is still a legal equivalent in modern times in medical malpractice.

Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions under this standard for abortion, rather than make abortion a political football?
Soylentgreen:

That would be ideal but government's crave more and more power and will therefore intrude upon such a decision making process. The is and always has been insatiable for power and control. What chance do healers have in the face of the Leviathan and its armed minions? Leviathans find footballs useful to either focus or distract public attention on/from Leviathan policies.

So your suggestion, while eminently sensible, will run afoul of the power-appetite of the Leviathan.

Cheers, be well and be compliant or else (says the Leviathan).
Evilroddy.
 
Some in the medical field have a god complex. Others worship money and power. and some don't care.

Doctors learn that they really don't make a difference, so they either work to get rich, or they experiment.
Schism - that's American propagande and not global fact. In most of the world doctors, nurse-practitioners and nurses actually care about their duties and obligations to their patients. For every one money-grubbing, Hollywood' plastic surgeon there are many more altruistic medical professionals doing good for altruistic reasons around the world. So I call you on BS for this position which you have espoused. Stop believing such crap and actually look at what is happening in global medicine.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Some in the medical field have a god complex. Others worship money and power. and some don't care.
Just like some politicians, lawyers, SCOTUS Justices, and every other profession. It's like arguing with 8-year-olds.
Doctors learn that they really don't make a difference, so they either work to get rich, or they experiment.
Doctors don't make a difference? OMG, you are a bot! I knew it! I should have started a poll on it like I said.
 
Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions under this standard for abortion, rather than make abortion a political football?

If you believe in bodily autonomy, then all decisions regarding medical care should be made by the patient, even if the patient is wrong.

Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.

No one on the left believes in bodily autonomy, because it means the patient not only has the right to refuse or choose their treatment and drugs, but also the right to choose their doctor, including doctors who are not under state control.

If you support a political licensing scheme for doctors, then you support having doctors under the control of politicians, and your football metaphor will always exist.
 
Schism - that's American propagande and not global fact. In most of the world doctors, nurse-practitioners and nurses actually care about their duties and obligations to their patients. For every one money-grubbing, Hollywood' plastic surgeon there are many more altruistic medical professionals doing good for altruistic reasons around the world. So I call you on BS for this position which you have espoused. Stop believing such crap and actually look at what is happening in global medicine.

I think it's safe to assume that doctors and nurses on average are just as self-interested as everyone else.
 
Soylentgreen:

That would be ideal but government's crave more and more power and will therefore intrude upon such a decision making process. The is and always has been insatiable for power and control. What chance do healers have in the face of the Leviathan and its armed minions? Leviathans find footballs useful to either focus or distract public attention on/from Leviathan policies.

So your suggestion, while eminently sensible, will run afoul of the power-appetite of the Leviathan.

Cheers, be well and be compliant or else (says the Leviathan).
Evilroddy.
Yeah! Once again I can see an american who has put on that maga hat and nailed it.

Is the only means you people have of finding any fault with a suggested system is to admit your country is ****ed over sideways?

How can you possibly fix any of the problems with government that you bring up if you have already conceded that there is nothing you can do about government?
 
Last edited:
If you believe in bodily autonomy, then all decisions regarding medical care should be made by the patient, even if the patient is wrong.
No that is not correct at all. Firstly the statement is ....
  • Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.[25]
Not, the patient can tell the doctor what to do.

Secondly, The parameters under which you should be giving any reason is as stated in the opening sentence; ie. " four basic moral principles, which are to be judged and weighed against each other,:

Not as you are doing by singling one moral pillar out without consideration of the others.

No one on the left believes in bodily autonomy, because it means the patient not only has the right to refuse or choose their treatment and drugs, but also the right to choose their doctor, including doctors who are not under state control.

I would hope no one on the left believed in the nonsensical idea that bodily autonomy could give us a situation where a drunken teenager demands her left arm be amputated because it itches. Which appears to be what you think bodily autonomy means.

If you support a political licensing scheme for doctors, then you support having doctors under the control of politicians, and your football metaphor will always exist.
If you have read the very last sentence. My closing statement in the opening post of this thread. Then please tell me what weird twisted logic got you from, " Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions" to "If you support a political licensing scheme for doctors,"
 
If a government should choose to say that abortion is not for politicians to decide but is a decision best left as a medical concern. When the government says it will set no limit to abortion. That does not mean they are the only arbiters in this decision. So in turn we should look at the medical profession and in particular the ethical standards that they abide by. Because they will not be guided by law but instead law may be guided by medical knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics


The practice of ethical standards is not a choice in the medical profession as committees of ethical practices do have powers to ban people from practicing. Many medical schools still administer a version of a modern hippocratic oath. While there is no legal binding to the oath there is still a legal equivalent in modern times in medical malpractice.

Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions under this standard for abortion, rather than make abortion a political football?
Thats fine, but in America doctors supervise executions.
 
Thats fine, but in America doctors supervise executions.

I could point out how it could fit into each pillar in some way. If you want I will go through it, but I see no difficulty in coming up with a reason for each.

Medical practitioners do not get to decide whether executions should be legal. Just as politicians should not be deciding when an abortion should or should not happen.
 
No that is not correct at all. Firstly the statement is ....
  • Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.[25]
Not, the patient can tell the doctor what to do.

Secondly, The parameters under which you should be giving any reason is as stated in the opening sentence; ie. " four basic moral principles, which are to be judged and weighed against each other,:

Not as you are doing by singling one moral pillar out without consideration of the others.

This is the opinion of two guys, it's not a set of four laws handed down from God. On top of that, the fourth principle sounds ridiculous on its face.

I would hope no one on the left believed in the nonsensical idea that bodily autonomy could give us a situation where a drunken teenager demands her left arm be amputated because it itches. Which appears to be what you think bodily autonomy means.

If you are going to construct a hypothetical scenario as a counterpoint, it needs to have at least some basis in reality. Doctors cutting off the arms of drunk teenagers has no basis in reality.

If you have read the very last sentence. My closing statement in the opening post of this thread. Then please tell me what weird twisted logic got you from, " Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions" to "If you support a political licensing scheme for doctors,"

I'll try to be clearer. You wrote:

Would it not be better to have the medical profession making decisions under this standard for abortion, rather than make abortion a political football?

Yes it would be better, but it is not possible if doctors are under political control, which is the purpose of government licensing schemes.

In other words, get rid of government licensing, and we would have a situation where doctors and pregnant women would be able make their decisions without political interference.
 
I could point out how it could fit into each pillar in some way. If you want I will go through it, but I see no difficulty in coming up with a reason for each.

Medical practitioners do not get to decide whether executions should be legal. Just as politicians should not be deciding when an abortion should or should not happen.
Well, administering a fatal drug cocktail to a healthy individual would seem to not be beneficience and definitely be maleficence.
Doctors can't decided whether executions should be legal but they can definitely decide whether to participate or not.
I'm just saying that medical ethics seems to be pretty flexible. Sometimes it just depends on the law, a doctor will do something thats legal but would seem to defy medical ethics.
 
This is the opinion of two guys, it's not a set of four laws handed down from God.
Does it have to be? Considering how badly the word of god seems to be understood perhaps it is better that it is taken as an actual work of man based on theories that are arguably good. And not superstitions as the word of god is.

On top of that, the fourth principle sounds ridiculous on its face.
  • Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.[25]
In what sense is this ridiculous? Would you not be concerned about the financial and logistic support aspect of whatever career you follow or would like to follow?


If you are going to construct a hypothetical scenario as a counterpoint, it needs to have at least some basis in reality. Doctors cutting off the arms of drunk teenagers has no basis in reality.
How amusing coming from someone who just argued that bodily autonomy means a patient can demand whatever they want.
I'll try to be clearer. You wrote:



Yes it would be better, but it is not possible if doctors are under political control, which is the purpose of government licensing schemes.

In other words, get rid of government licensing, and we would have a situation where doctors and pregnant women would be able make their decisions without political interference.
Actually it is possible because it does happen. My apology I do not often bring up my country as an example but in this instance.


https://www.mcnz.org.nz/about-us/what-we-do/

Medical council of new zealand.

Independent from Government​

The best way to protect your rights as a patient is for us to be independent from both doctors and the Government.

Because we are independent and focussed on what's best for the public, you can trust we:

  • put patient health and safety first
  • promote and encourage good medical practice
  • promote fairness and equality, and value diversity
  • do our job fairly and follow principles of consistency transparency and balance fairly;

While the government has the right to prosecute for any illegal activity by medical people only the medical council has the right to grant and remove a practicing certificate .

So it is possible to create a system where the licensing of medical practitioners is not under government control. Because such systems do in fact exist.

The difficulty would of course be in how could that work in america.
 
Well, administering a fatal drug cocktail to a healthy individual would seem to not be beneficience and definitely be maleficence.
Doctors can't decided whether executions should be legal but they can definitely decide whether to participate or not.
I'm just saying that medical ethics seems to be pretty flexible. Sometimes it just depends on the law, a doctor will do something thats legal but would seem to defy medical ethics.
Arguing that a fatal cocktail is probably the most humane form of execution would however be the of the most benefit in a country where it is legal to execute.
I would imagine many doctors would refuse to attend an execution. Just as many refuse to do abortions.
The law itself is flexible. That is why we have a court room with lawyers arguing guilt and innocence rather than just a judge deciding what the law is.

Let's make this perfectly clear. This is not a bid for a utopia. Systems such as this do not guarantee good behaviour. But what they can do is give us a reference for what good behaviour should look like.
 
Some in the medical field have a god complex. Others worship money and power. and some don't care.

Doctors learn that they really don't make a difference, so they either work to get rich, or they experiment.
Anyone can say that an elected politician has a god complex, worships money and power, and harm people on their power trip.

If Roe is overturned and states can make their own laws, they will significantly harm women medically and threaten to harm doctors who follow medical ethics.

First, in general - Carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is 14 times more likely to result in the pregnant woman's death than is safe, legal abortion; such an abortion in the first 10-12 weeks is 22-24 times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth; the death rate related to childbirth is either 2 or 3 times higher for African-American women than white women.

Second, specific to medical treatment of miscarriage -

We already have examples of substandard care of women who miscarried wanted pregnancies in an anti-abortion legal environment in Ireland and Poland. In both places, the law allowed doctors to save a woman's life in a medical emergency with medical procedures that could be classed as abortion, e.g., administering certain drugs or performing surgery.

In both places, women had only incomplete miscarriages - which are common but always end in the death of the embryo/fetus prior to viability. There is great danger when the embryo/fetus and cord, etc., do not completely exit the woman's body, because there is danger of the woman developing sepsis (poisoning of the blood) suddenly, which will kill her. In these cases, the cord had largely broken and repair was impossible, but the fetus had a heartbeat.

In Ireland, the woman was 17 weeks pregnant and fetal survival was impossible, but the doctors were so terrified of the law, which would have charged them with murder if they killed the fetus, that instead of offering to complete the cord break and remove the fetus and miscarriage products immediately, they said they would wait two or three days monitoring her to see if the miscarriage would complete on its own. Because of this, when they finally saw they would have to break the cord themselves, she had already gone into sepsis and rapidly died of the poison.

In Poland, the case was nearly identical, but the woman had the incomplete miscarriage at nearly 20 weeks, I think. The chances of the fetus hanging on and being born at viability, 22 weeks minimum, was virtually zero, but instead of performing the completion procedure promptly, they wanted to wait a week to try for a childbirth, though this was terribly threatening to the woman's life. Naturally, this resulted in sepsis in the woman and rapid death.

In Ireland, anti-abortion people, including the church, tried to blame the doctors, but the public was outraged that the wording of the law had so clearly threatened doctors that they could not have given the woman proper medical care without risking being arrested. In Poland, anti-abortion people did the same thing, though the doctors rightly claimed there had to be clarification of the interpretation of the wording of the law.

These women, who both wanted their pregnancies that miscarried, died. Their fetuses didn't have a chance, but anti-abortion laws so over-valued the fetuses and under-valued the women that the latter received substandard care because the government and law had threatened the doctors.

Who do you want making these laws, a bunch of half-educated idiots who got in power by playing politics and don't even know what an incomplete miscarriage is, or professional doctors with years of education and experience who have taken an oath not to harm a patient?

These nations' anti-abortion laws and populations killed these women as surely as if they had shot them through the heart.
 
How amusing coming from someone who just argued that bodily autonomy means a patient can demand whatever they want.

No, bodily autonomy means you can do whatever you want with your own body. Go ahead and "demand" your doctor to do anything if you wish, but he is not obligated to obey you.

Actually it is possible because it does happen. My apology I do not often bring up my country as an example but in this instance.

https://www.mcnz.org.nz/about-us/what-we-do/

Medical council of new zealand.


While the government has the right to prosecute for any illegal activity by medical people only the medical council has the right to grant and remove a practicing certificate .

So it is possible to create a system where the licensing of medical practitioners is not under government control. Because such systems do in fact exist.


How are they independent from government if they are using government force to back up their decrees?
 
If you believe in bodily autonomy, then all decisions regarding medical care should be made by the patient, even if the patient is wrong.



No one on the left believes in bodily autonomy, because it means the patient not only has the right to refuse or choose their treatment and drugs, but also the right to choose their doctor, including doctors who are not under state control.

If you support a political licensing scheme for doctors, then you support having doctors under the control of politicians, and your football metaphor will always exist.
The patient can decide whether he or she wants a medical procedure.

The only job the state or federal government should have a say in is that proper medical relulatations are being followed and the the medical procedure is safe.

States have the right to keep their citizens from having unsafe medical procedures.

When states first stated banning abortions they were unsafe for the woman ( the citizen).

When Roe was de in the 1970s abortions before viability were safer for the woman than pregnancy and childbirth.

Therefore states could no longer claim abortions before viability were unsafe.
 
Last edited:
Yeah! Once again I can see an american who has put on that maga hat and nailed it.

Is the only means you people have of finding any fault with a suggested system is to admit your country is ****ed over sideways?

How can you possibly fix any of the problems with government that you bring up if you have already conceded that there is nothing you can do about government?
Soylentgreen:

I'm not American (See the flag just below the piggie?). I have never worn a MAGA hat, I despise Donald Trump and I am a Canadian Centrist (which in American terms is a fire-breathing liberal-democrat). These are not my country's problems, they are the problems of our cousins to the south. The Leviathan is strong in America but weak in Canada. The US Leviathan is bolstered by powerful commercial interests from the insurance, health, pharmaceutical and medical supplies sectors, which in combination with the Leviathan, have blocked what you and I would consider reasonable health reforms. With respect to healthcare, America continues to be broken because there is too much money to be made exploiting the sick. Tying healthcare for so many to employment aids business in keeping their workers in line and allows some firms to bid down wages/salaries or pensions in exchange for employer contributed healthcare. It's a racket.

Do I like it? No. Is that the way it is? Yes. Can it be fixed? Only by a massive political revolt at the ballot boxes which too many Americans are unwilling to even contemplate. American voters have become very adept at voting against their own best interests. Until that changes the Leviathan and its commercial and political minions will remain firmly in control. That's just the way it is.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
I think it's safe to assume that doctors and nurses on average are just as self-interested as everyone else.
aoc...

Perhaps in America, but not so much in most other developed countries. There is a notion of service in most country's healthcare systems which is marginalised by American thinking.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
No, bodily autonomy means you can do whatever you want with your own body. Go ahead and "demand" your doctor to do anything if you wish, but he is not obligated to obey you.




How are they independent from government if they are using government force to back up their decrees?
Are you determined to only consider the most ridiculous understanding of the term?

Because they are not using the government to make their decisions. Do you not actually understand the concept of independence?
 
Soylentgreen:

I'm not American (See the flag just below the piggie?). I have never worn a MAGA hat, I despise Donald Trump and I am a Canadian Centrist (which in American terms is a fire-breathing liberal-democrat). These are not my country's problems, they are the problems of our cousins to the south. The Leviathan is strong in America but weak in Canada. The US Leviathan is bolstered by powerful commercial interests from the insurance, health, pharmaceutical and medical supplies sectors, which in combination with the Leviathan, have blocked what you and I would consider reasonable health reforms. With respect to healthcare, America continues to be broken because there is too much money to be made exploiting the sick. Tying healthcare for so many to employment aids business in keeping their workers in line and allows some firms to bid down wages/salaries or pensions in exchange for employer contributed healthcare. It's a racket.

Do I like it? No. Is that the way it is? Yes. Can it be fixed? Only by a massive political revolt at the ballot boxes which too many Americans are unwilling to even contemplate. American voters have become very adept at voting against their own best interests. Until that changes the Leviathan and its commercial and political minions will remain firmly in control. That's just the way it is.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
My apology but that just makes it a , if the hat fits situation then.

The problem is that if every suggestion for how things might get better is treated as hopeless before the suggestion is even made then it cannot get better. The above is an excuse not a rebuttal to an idea about how something can be done.
 
Back
Top Bottom