An ethical dilemma

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Can you pretend that you don't know him or is it better to tell him that you know him and have a frank discussion?
I chose the second option.

Have a frank discussion about what?

The guy is sick and needs your care.

Put on your game face and get it over with. It's what I do every time I have to see my in-laws:D

Members don't see this ad.
 
You are underway on a hospital ship in a war zone in the Gulf.

You are one of 3 intensivists working round the clock on 40+ some odd number of intubated...seriously traumatized patients from US firepower....

And some of these patients are Dirtbags....with a capital D....meaning there are FBI agents stationed on board waiting to take them away.

One of them tries to attack a nurse.....what should you do?

Be nice ...and restrain them according to JCAHO standards...because Red Cross representatives and CNN are watching you....

OR...do the right thing.

Interesting. I have a question for you. What is official military policy on treating the enemy, currently and historically? what are and were docs required to do and what did they have discretion over? Have these rules changed over time?
 
restrain them according to JCAHO standards...because Red Cross representatives and CNN are watching you....

Yeah, that's what we did. Except no one was there to watch us (my GMO days in Iraq).

No tears shed when they expired, but they died of their wounds, not something I did. I just kept telling myself that maybe this one had vital intel he'd spill after we'd saved his life, or that maybe he'd get sent to some no-flag prison in Saudi Arabia for less gentle interrogation.

I was the doc for a small detention facility for a while too, and those worthless people were treated well. It was the Iraqi Army guys who captured the insurgents that were just brutal. Cigarette burns, broken bones, smashed teeth, all of it. Again no sympathy from me, but no one was abused and they all got good care.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Interesting. I have a question for you. What is official military policy on treating the enemy, currently and historically? what are and were docs required to do and what did they have discretion over? Have these rules changed over time?

Geneva convention says it all......

but God damned....these HEATHENS do not deserve the treatment that we are ordered to render....and that's coming from a "heathen"
 
so what's this all boiled down to........


very simple...

plank is a puss......he doesn't know what a "dilemma" really is.....


to the point that he makes stuff up...and change facts ....just so he can argue...



PUSS.
 
I'm late to this thread and i confess not reading any of the posts.

Do the f-ing case. It could be Mother Theresa, the Pope, Clinton, or the scruffy looking guy on the street. I'm doing "the same old" for all of them. Is there an issue with that?
 
Why aren't you over there on the nurses forum telling them your war stories?
Or maybe you should be on the streets fighting for anesthesia since you are a POLITICAL ACTIVIST :rofl:

so what's this all boiled down to........


very simple...

plank is a puss......he doesn't know what a "dilemma" really is.....


to the point that he makes stuff up...and change facts ....just so he can argue...



PUSS.
 
Interesting. I have a question for you. What is official military policy on treating the enemy, currently and historically? what are and were docs required to do and what did they have discretion over? Have these rules changed over time?

Official policy is that when it comes to triage and use of limited resources, no distinction is to be made between US/coalition wounded, Iraqi (or Afghani) national army wounded, or enemy wounded. Medical decisionmaking is to be blind to nationality.

That said, triage is pretty subjective and there's always plenty of wiggle room for clinical judgement that pushes the resources toward our own, and you'd be hard pressed to find one of us who'd give the last [anything] to an insurgent if there were American casualties coming in, or if an op was going on and casualties were likely in the short term.
 
Can you pretend that you don't know him or is it better to tell him that you know him and have a frank discussion?
I chose the second option.

I wouldn't pretend anything, just don't mention the circumstances of your familiarity. I would treat him like any other patient. Don't let on that you know who he is, but don't deny it if he mentions who you are.
 
Really? Quite interesting. Since you know my wife, could I trouble you to introduce me to her?* (* only if she's hot). Is this like a Hangover movie-type thing where I don't remember the wedding because of the Roofies? Do I have a good prenup? Hope to Hell there aren't any lil bastards runnin around I gotta support too.

Lil' Narc-Narc would be disappointed in you...Dad

I won't mention this to Lisa
 
Members don't see this ad :)
so what's this all boiled down to........


very simple...

plank is a puss......he doesn't know what a "dilemma" really is.....


to the point that he makes stuff up...and change facts ....just so he can argue...



PUSS.

strong work. Way to drag a moderately interesting discussion back to the ol mil & cop v. plank pissfest. Well done.
 
The original oath of a medical doctor is also called to be a Hippocratic Oath.

it is an urban legend, more or less :D

relax, girl. This forum is more aggressive than you are used to, but this doesn't mean the people here are vicious - the ones who like to talk-talk-talk touchy-feely do not choose anesthesia. Check on pediatric forum or psych.
 
Plankton, Myself, I would do the case (due to emergency status), tune him up real nice using all your tricks and on post op day 2 or so when he is lucid , explain to him and hopefully a visiting family member , that you and the surgeon saved his ass. Not much option for you at 0200hrs given the E status. But I would sternly rub it in his face postop how his lawsuit affected you emotionally. Bill him fully for your services. ....I had a nonsense case dragged out over 4 yrs - they finally gave up , couple yrs later family member of plaintiff attorney comes for elective surgery: NPO, IV, in pre=op holding , I told pt they have some medical issues better dealt with at hospital than surgery ctr ( not really). I told surgeon they were the dirtbag lawyers family and he agreed with me that "payback's a bitch" . ......We really cant suxx em just like cops cant shoot every obviously guilty murder/rapist they apprehend easily. Luckily I work with alot of surgeons who would not electively treat medmal sharks.......I have alot of great heartwarming/score-evening stories on this matter , but they cannot be typed here.;)
 
Although I appreciate the explanation of the Hippocratic oath and it's history I am not sure I see the point you are trying to make.
Are you trying to say that the number of malpractice lawsuits is increasing because doctors are practicing less ethically?





"The original oath of a medical doctor is also called to be a Hippocratic Oath. It is believed to be written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine during the fourth century BC. Even today, this oath was still considered as a rite of passage for practitioners to enter the medical world. As our world evolves, several version of this oath was created. The classical version was introduced, and modern versions and alternatives are also made. In spite of all the changes, the main content or the idea that doctor should fulfill their responsibility to promote human health was maintained. Some other medical practices that are contrary to public morals and conducts such as abortion and euthanasia are forbidden.

The oath of a medical doctor was now modified with modern relevance that brought out 6 major changes on its content. The first one is "to teach to the sons of my teacher", in the classical oath, it is stated as medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This is included due to the realization of greater potentials of doctor descendants. They are more exposed to the medical world and they got someone to guide them living the medical profession. The second change that was made is the inclusion of the phrase "to practice and prescribe to be the best of my ability for the good of my patients and to try to avoid harming them". This is one among the most important part of the oath because it states the very purpose of medical practitioners. Their mission is to do their best to improve human health and avoid harm. The third and fourth phrases that were included are the "never to avoid deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest and to avoid violating morals of the community. These phrases regulate the practitioner's conduct of service. They should conduct their profession only with good and humanitarian intent. The fifth phrase is "to avoid to do things that other specialist can do better." This phrase is also created for the intent of regulating the practice of profession. It means every practitioner should only practice his profession to the extent that he knows he could do. The last phrase that completes the oath is "to keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. This is also another reminded of his very goal on this earth, to practice medicine on his best capacity. (Woe to you who want to get payed a lot and put the minimum of your capacity)

Nowadays, that medical malpractices are recurring from day to day, a reminder of this oath should be made to everyone on the medical industry. It is very important for them to realize the real essence of the oath of a medical doctor so that they can efficiently do what are expected from them".
_______________________
While bullies oath is to always practice:
 
When I finished residency I knew very little about the legal system.
I believed that justice always prevailed and that if you did what is right for the patient then no one can hurt you.
No one took the time to educate me as a resident about what a malpractice litigation is really like and I didn't bother trying to learn about it because I thought it will never happen to me.
A few years later it happened!
I was hit by a lawsuit from a patient that I had literally saved from death.
I felt shocked and humiliated and I told myself that this can't be serious and since I know for a fact that I did what's right and successfully saved this patient's life I thought there was no way this could happen to me.
I was wrong!
Now I understand the process and I fear it.
A malpractice litigation is one of the most stressful experiences any physician can go through, many people consider it as stressful as the loss of family members.
You are suddenly taken from your comfort zone (the medical profession) and thrown into a new world where you have absolutely no control.
In this new mysterious world you are simply a spectator as a bunch of lawyers negotiate your worth.
All your achievements, education and experience will be negotiated in front of your eyes and you just have to sit there and watch.
In the process of watching this negotiation you will be accused of all kinds of bad things. You will be portrayed as a mean incompetent bastard and you will not be even allowed a chance to defend yourself.
Initially you feel humiliated but as the time passes you realize that it's nothing personal for these lawyers!
It is business as usual for them and it's about money and nothing else!
The whole process is an act!
Everyone will be acting except you!
The patient has to act hurt and upset, the plaintiff's attorney has to act as if he is here to defend this poor patient's rights and protect society from bastards like you, your lawyers have to act as if they really like you...
The only one who is not acting is you!
Anyway, I learned my lesson and I started practicing more defensive medicine.
I wish someone would have told me about this whole strange world of litigation when I was younger, but I am not sure I would have listened.




Plankton, Myself, I would do the case (due to emergency status), tune him up real nice using all your tricks and on post op day 2 or so when he is lucid , explain to him and hopefully a visiting family member , that you and the surgeon saved his ass. Not much option for you at 0200hrs given the E status. But I would sternly rub it in his face postop how his lawsuit affected you emotionally. Bill him fully for your services. ....I had a nonsense case dragged out over 4 yrs - they finally gave up , couple yrs later family member of plaintiff attorney comes for elective surgery: NPO, IV, in pre=op holding , I told pt they have some medical issues better dealt with at hospital than surgery ctr ( not really). I told surgeon they were the dirtbag lawyers family and he agreed with me that "payback's a bitch" . ......We really cant suxx em just like cops cant shoot every obviously guilty murder/rapist they apprehend easily. Luckily I work with alot of surgeons who would not electively treat medmal sharks.......I have alot of great heartwarming/score-evening stories on this matter , but they cannot be typed here.;)
 
I also would like to add that it seems to me that you also discriminate against women
I beg to differ with that assessment.




 
Last edited:
267d1060200865-video-drift-works-3-stfu6.jpg


Because I like typing STFU. Look, I just need to put you on ignore. Goodbye.

STFU_VADER.jpg

:roflcopter:
WHERE DO YOU GUYS FIND THIS STUFF?!!!! PLEASE SHARE!!!!!!!!!!
 
Although I appreciate the explanation of the Hippocratic oath and it's history I am not sure I see the point you are trying to make.
Are you trying to say that the number of malpractice lawsuits is increasing because doctors are practicing less ethically?

.
 
Last edited:
I do not understand why you guys think that aggressive means rude and why don't you understand that we can have an aggressive discussion without being rude...As for being rude to me for defending fat people, I think that make you A__holes. (is that vicious now or is that rude!!) I also would like to add that it seems to me that you also discriminate against women cause you do not want me to participate in this discussion and you are trying to shut me up !!!
Additionally, I think you are without ethics if you do not treat your enemies according to the Geneva Convention. Cause I HATE some idiot to give this country a barbaric name when we are trying to show the whole world that we are the example of Democracy and Christian Values and...., Yes I know ethics and I know how to be vicious, and yes I know what it means NOT to be treated fairly more than most of you!! Cause when you manly men (Mr. Angry Man) sat down to study your good grammar :laugh:, someone was wasting their time defending this country :scared:and ended up with bad grammar :(.. and think its too insulting to discuss an issue with a female with "bad grammar" and also it is a waste of time to talk to someone who fought a war as DAMN GREAT COMBAT MEDIC AND I KNOW HOW TO FU--N DO MY TRIAGE very F__N WELL, and guess what, WE DO NOT USE anesthesia AT THE FOREFRONT, and guess what?? ANESTHESIOLOGISTS .....YOU ARE NOT NEEDED WHEN WE ARE SAVING TRUE LIVES YOU.....ARE .....HIDING....IN.....THE....BACK WHEN THE BLOOD IS MIXING WITH SWEAT...YOU ARE HIDING MR. DREAM MEN YOU ARE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND WHEN THIS COUNTRY EVER CALLS ON YOU.,,,AND I KNOW HOW TO FUKIN TRAET MY PATIENTS FIRST, I KNOW I TREAT THEM BASED ON their injury..AND BASED WHO IS NOT DECAPITATED .. AND IF YOU EVER SEE MY UGLY FACE IN YOUR SURGERY ROOM DO NOT YOU F--- DARE... dare think you can or know how TO HELP ME ..
( Sorry ...I guess this is not marriage and therapy ...or psychology:D:D
...just a little PTSD:laugh::laugh::l)
Yet..I am still happy and dancing::luck::luck::l
I guess...I'll go shovel some snow


So you were a combat medic, fine. However, that pretty much guarantees that you haven't had to treat obese people and all the consequences that go with it. You've never had to deal with managing the airway on someone with a BMI of >50, a jaw so covered overwhelming covered in "soft tissue" that you can barely hold the facemask and get a seal and who has obstructive sleep apnoea. You've never had to deal with the whining and complaining that happens EVERY SINGLE TIME you have to get IV access in someone who's veins are not visible because they're covered in layers of fat (these are the types of people that the intraosseous devices just end up sitting in fat because they aren't long enough to reach the bone). Or even worse, the whining about how they're so hard done by with all of these illnesses at such a young age...and oddly enough they are all lifestyle diseases secondary to their obesity (or their smoking).

As for not using anaesthesia at the forefront, I think you'll find that many many many things that you were taught to do on the battlefield were designed, studied and used by anaesthetists and anesthesiologists and continue to be. And I'm sure you'd also agree that there is no point in keeping someone alive long enough to get them to more definitive care, if there isn't anyone there at the definitive care location to look after them. The reason medics are on the front line not doctors is that it costs a lot less to train a medic in terms of both money and time, therefore they are more expendable and one can produce more of them. You also don't need to train them in all the fancy definitive care stuff, so that makes it easier. You also don't have to train them to deal with post operative complications (cause they aren't around for that bit), complex medical conditions (including things like obesioty - because people with those type sof conditions aren't out on the battlefield getting shot at).

As for the grammar - it's been rather amusing, although I do hope, for your sake, that your spoken grammar is better. Because if I had a doctor that spoke to me with the grammatical structures you have been using, I'd ask for another doctor, cause I wouldn't be certain that they'd understand the history I gave.

I'm definitely not a misogynist.

And what makes you think that the US is portraying Christian values - it's an incredibly secular country and one of the reasons that some other nations around the world hate the US is because the values that are portrayed on their television screens (in news, documentaries, entertainment) are about as far from Christian values as you can get.
 
So you were a combat medic, fine. However, that pretty much guarantees that you haven't had to treat obese people and all the consequences that go with it. You've never had to deal with managing the airway on someone with a BMI of >50, a jaw so covered overwhelming covered in "soft tissue" that you can barely hold the facemask and get a seal and who has obstructive sleep apnoea. You've never had to deal with the whining and complaining that happens EVERY SINGLE TIME you have to get IV access in someone who's veins are not visible because they're covered in layers of fat (these are the types of people that the intraosseous devices just end up sitting in fat because they aren't long enough to reach the bone). Or even worse, the whining about how they're so hard done by with all of these illnesses at such a young age...and oddly enough they are all lifestyle diseases secondary to their obesity (or their smoking).

As for not using anaesthesia at the forefront, I think you'll find that many many many things that you were taught to do on the battlefield were designed, studied and used by anaesthetists and anesthesiologists and continue to be. And I'm sure you'd also agree that there is no point in keeping someone alive long enough to get them to more definitive care, if there isn't anyone there at the definitive care location to look after them. The reason medics are on the front line not doctors is that it costs a lot less to train a medic in terms of both money and time, therefore they are more expendable and one can produce more of them. You also don't need to train them in all the fancy definitive care stuff, so that makes it easier. You also don't have to train them to deal with post operative complications (cause they aren't around for that bit), complex medical conditions (including things like obesioty - because people with those type sof conditions aren't out on the battlefield getting shot at).

As for the grammar - it's been rather amusing, although I do hope, for your sake, that your spoken grammar is better. Because if I had a doctor that spoke to me with the grammatical structures you have been using, I'd ask for another doctor, cause I wouldn't be certain that they'd understand the history I gave.

I'm definitely not a misogynist.

And what makes you think that the US is portraying Christian values - it's an incredibly secular country and one of the reasons that some other nations around the world hate the US is because the values that are portrayed on their television screens (in news, documentaries, entertainment) are about as far from Christian values as you can get.


I almost never reply to posts off topic, this makes the 2nd time in about 275 posts, but I feel the need. And it's early. And I'm bored and Licorice annoyed me.

I'll sit by quietly when Plank and Copro are chewing each other up, there's history there, they are leaders on the forum, it's funny, it goes beyond personal to the insane, whatevs.

But a few things in Licorice's post seem out of whack. Granted, Bialystock went off the deep end and seemed to swing her pendulum rather quickly! But I don't know where she is coming from and why she felt the need to get so defensive, but, ya know what, I'll throw her a bone. Anyone who hops onto the front line to triage the decapitated deserves that from me, I get it.
She is probably narcissistic and ******ed, but you know what? I'm narcissistic and ******ed. Most of us here are. You know what I dislike more than that narcissistic and ******ed? Closed-minded and My-s$hit-don't stink. So, I pick you this time, and not Bialystock.

The half-assed "shoot down" of the war vet comparing battle field conditions with getting through a fat persons l.flavum seems foolish to me. And no, before all my Anesthesia pals jump down my throat, that's NOT where I'm going. I (intelligence-wise, and so much more) worship the ground Anesthesiologists walk on. I think they are the most intelligent, capable, aware, stress-worthy doctors out there!!! The best. Period. Did I say smartest? Did I say finest? Good luck having a community pediatrician tell you about deep physiology stuff. NOT a shot against them, an example. Or anyone else who has decided to plunk down 250K in student loans to HELP people. BUT, to even ATTEMPT to try and "one up" the difficulties you have on a daily basis, even if they are WAR LIKE conditions in the OR, and I say that seriously, 20 years of war-like stress day in and out, to me, is uncalled for, when someone went out there and actually stepped FOOT onto the actual (guns and s$hit) battlefield. And I'll tell you what, Licorice, I have a feeling you are a vet yourself, which makes your post to me seem even more ridiculous. Why? Because to do what you did is an absolute insult. Let the Vet get it out of her system, don't attempt to one up those conditions. You have your own, she has her own. Do you REALLY wanna win that fight?

I'm more inclined to say that I find tidbits that I can swallow easier in your second paragraph. Except this pearl:
"complex medical conditions (including things like obesioty - because people with those type sof conditions aren't out on the battlefield getting shot at)." You're kidding right? Do you realize how asinine that sounds? So, yes, I think I've said enough about how adept Anesthesiologists are at treating complex medical conditions, but to throw sh(t in the face of someone because they are not helping a certain group of people on the battlefield because that population of BMI+50ers doesn't sign up? You know who that leaves on the battlefield to get shot at Licorice? COMBAT MEDICS (et al.) Even ones who quote the Oath. Period.

Ok, now this: what makes you think that the US is portraying Christian values - it's an incredibly secular country and one of the reasons that some other nations around the world hate the US is because the values that are portrayed on their television screens (in news, documentaries, entertainment) are about as far from Christian values as you can get. Have you BEEN in the US lately? Fact: 8 out of every 10 people in the US are Christian. I'm not. Opinion: If you remove NY, LA and Boca Raton, Fl, you can probably make that 9.3 out of every 10 people in the US as Christian. What the hell does secularism have to do with the population of Christians in the US? Do you think our media, the folks who get the messages from the US out to Al Qaeda, are secular? You must be KIDDING me. Yes, the US is secular by definition, but do you really think the people you speak of, the people who hate us, care that we are fighting over whether or not to take "Under God" out of the pledge? Or remove, "In God we Trust," from a $2 bill. If there is view coming from the US, whether moral-based or on the baseball field: It's Christian. Both inward (drive from NY to LA, tell me what you find in between, I can list 1000 examples aside from this one), and outward (name the last Jewish or Buddhist President that was videotaped walking to Synagogue from the White House, I can list 3000 examples of America's Christianity aside from this) the tip of the iceberg.

More idiocracy: do you really have to be a misogynist to dislike rmbsstock? I'm not a fan of her tact, tactics, or posts, per se, but drop the faux logic. That's like saying you're not Hitler because you vacationed in France, didn't enjoy the culture and left. What do you want, a medal?

Finally, grammar. Listen, I'm a writer by trade. I'll probably do it through and after med school as well. People like to pay me a lot of money to write for them. It'll be our little Writerly whorish secret. But I've had it with targeting Americans or foreigners with regard to their grammar on this site. It's pathetic. I don't spell check here, I write, I click, I send. Same goes for emails on the MAC. Or private messages. I don't have the time or patience to go through for style or grammar. I'm not writing a script for Universal, Jesus. (Sorry.) We could all knock on Plankton (hugs and kisses, Plankey) for using "its" instead of "it's". Why don't you do that? You think he's smarter than you? More qualified? A better anesthesiologist? Oh, I see, so, when you're sure you can defeat the enemy you insult away. But when you're worried about getting your diaper tucked into a wad, grammar wise of course, by a leader on this forum, you don't pick on grammar. How Sun Tzu of you.

You'd ask for another doctor? Really? Would you ask for another doctor if you read Planks (hugs and kisses, Plankey) chart and saw that he wrote his "its" and "theirs" all nice and backwards? Would he get a thorough H&P on you? Lemme spin you a tale. A friend of mine is Indian. He's full of funny expressions and colloquialisms that just don't translate. The Intvl Cards PD, who ended up writing him an LOR months later, was introduced to him on day one and asked, "So, what are you doing here?" My friend replied, "Talking to you." Ya get it? He didn't know it wasn't to be taken literally, because, perhaps, in India, you don't say, "So, what are you doing here." I straightened that out on the elevator in private a moment later. He also says, "Tell me..." on the phone, instead of, "What's new?" This guy is the hardest working SOB I know. He's interviewing right now for residency. Just so happens we research for one of the most Internationally renowned Intvl Cardiologists (think Miller, Stoelting, I don't know the dude at CHOP who wrote a book on Peds) who wrote my friend an LOR. The last sentence of the LOR went something like, "Dr. My Friend is the most worthy candidate for residency that I have seen in my 26 years of practicing medicine, his knowledge and skills are beyond anyone else's that I've worked with at his level..." You think everyone gets that LOR?
No. So, open up you little closed-minded lentil bean.

I once married a foreigner, I wrote off (jealous and controlling) family members for calling her an "immigrant." We're all immigrants here, Sport. Save the natives and I suppose those who came over on the Mayflower and grandfathered in. You know one thing that hurts and brings down non-native speakers more than anything? People picking on their grammar. Imagine wanting to open your mouth and speak, but you can't do it as easily as at home, it sucks. TRUST me. So, maybe that was your intent? It's uncalled for. You want a novel, pick up Hemingway. Go speak another language, it's not that easy to PERFECT. Kudos to those for trying.

If I take out my monocle, and look closely: your grammar, syntax, structure, typography, structure, and, most importantly, style, suck c9ock. Unless of course you are attempting to write like a 4th grader, at which point you are a marvel. And, oh, I've been in the writing battlefield, with the bullets whizzing by me, and I've got the awards on my shelf, and I swing a large ligamentum flavum from behind the fattened veil of the interweb, so, yeah, I'm qualified to say so. Pick on rmbsstock's angle, like others did, not her identity. DreamMachine had it right, "STFU." Did he stoop to picking on her identity? (Edit: Actually, he did, beat me to the post). So, Licorice, if you want to pick on her identity, fine, knock yourself out, just know that I'll call you out every time you do. For the fun of it. Because I can.


D712

n.b. Hey Mil, Copro, Plank, Noy (remember me Noy, Jetta man :laugh:) might this ***** shredding pre-qualify me for a pp interview in 8 years? I'm feeling all balls-outey. Next time, I won't show restraint, promise!
 
Last edited:
I have no problems with her identity. All breeds of life will be subject to my abuse. :)

Are you SURE you want to go to medical school? I wish I could read your personal statement. I might need you to write a letter of recommendation for me, someday.

Yes, if only to anesthetize Licorice-types, thereby making the world a little quieter for 15-240 minutes.

My personal statement? Hasn't been written yet. You think Licorice would proof it for me? :thumbup:

D712
 
It's what made me take this ****** off ignore.
True enough, not a huge fan...

As for the grammar - it's been rather amusing, although I do hope, for your sake, that your spoken grammar is better. Because if I had a doctor that spoke to me with the grammatical structures you have been using, I'd ask for another doctor, cause I wouldn't be certain that they'd understand the history I gave.
Just less of a fan of this stuff...

Are we the only two folks awake DreamMachine?

D712
 
"Additionally, I think you are without ethics if you do not treat your enemies according to the Geneva Convention."

Regardless of how anyone feels about treating enemies, I don't believe laws and treaties define what's ethical. I find owning slaves prior to 1865 unethical, as well as dog fighting in countries that allow it or treating a woman like a subhuman in some middle Eastern cultures. Having a law or treaty behind you as an excuse is a cop out.

I don't wanna speak for R'stock, but I don't think she's saying the Geneva Convention defines ethics, at all. However, can we agree that the laws therein were written to assure, in part, that prisoners are treated within a certain ethical boundary? And if that's the case, R'stock's quote is founded. If you don't follow the Convention, then you're, probably, not treating ethically. Who cares about when/how/who defined ethical treatment? It's not the end all be all defining document on ethics. But, come on?

Also, curious, how do you feel about slave ownership after 1865? ;) I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't follow the overall logic.

D712
 
Also, curious, how do you feel about slave ownership after 1865? ;) I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't follow the overall logic.
D712

Yeah, you definitely don't follow what I was saying. It was no longer legal after 1865 so there was no longer a law to fall back on for one's "ethics."

True right and wrong is not defined by a law or a treaty.
 
Yeah, you definitely don't follow what I was saying. It was no longer legal after 1865 so there was no longer a law to fall back on for one's "ethics."

True right and wrong is not defined by a law or a treaty.

Really? The bible sanctioned slavery. Also putting to death people for working on the sabbath. That may have represented the best ethical and moral wisdom of its time. But it is just wrong by modern standards of ethics and morality. I have no doubt that ethical and moral standards will continue to change over time.
 
Coupla copro points...

(1) Fans and detractors, quit whining with all this "I'm putting you on ignore" ****. If you're going to ignore someone, don't announce it to the world. Just STFU and do it. Because, when you inevitably later read their posts and/or comment on what is said, even in a circumferential way, you only look like a little cry-baby. This is tangentially the type of poosee behavior that I blasted Plank for. Stop it. That's the only reason I went on my current warpath: I can't stand hypocrisy and this "holier than thou" b.s.

(2) Who cares what some n00b thinks? Seriously. Someone comes here and drops a few bombs, and you guys get your panties all in a bunch. See point (1). Focus on deconstructing those who build a quasi-intelligent, pseudo-expert reputation and have the potential for spreading misinformation. Those should be the targets of any scorn you want to heap.

(3) This thread is completely gay. There is no ethical dilemma here. Sure, no one wants to take care of this prick, but you have to. If you don't, you're going to be in more trouble. Earlier I think it was pgg who outlined the framework for how malpractice is committed. Listen to that guy. He is brilliant. You can learn a lot from him. The rest of what's said on this thread is stupid.

-copro
 
Yeah, you definitely don't follow what I was saying. It was no longer legal after 1865 so there was no longer a law to fall back on for one's "ethics."

True right and wrong is not defined by a law or a treaty.

Narc,

I put a wink/smile there because I was joking about ANY distinction of slavery being right or wrong with any distinction to the year 1865 or what happened in late 19th Century US. I just didn't think that buttressing your argument against R'stock was analogous to your slavery example. That's all.

1865 was just part and parcel compared to the long history of slavery that continues to this day depending upon your zip code. I know what you meant, I just don't think any law is needed to know it's wrong. I speak, of course, from the POV of 2010, not 1410, 1610 or 4000 BC. (As if Ancient Egyptians or modern day Slave traders didn't and don't know what they're doing was/is wrong. They know. They just have goals.)

I think we're on the same page. Pretty much.

D712
 
Coupla copro points...

(1) Fans and detractors, quit whining with all this "I'm putting you on ignore" ****. If you're going to ignore someone, don't announce it to the world. Just STFU and do it. Because, when you inevitably later read their posts and/or comment on what is said, even in a circumferential way, you only look like a little cry-baby. This is tangentially the type of poosee behavior that I blasted Plank for. Stop it. That's the only reason I went on my current warpath: I can't stand hypocrisy and this "holier than thou" b.s.

(2) Who cares what some n00b thinks? Seriously. Someone comes here and drops a few bombs, and you guys get your panties all in a bunch. See point (1). Focus on deconstructing those who build a quasi-intelligent, pseudo-expert reputation and have the potential for spreading misinformation. Those should be the targets of any scorn you want to heap.

(3) This thread is completely gay. There is no ethical dilemma here. Sure, no one wants to take care of this prick, but you have to. If you don't, you're going to be in more trouble. Earlier I think it was pgg who outlined the framework for how malpractice is committed. Listen to that guy. He is brilliant. You can learn a lot from him. The rest of what's said on this thread is stupid.

-copro

GD it! New page. Yes, I'm not above quoting myself. Deal with it.

-copro
 
Coupla copro points...
There is no ethical dilemma here. Sure, no one wants to take care of this prick, but you have to. If you don't, you're going to be in more trouble. Earlier I think it was pgg who outlined the framework for how malpractice is committed. Listen to that guy. He is brilliant. You can learn a lot from him. The rest of what's said on this thread is stupid.

-copro

I mostly agree. But Plank does have a point. Let's say that you take care of the SOB, and drop a 8.5 Fr introducer into the carotid. The s.o.b. suffers a stroke as a result. I think that you can count on at least a conversation with law enforcement. And for the civil lawsuit to ask for punitive damages in addition to other claims because it was done purposely. Punitive damages are frequently not covered by insurance. In short you gotta do the case, but you really are at increased risk if things don't go well.
 
I mostly agree. But Plank does have a point. Let's say that you take care of the SOB, and drop a 8.5 Fr introducer into the carotid. The s.o.b. suffers a stroke as a result. I think that you can count on at least a conversation with law enforcement. And for the civil lawsuit to ask for punitive damages in addition to other claims because it was done purposely. Punitive damages are frequently not covered by insurance. In short you gotta do the case, but you really are at increased risk if things don't go well.

This isn't an "elective" case. All bets are off.

If this was, say, a knee. Then you might have a point.

And, use an ultrasound. If you stick it in the carotid while using an ultrasound, you deserve whatever happens to you.

-copro
 
GD it! New page. Yes, I'm not above quoting myself. Deal with it.

-copro

Copro,

Yes. Got it. Dealing with it. I sent this thread onto a third page. I understand your opinion. Respectfully disagree with the "this thread is stupid", I posted again.

Simply put, I'm not going to stop posting on a topic because one person, or eight, think it's a stupid topic and the individual posts are stupid as well. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the posts on this board over the last week, many of these threads could have been deemed as "stupid". When we all shut up after the pronouncement thereof, just close the Anesthesia Forum, because we're done.
Surely you can agree? Yet we continue to post.

As for the Noob issue...and noobs having no opinion that's worthy of listening to. Whether it's an argument by an over spoken noob, or a respectful one, I've said enough about that for others to form an opinion: and that being the sentence I just wrote. The only thing I'm a noob at in this world, even though I think your comment was meant for Bialystock, is pushing the white stuff. Period. I've lived eight lives compared to any 22 year old med student, and that goes for 1/2 my mentors at the U. So, yeah, my ethics opinions are as informed, or more informed than many of the Doc's who have shaken my hand. Especially the young ones. Why we shouldn't care what this noob has to say, you got me. Remember, I'm from Hollywood, where NOBODY has ethics. I'm an friggin' expert.

Respectfully (no sarcasm folks),
D712
 
Exactly.
I only intended to share my thought process and was hoping someone might benefit from it or offer some suggestions that we all could learn from.
I truly think that it is important for all of us to at least read about malpractice cases and ask people who have been through them before we form any kind of beliefs or opinions.
It is a subject that is very poorly covered in medical school and residency.
For some reason we all finish training and start practicing with this unjustified trust in the legal system, or maybe it is better called denial.
Ignoring the problem does not make it less likely.
I am in no way advocating becoming paralyzed by fear of lawyers but in order to navigate this broken system some basic knowledge is necessary.




I mostly agree. But Plank does have a point. Let's say that you take care of the SOB, and drop a 8.5 Fr introducer into the carotid. The s.o.b. suffers a stroke as a result. I think that you can count on at least a conversation with law enforcement. And for the civil lawsuit to ask for punitive damages in addition to other claims because it was done purposely. Punitive damages are frequently not covered by insurance. In short you gotta do the case, but you really are at increased risk if things don't go well.
 
As for the Noob issue...and noobs having no opinion that's worthy of listening to. Whether it's an argument by an over spoken noob, or a respectful one, I've said enough about that for others to form an opinion: and that being the sentence I just wrote. The only thing I'm a noob at in this world, even though I think your comment was meant for Bialystock, is pushing the white stuff. Period.

I'm responding to you, although with the "new" coprolalia I normally would not, just to reiterate a point.

I only care about what the purported "experts" on this forum say, and appropriately dealing with what I perceive to be their misconceptions. Those are the "fellow or above" people who post here.

I've lived eight lives compared to any 22 year old med student, and that goes for 1/2 my mentors at the U. So, yeah, my ethics opinions are as informed, or more informed than many of the Doc's who have shaken my hand. Especially the young ones. Why we shouldn't care what this noob has to say, you got me. Remember, I'm from Hollywood, where NOBODY has ethics. I'm an friggin' expert.

Respectfully (no sarcasm folks),
D712

:laugh:

Ethics in Hollywood compared to ethics in medicine are far different things, my friend. Until you complete residency and it's your ass on the line, you're not an expert. Sorry.

-copro
 
And I'm bored and Licorice annoyed me.
Pick on rmbsstock's angle, like others did, not her identity. DreamMachine had it right, "STFU." Did he stoop to picking on her identity? (Edit: Actually, he did, beat me to the post). So, Licorice, if you want to pick on her identity, fine, knock yourself out, just know that I'll call you out every time you do. For the fun of it. Because I can.
D712feeling all balls-outey. Next time, I won't show restraint, promise!

:wow: :bullcrap::bullcrap:
 
Until you complete residency and it's your ass on the line, you're not an expert. Sorry.

-copro

:thumbup::thumbup:

sorry Doc712, i hate to throw you under the bus but, your naivete is showing

images
 
There's one thing fat people are good for. and sometimes, it doesn't even work as well

 
I'm responding to you, although with the "new" coprolalia I normally would not, just to reiterate a point.

I only care about what the purported "experts" on this forum say, and appropriately dealing with what I perceive to be their misconceptions. Those are the "fellow or above" people who post here.

:laugh:

Ethics in Hollywood compared to ethics in medicine are far different things, my friend. Until you complete residency and it's your ass on the line, you're not an expert. Sorry.
-copro

1) Copro, I understood you quite clearly the first time. Agreed. Now, understand: I don't revolve around what YOU care about. Should you feel the need to announce what you care about, let others heed the warning. I'll post when I care about something. Moving on.

2) I wish I could highlight a ":laugh:" Copro, PLEASE don't lose me on this one and tell me this is your argument?? I refuse to believe it to be. It's utterly nonsensical. Ethics in Hollywood, even though my comment was somewhat in jest, with truth in the fact that people out there, are, as, a rule, unethical bastards, is 100% exactly same as in the OR. Ethics and morals deal with RIGHT and WRONG. The SETTINGS might be different, the nature of the crime (i.e. stealing a script as opposed to stealing one's life) and whether they are right or wrong, are 100% the same. You complicated the logic with adding in some sort of discussion with someone's ass being on the line. A life being on the line. Or a partner's bank account. Or a Nurse's vagina. No. Wrong. Well, it's your opinion, so, it is what it is. Stakes might be different, but that has NOTHING to do with ethical decision making. But that's not even what you said, actually.

You either deal with something ethically, in a grey area, or not. That's the point of making the decision based upon a code of ethics or morals. Whether or not my ass is on the line has absolutely NOTHING to do with right or wrong. Consequences mean zilch in right or wrong. When you make an ethical decision, you take yourself out of the equation and attempt to do the right thing. You know, like stealing candy from a kid, or not. I'm really a bit surprised that you think Right and Wrong in the OR is different from Hollywood, Bosnia, or the Plantation. Ethics, as a whole, whether biomedical or interpersonal or battlefield related, are not situationally dependent. Come on, Co? Right and wrong? That's an easy one.

3) I think I'm going to simply agree to disagree on this one.

D712
 
oh wait, there's one more thing fat people are good for-
keeping interventional cardiologists gainfully employed



url
 
Top