Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Lissa]

That was not the case here. I was told at each pay raise that the expectation was that I would work that much harder, and subsequently over the next few months I was ordered to pretty much clean the hardware area from stock rooms to display shelves. Once there was no more grunt work to do anymore they disposed of me, and I didn't care since I had already procured a better job anyway. I should have quit, but I enjoyed the extra cash and store discount.

Some how I doubt highly that you got a number of raises in the few short months that you claimed to work there and got booted because you were making too much money.

Some professions cover a broad array of problem solving, and you may not expect to encounter a particular challenge of your personal ethics until much later in your career. Perhaps a person should have some questions to ask their GP before they select one. In most areas of my life when I choose a service provider, I shop around until I find a person with similar values.

Not everyone has that luxury. And someone working in a medical profession needs to be constantly educated about what treatments are available. If a treatment doesn't fit with the providers ethics, then they should point the patient to another provider that will provide the services. With holding information from a patient that could affect the betterment of their life should be given to the patient and allow the patient to decide what is the best course of action in their mind.

It says exactly, to me, what practicing medicine should be focused upon. A person with self esteem issues can have their quality of life improved by either a plastic surgeon or a psychologist. Would we fault the GP for failing to recommend either? Personally, for myself, I take full responsibility for my own quality of life and I wouldn't expect my GP to take on that responsibility. If I'm ill (chronic or acute) then I would expect my GP to help me get cured, manage my pain, and extend my life as is possible or desired.

The medical provider should lay out all the options and leave the final decision to the patient. Not giving the patient all the options because you, as the medical provider, find the options distasteful is doing a disservice to the patient. There is nothing that says that you must perform the proceedure that the patient decides upon, but it is on you if you do not educate the patient on all options you know of. Not letting the patient decide on what proceedure they want performed is tantamount to playing god. It is not your right to tell the patient how they should live their life, you may not agree with what they do and you could ask them to find another medical provider, but purposefully leaving out information because you don't agree with the information crosses a line that should not be crossed.

Really? You really think the ultimate purpose of medicine is to assist all beings to experience unbounded love and joy, and to know this is the essence of who we truly are? :blink:

The purpose of medicine is to bring about the betterment of the patient's life, as I've stated over and over again, but you refuse to listen and choose to think that only your narrowminded definition is the be all and end all of medicine is the problem. The purpose is to affect a better quality of life for the patient, be it healing, treating, prolonging, and yes, ending in as dignified manner as possible.

Let me let you in on a situation that I find to be the most heinous thing I have ever heard of any medical provider doing. A great aunt of mine was forced to watch my great uncle's body convulse and shudder by nuns and priests that were educated medical professionals when they removed my great uncle for life support. They held her and forced her to go through a great deal of mental anguish watching this occur where as my great uncle had been brain dead for a month. She was in tears and screaming while they all thought it was their solemn duty to force her to watch it and make comments about that his spirit was leaving his body and that she, my great aunt, should be happy for him. If I had been there, there would have been a number of nuns and priest lying on the floor unconcious and I would probably be forcibly removed from said hospital and thrown in jail. I do not want to see anyone go through that kind of mental anguish ever again and any medical practioneer that puts someone through this kind of mental anguish should have their license revoked.

Me? Personally? Let me take off my devil's advocate hat... I personally believe that the process of gestation is a continuum, where at the beginning there is an embryo which has the potential to become a human being, but around 5 months that embryo has been proven in many cases to be viable outside the womb when premature and assisted medically with incubators, respirators and steroids. So, ethically, that embryo becomes a human being sometime between months 2 and 5. Intentionally killing a fetus in months 5 through 9 in my mind would be infanticide. Those later months are where the fetus gets refinement and extra growing time. Not knowing exactly at what point a human being becomes one is an ethical issue that I would trust a doctor to decide, when weighing all the risk factors. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision, because my uncertainty would tend to make me want to err ethically on the safe side. As a libertarian, I would want to grant full citizenship and constitutional protection to any fetus past 3 months of age. It would very much simplify much of case law involving children and rights. For rape and incest, I would counsel that the psychological harm and damage has been done. Many women who have abortions are haunted by doubt in their decisions (and I've spoken with some). Again, if it were me involved in helping to make the decision, I would want to weigh all the factors involved regarding the age of the fetus, the woman, the circumstances, her mental health and attitudes, and the risks to the potential child and the mother. Personally, I believe that in cases of rape (which are usually reported within hours of the event), the hospital should automatically administer the needed hormones to prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place as well as STD testing. Abortion averted. Incest is a trickier case, because by the time a victim is "showing" it might be much too late to avoid infanticide. In my opinion, if anyone should be killed in that case, it should be the abusive male.

So let me get this straight, you believe that the life of the unborn child is more important than the Mother even though the unborn child could kill the Mother due to complication that could happen at any time during the proceedure to birth the child through non-normal means. I'm astounded, even flabberghasted that you would think in such a measure. Do you try to give one life at the possibility that two may die? What if your wife became pregnant and it was found that unborn child could kill her and there was no telling if the unborn child would survive either, but the doctor tells you and your wife that they can terminate the pregnancy and she would survive? Would you honestly tell your wife that she had to go through with the pregnancy and risk being killed or would you go for the proceedure knowing that you have your wife survive.

And while they can remove an unborn child from the womb at 5 months, the survival rate of said children is very low. There is a reason that pediatricians try to have these cases goes as close to full term as possible as the survival rate of the child increase greatly with development time in the womb.

As to the rape cases, that is what the RU-428 drug is all about, it must be administered within 3 days of the potential pregnancy to take effect and cause the pregnancy not to occur. Going back to the case of the pharmacists, the rape victim had been raped less than 12 hours prior, so it was not like the potentially vertilized egg had had much time to devide, let alone properly attach to the uteran wall, yet the pharmacists refused to give her the drug that would have kept her from becoming pregnant within the window of time that the drug was for.

And in the case of incest, the person involved may not be showing at all and someone may find out through the actions of the victim. Also, a woman starts showing at 2 to 3 months. It's hard to recognize to the untrained eye, but someone that knows what they're looking for can tell. There are more signs of pregnancy than just the increased swell of the abdomen.

So, I will reinterate again from my last post, you need to get to know some medical professionals or work around them to get an idea of what they do and when they do it along with why they do it and realize that the good ones aren't in it to play god with other people's lives, but aid someone in living their life to the fullest possible.