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

[kandrathe]

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.

My boss was an ass, and I started at less than $3 per hour. Doubt all you like.

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.

Or, the professional when asked for counsel on life changing medical procedures use their best judgment, which includes their ethics and morality, in giving that counsel. The patient, who is actually in charge of their well being, can accept that advice, or shop around for more or better advice. Hence the saying, "Get a second opinion..."

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 procedure 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 procedure 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.

This is impractical because there can be many solutions to a problem, and so a professional would do best by laying out the "best" solutions to the problem. Again, most anyone who becomes pregnant has heard about "abortion". The GP may consider even the suggestion of "you could kill it" as unethical. If someone in our society is looking for an abortion, they know where to go (Planned Parenthood) and they don't need a referral. What you are suggesting is akin to forcing the 2nd century Christians to bow down and worship the Roman gods. Or, more directly in order to keep their chosen livelihood, you will have people violate their conscience and beliefs to satisfy your viewpoint on what is proper.

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 narrow minded 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.

I'm narrow minded? It is you, in the face of alternative evidence, who cling to your own definition. You want to attach the field of medicine to "improving the quality of life" for some reason. I think a well running automobile, a fat bank account and a clean house improves my quality of life. It is a vague notion that can apply to almost anything.

I do not want to see anyone go through that kind of mental anguish ever again and any medical practitioner that puts someone through this kind of mental anguish should have their license revoked.

I believe in death with dignity, so you have no argument from me regarding your circumstance. I think far too many elderly people die in despicable ways in what are essentially warehouses for the nearly dead.

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 procedure to birth the child through non-normal means. I'm astounded, even flabbergasted that you would think in such a measure.

Well, that is not what I said. So, get your jaw off the floor. I said, I think the doctor and the mother should make the decision that will affect both the life of the baby and the life of the mother. I never gave the life of the baby more weight than the life of the mother. I also said, that at some point in the pregnancy that the fetus is a human being, and that by my best measure of viability that it seems to be before 5 months. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, resuscitation of premature babies under 400g is not recommended. 400g is normally achieved at about 5 1/2 months. The fetus is fully formed at about 12 weeks. So the time period in doubt is that time between 12 weeks and 22 weeks. Even then, the fetus < 12 weeks old has the potential to become a human being, so ethically I wouldn't treat any fetus as arbitrarily disposable.

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 procedure knowing that you have your wife survive.

First, I would want to my wifes opinion, and the doctors assessment of the risks. Second, you can't tell my wife anything.

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.

I agree, but I am pointing out the lower bounds of viability.

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 fertilized egg had had much time to divide, let alone properly attach to the uterine 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.

RU428 causes abortion as well (is an abortifacient). There are other medicines (ECP's), such as "Plan B" or other "morning after pills" that are more effective in preventing pregnancy without the convulsive side effects of RU428 and other abortifacients.

So, I will reiterate 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.

You make too many assumptions about me and my associations.