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

[kandrathe]

Ah, life is just a series of missed opportunities ;)

Yes, I had my chance. But, as a mostly shy, mostly naive farm boy, it was beyond my capabilities at that time in my life. :)

[kandrathe]

How sure are you of that they wanted to get rid of you or humiliate you? At 17, I highly doubt you had gotten significant raises to make it so it was worth getting rid of you. Usually if someone is doing quite well, they would rather keep you around instead of getting rid of you, and if doing well enough, promote you into a position of greater responsibility.

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.

But be that as it may, that is getting away from the issue at hand which is if someone comes to you and requires your services or someone with similar services, you are doing a disservice to them if you refuse them service or refuse to refer them to someone that will service them because of your beliefs. If you don't like the services that you can provide, get into another line of work.

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.

So this is healing? Looks to me that if you read that for what it says, the good doctor is stating what I have stated, that a medical practitioners job is to improve the quality of life of the patient.

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.

And here's a second quote that fits with exactly what I said, a medical practitioner's job is to improve someone's quality of life, either by healing or by treating the disease. This doctor even comes right out and says it that quality of life is akin to curing a disease, cause even this doctor probably realizes that not all diseases are curable.

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:

So let me get this straight, you think that a mother's life is less important that the life of her unborn child that could kill her and cost the life of both the mother and the child?

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.

[Swiss Mercenary]

You mean this oath, "... I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

* Bolded for emphasis by me.

So, apparently, it varies from region by region. Either way, my point can be revised. When I am hired for a job, I give up my rights to refuse to do things in my job description... Unless I want to be fired. If I'm asked to do something illegal, then I could sue my employer, but that's about it. I fail to see why the religious deserve preferrential treatment.

[kandrathe]

I'll address the earlier stuff tomorrow after I've contemplated on it a bit. But this latter part I can discuss off the top of my head.

Do you not think people believed in a literal flood at the time the Bible was written? Do you believe that the enlightened writers had a series of elaborate metaphors in mind, and every generation since has simply mistaken them for a factual description of events?

Some people are literalistic, yes. They also believe the world is a few thousand years old. We both know this is not an enlightened way of reading the text, which would be imperative for those who are truly seeking truth, rather than any answer.

This is just the latest adaptation of the god of the gaps: we didn't really mean that thing that you tested and found to be wrong. What we really meant was this other thing, a metaphorical thing that you can't test.

For example, "The Catholic Church" and their dogma have been proven wrong many, many times over the centuries and given time they adapt to the changes revealed by science.

That's because science has a method for going forward, and religion has a method for going in circles.

... from your perspective. I'm more of a philosopher than scientist, so I value more than empirical knowledge.

Explain then how the least religious societies in the world also number amongst the least violent, and vice versa. Is that just a historical aberation?

You mean like Stalin and his purges? You mean like the Khmer Rouge?

Are the Swedes hanging on to their orderly society by some unusual magic?

Yes, homogeneity. Immigration is upsetting their utopia.

Are the janjaweed in Sudan simply missing the bit in their religion where it's supposed to provide the ethical glue that stops them from indiscriminately killing people?

There are some articles I've read that equate these violent offshoots of Islam akin to destructive cults, just like Aum Shinrikyo. In this regard, OBL is just a crazy cult leader.

That wasn't Karl Marx. That was Jesse Ventura. Karl Marx said religion was the opium of the masses.

Well, sort of, he was paraphrasing Marx. I found the actual Marx quote, "Religion is a crutch for those who are too weak to face life alone."

"Let them keep their fairy tales. Don't tell them it isn't real, they might start crying." This is treating people like children. Nobody is forcing irreligion on believers, their crutches are safe if they really want to keep them. The trend towards irreligion seems clear enough to me; let people choose for themselves, and they will slowly drift away from religion as it becomes increasingly anachronistic.

Unless you live in those places where religion is highly regulated (persecuted) by the state. The highest populations of atheists are in China, other communist Asian states and the former Soviet Union. Consequently, places where religion is highly discouraged. In Europe, only France jumps out as the aberration having more than 30% of the population being atheist. I would not say I treat people like children. More that I would allow people to define their own world view, as long as it is compatible with civil society. As my Buddhist friends would say quoting Lao Tzu, “There are many paths to enlightenment. Be sure to take one with a heart.”

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
No, I have not. You call for all who will not do everything that's legal to be kicked out of the medical profession. That would be like saying kandrathe should never be allowed to work in retail again because he once refused to work the lingerie counter. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your extreme position.

I also agreed with you that people should respect and obey the policies of where they work or find work elsewhere.

--Pete

And I have attempted to make clear that this is not my position but an absurd extreme you have supplanted with my position. I have twice now stated that you may have misunderstood my position and that the misunderstanding may have been with my wording and I have attempted to rectify that. Obviously I have not been successful...

[--Pete]

Hi,

And I have attempted to make clear that this is not my position but an absurd extreme you have supplanted with my position. I have twice now stated that you may have misunderstood my position and that the misunderstanding may have been with my wording and I have attempted to rectify that. Obviously I have not been successful...

Actually, you have been successful (finally). I've gone back and carefully reread this sub-thread and I see where I was wrong in attributing to you sentiments you did not express. Indeed, we do not seem to be too far apart on this issue. I started out supporting your position but questioning your use of the Hippocratic Oath and somehow ended up putting words in your mouth. My apologies.

--Pete

[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.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I found this passage (Sorry, can't cite it to any professionals, but the basic medicine checks out) to be a lovely reality check.

"I don't think you realise quite how destructive even perfectly normal pregancies can be. Discomfort and pain doesn't quite cut it. Humans are really not optimised for giving birth.

Imagine if you would develop a huge tumour that stretches your all your belly skin, pancakes your abdominal muscles and screws up your back, get osteoporosis as the tumour sucked all the calcium out of your skeleton, get bone softening (seriously?) so the tumour can more easily squeeze its way out of your pelvis, probably doing a decent job of mangling your genitals on the way, and then you'd also have to pay to have the tumour maintained on a heart-lung machine for the rest of your life... You'd probably be all over taking a pill to prevent all that."

It boggles my mind to think that there are people who consider putting another human being through that, against their will, to be some sort of moral high ground.

I wonder what would happen if an atheist GP would refuse to provide his services to Christians, without referring them to another doctor... I bet that'd be quite the uproar about him letting his personal beliefs affect the quality of care that he provides for his patients.

[Jester]

For example, "The Catholic Church" and their dogma have been proven wrong many, many times over the centuries and given time they adapt to the changes revealed by science.

... each time shrinking their strident (and violently enforced) claims to be in possession of the literal truth down to a fuzzier, more vague notion of being in communion with their deity. Outdated superstition turns into poor philosophy.

... from your perspective. I'm more of a philosopher than scientist, so I value more than empirical knowledge.

I have no issue with philosophy. I have issues with bad philosophy derived by sifting through the ruins of old dogmas and fanciful superstitions.

You mean like Stalin and his purges? You mean like the Khmer Rouge?

I think Russell's answer is most appropriate. Communism is atheist in the sense that it does not believe in external gods, but in every other sense, it is as much a religious as a political doctrine. Communism is as far removed from *freethinking* atheism as it is from Catholicism or Hinduism, maybe further. It involves the abstract worship of a dogma, expressed by heroic messiah-figures, memorized and chanted in great crowds and force-fed to schoolchildren, and enforced with violent purges of people who do not subscribe to the dogma? It might be atheist, but it seems more like an overgrown cult. Specifically, it rejects the philosophy that leads me to my atheism, skeptical empiricism, and replaces it with a kind of faith which is no less limiting than religious faith.

Yes, homogeneity. Immigration is upsetting their utopia.

So, it's not really religion that glues society together, it's tribalism?

There are some articles I've read that equate these violent offshoots of Islam akin to destructive cults, just like Aum Shinrikyo. In this regard, OBL is just a crazy cult leader.

No argument there.

Well, sort of, he was paraphrasing Marx. I found the actual Marx quote, "Religion is a crutch for those who are too weak to face life alone."

The game begins anew: got a source for that? I can't find it except on a couple of Christian anti-Marx pages, and some of them don't even cite it to him. (Besides, it makes no sense; Karl Marx was not an individualist. He didn't believe in "facing life alone", he believed in class consciousness.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

... each time shrinking their strident (and violently enforced) claims to be in possession of the literal truth down to a fuzzier, more vague notion of being in communion with their deity. Outdated superstition turns into poor philosophy.

Which is your opinion. Some people would look at the contributions of people such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Duns Scotus, Søren Kierkegaard, Rene Descartes, or Immanuel Kant as important to western philosophy and epistemology. I think you may be one of those people who secretly despises the "soft" sciences.

I have no issue with philosophy. I have issues with bad philosophy derived by sifting through the ruins of old dogmas and fanciful superstitions.

And, yet you appear to scoff at the invisible and unknowable, rather than approach the topic carefully you cast it away like yesterdays garbage. There is this notion of babies and bathwater... For example, a student asked of his teacher, "When not producing a single thought, is there any fault or not?" and the teacher replied, "Mount Sumeru!" Which is nonsense until you think about it. When some people look at a rock, they see a rock.

I think Russell's answer is most appropriate. Communism is atheist in the sense that it does not believe in external gods, but in every other sense, it is as much a religious as a political doctrine. Communism is as far removed from *freethinking* atheism as it is from Catholicism or Hinduism, maybe further. It involves the abstract worship of a dogma, expressed by heroic messiah-figures, memorized and chanted in great crowds and force-fed to schoolchildren, and enforced with violent purges of people who do not subscribe to the dogma? It might be atheist, but it seems more like an overgrown cult. Specifically, it rejects the philosophy that leads me to my atheism, skeptical empiricism, and replaces it with a kind of faith which is no less limiting than religious faith.

I would agree with that. This means the majority of atheists in this world have been forced into being. China has the advantage of a tradition of Confucianism which also doubles as a political system. Their model of Communism is not far removed from their model of Empire with the ruling party elite replacing the emperor.

So, it's not really religion that glues society together, it's tribalism?

Would that be so odd from a people that traditionally value family, clan and town above any concept of nation? The Nordic countries were late to convert to Christianity, and Iceland barely did at all. At least we don't feel we need to die with a sword in our hands anymore.

The game begins anew: got a source for that? I can't find it except on a couple of Christian anti-Marx pages, and some of them don't even cite it to him. (Besides, it makes no sense; Karl Marx was not an individualist. He didn't believe in "facing life alone", he believed in class consciousness.)

It might be an alternative translation of "Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”. Also, I found, "The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, humility, in a word all the qualities of the miscreant” Again, to get back on track here, I was commenting on allowing people to walk their own path to enlightenment. These debasements, such as referring to people as impotent or miscreant are merely cruel jeering from the side of the road. If these people need crutches, then who would desire to take them away?

[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.

[Jester]

And, yet you appear to scoff at the invisible and unknowable, rather than approach the topic carefully you cast it away like yesterdays garbage.

Read that sentence twice over carefully. Now tell me it doesn't demonstrate exactly what I've been trying to say.

-Jester

[Taem]

[. . .] 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.

For some reason I got the image in my head of soldiers on the battlefield who have wounds the doctor knows will kill them, so the doctor gives them a shot of morphine to ease their pain before death. I also got the image in my mind of the liberal doctors here in California whom prescribes medical marijuana for aliments - sure it alleviates the pain, but provides a high also.

I keep hearing you saying, "improving the quality of life" is too broad a term for medicine, however as you know, definitions change over time. Gay once meant happy and glad, but you won't hear it iterated that way now. Hark use to be used as a word to Stop, and Listen, but now can only be heard in songs. Modern dictionaries now have LOL as a freaking word! Definitions change, and with the investment of quite literally billions - maybe even trillions - of dollars spent on ads here in the US alone, you got to think for a second that advertisments actually works. With SO MANY medicines being advertised to "improve the quality of your life," you don't think even for one second that maybe the definition of medicine has changed over time? Last I checked, the definition of marriage was unity between a man and a woman, but it's slowly being restructured to mean unity between a person and another person. Hell, in time, I may be able to marry my own dog. That's the nature of our society in this day and age, for better or worse.

My mother in-law sees a variety of doctors quite frequently. She is constantly trying to believe something is wrong with her, but really is just using her doctor's notes as an excuse to not feel like herself. She has meds for depression, staying awake, loosing weight, blood pressure, you name it. She believes she has these ailments, but the scary part is these doctors are egging her on to either try different medications, or to stay on her current ones. We've been on trips before where she forgot her meds for over three weeks and was perfectly fine without them, but she has this need, this fear that she can't live without them. I've told her this but she won't listen to me, and do you know why? Because some medical professional tells her to not stop talking her drugs, but I’ll tell you her pill popping is definitely taking a toll on her body.

And she's not the only one; my wife use to take anti-depressants and Ritalin because her doctor “felt” my wife needed them, and when my wife became pregnant, the doctor told my wife not to stop taking them or she might become even more depressed and tired. I told him to f*** off and told her to stop taking them and start exercising instead and guess what, she felt better, happier, and healthier ever since. The power of the mind is a wonderful thing and the best healing tool there is, but despite what you believe kandrathe, doctors will prescribe anything using fear as a catalyst to sell their product and get a few extra $$$ in their pocket. I'm sure their logic is, "if it won't hurt the patient, and there is a slim chance they might need it, and they have insurance, why not"? I’ve seen it before; I see it all around me - my wife and her mother are not the only ones. I quite literally know of at least twenty-plus girls that have been put on anti-depressants for no reason other than they were having a bad day. And kandrathe, don't even get me started on the abuse of Ritalin in minors, and the greedy doctors that prescribe it too them. Get off your high horse for a second to smell the flowers your trampling, or do you choose to ignore this post also? If scoff at your remark of medicine being used only to heal. Get over yourself.

[kandrathe]

Read that sentence twice over carefully. Now tell me it doesn't demonstrate exactly what I've been trying to say.

That you toss away nuggets of wisdom like yesterday's garbage? Yes.

[Jester]

That you toss away nuggets of wisdom like yesterday's garbage? Yes.

That you're claiming *wisdom* consists of making claims about things which are *invisible and unknowable*.

That's not wise. That's arrogant and pointless, all at the same time.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

And kandrathe, don't even get me started on the abuse of Ritalin in minors, and the greedy doctors that prescribe it too them.

Did I get you started?

Get off your high horse for a second to smell the flowers your trampling, or do you choose to ignore this post also?

You mean the post where you went off on the Viagra binge and claimed medicine is all about money, and then some ramble about your itchy dog? I feel like I should ignore them, because I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. It would be easy to show that for many doctors it is not about the money. Your last post was a long ramble of life experiences, and questioning the definition of words. Exactly what flowers am I trampling upon? What does "improve the quality of life" mean to you? For example, does "Art" improve the quality of your life? Does clean air and water improve the quality of your life? Do safe neighborhoods improve the quality of your life? Words have meanings, yes. I define medicine as the science which relates to the prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease. Physician and doctor in my dictionary still mean "one skilled in the healing arts".

I scoff at your remark of medicine being used only to heal. Get over yourself.

I didn't define "what medicine is...", I gave two vastly different definitions by doctors in contrast to Angel's definition. I have no high horses. I train them.

[kandrathe]

That you're claiming *wisdom* consists of making claims about things which are *invisible and unknowable*.

That's not wise. That's arrogant and pointless, all at the same time.

You mean like Stephan Hawking who said in Quantum Cosmology, "...there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?"

Show me tangible evidence for super strings, or 11th dimensional M-theory.

[kandrathe]

Or, perhaps the GP who believes the world is overpopulated and recommends abortion for every pregnancy.

[kandrathe]

So, apparently, it varies from region by region. Either way, my point can be revised. When I am hired for a job, I give up my rights to refuse to do things in my job description... Unless I want to be fired. If I'm asked to do something illegal, then I could sue my employer, but that's about it. I fail to see why the religious deserve preferential treatment.

Leave religion out of it. The question is, should a professional be expected to give advice that are in opposition with their ethics and beliefs? If you do, where is the limit of expecting a person to "follow orders" regardless of the morality of those orders? When people refuse to follow orders, I believe they realize there may be a consequence for their position. Even in the military, there is a loop hole. Soldiers are only required to obey "lawful" orders, and obeying an unlawful order might equally subject them to military court martial. The decision to refuse an immoral, although legal order would be at the discretion of a court martial.

You then say, only people who believe X should be allowed to do Y. Then, who gets to decide what X is morally (not legally) acceptable? The law of the land is that X is not against the law, but it also does not mean that anyone in that profession would then be committed to laying aside their beliefs either. This is why, even in liberal states like Illinois, that medical practitioners are protected from being persecuted by decisions of conscience.

[kandrathe]

Yeah. And there's a pretty solid mainstream of medical practitioners who would tell you that this guy is selling hippie garbage. There's nothing necessary about a doctor looking to improve the quality of life of his patients that involves "seven levels of healing" or whatever else this kook is peddling. Using him is a straw man, unrepresentative of what Lissa is talking about.

I'm using him in helping to show that the definition of "what is medicine" in the minds of even the practitioners is broadly defined.