anonemouse

I agree. When I say "interfering with rights", I am referring to those providers that actively try to keep a person from filling a prescription or having a certain procedure done. You know, those cases where a pharmacist refuses to return a prescription to the patient, or a doctor tells the patient lies about what an abortion does to scare them away from it. To me, that is not only unethical, but is interfering with a patient's rights to medical care.

And again, I never said that. I personally think that people addicted to drugs should be put in prison or a treatment facility while they are pregnant, and be forced to give up all responsibility for the child. I do not think that it's okay for them to get pregnant or raise a child while addicted. I also don't think it's alright to take advantage of someone's addiction and have them sign something that will affect their entire lives while they can't think clearly. What's wrong with paying them to be temporarily sterilized? I would think that would solve both our problems. They wouldn't be able to have children while addicted and they would still be able to have children after they kick the habit.

That's a good point. Employees are informed of their duties when they are hired. If they don't agree with those required duties, they shouldn't take the job. I would say the same about doctors in large practices (where they are employed, but don't own part of the practice). I would assume that their employers informed them of the duties that would be expected of them. If they don't agree with those duties, they should find another practice that won't require them to perform those duties.

I would argue that there is a right to reproduce. Otherwise, the courts would be allowing us to go around and castrate rapists and child molesters willy-nilly. They allow chemical castration, but that's temporary. They don't allow permanent, non-reversible castration of unwilling people. To me, that's a clear indicator that there is a right to reproduce in this country, even if it isn't written in the Bill of Rights. Another example is the pregnancies of minor girls. Once a girl becomes pregnant, her parents have no legal say in the pregnancy. Legally, they can't force an abortion. I am not necessarily saying that a doctor must perform an abortion on any woman that wants one. I am saying that if a doctor is not willing, they have the responsibility to refer the patient to a doctor that is willing, at least in states where the practice is legal.

Very true. That's why I don't think he was after her money. I try to tell people who say that to look at their own spouse. If your spouse had a horrible accident and wound up in the same condition as TS, would you love him or her any less? Even if you found another person to love after several years, would you love your husband or wife any less? Wouldn't you still try to have his or her wishes fulfilled?

AngieO, I would maybe start out by trying to serve small portions at mealtime for both kids. That way, going back for seconds would not be as bad as if you served large first portions. Also, make healthy meals. Limit the foods that are straight carbs or high in fat or calories. Just like with the bandster rules, make sure that they eat the lean protein first, followed by the low carb veggies, and then the higher carb veggies. You could even try making a limited amount of the high carb/high fat/high calorie foods, so there wouldn't be much for them to eat, even if they did decide to have second helpings. Make more of the healtier foods, less of the bad foods.

It's a hypothetical situation.

Did they win or did the insurance company settle? If the insurance company settled, that doesn't necessarily mean that there really was malpractice, just that the insurance company thought it would be cheaper to settle than go through a legal battle.

WHich has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation in question. SH had nothing to do with 9/11, so putting up the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers does nothing but confuse the issue. It's what Bush did.

No, I'm not. I personally feel that drug users shouldn't be able to have custody of their children while they are using drugs. But parenting ability has nothing to do with their competence to sign and understand the legal ramifications of signing a medical release form. When I say that being high may make them legally incompetent to sign legal documents and be able to understand the ramifications, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions if they kill someone, and I'm not saying that they would be competent parents. I'm saying that being high could make them incompetent to sign the forms and understand them.

The legal paperwork first. If he had not signed them, then the wife's wishes should be followed. Unless the man is widowed or divorced, his children have no say.

And you well know that female circumcision isn't a practice that is accepted by the medical field in the US. Doing an unnecessary amputation isn't akin to an abortion, though. There is no lesser treatment for an unwanted pregnancy. It's either go through with the pregnancy or terminate it. Period. So in effect, an abortion IS an acceptable treatment for an unwanted pregnancy. A patient has the moral and legal right to demand reasonable medical treatment. Like I said earlier, I have no problem with a doctor refusing to treat someone, as long as they give an acceptable and reasonable alternative to the patient. If they don't want to perform an abortion, they have the responsibility to refer their patient to a doctor that will. If a pharmacist does not want to fill a certain prescription, then they have the responsibility to have another pharmacist fill it.

That is not what I said. If they perform an illegal act while intoxicated, then yes, they should be punished. But a person that is unable to understand the future ramifications of a legal consent form should not be allowed to sign it. There is a clear difference between someone not being legally competent to sign a consent form and them not being legally liable for killing someone. It doesn't matter whether whatever making them incompetent to sign a release form is a factor of their own actions or not. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think that the scenario is immoral. I personally think that there are a lot of things that fall into different shades of morality, and I think this is one of them. I think it is on the very edge of morality, because of the fact that they are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Like I said ealier, temporary or reversible sterilization is completely fine, IMO, just not permanent sterilization.

Abortion IS an acceptable medical practice in areas where it is legal, otherwise it would not be taught in medical school or in residency to ob/gyns. It's accepted by the majority of the medical world, therefore it is an acceptable medical practice. That's why I said in my first post (I think) that the alternative must be reasonable. To expect a patient to travel hundreds of miles is not reasonable. Doctors swear to uphold that oath. It doesn't matter whether the "harm" is physical or psychological (forcing a woman to experience an unwanted pregnancy, etc.), the patient comes first. There are unpleasant aspects to every job, but when they become doctors, they should realize that they are there for the patients, not for themselves (or at least they should be).

That's true that no one is forcing them, but they are also not able to make a fully informed decision in their right minds. Legally, I would assume that this would open the organization up to litigation because they were taking advantage of the fact that someone might not be legally competent when they sign the consent. To me, it's the same as someone expecting a mentally retarded person to be able to fully understand the implications of what they would be signing. If a drug addict is in need of a fix, and is signing something to get money to buy more drugs, they aren't mentally competent to understand the full implications of what they are signing. This gets into a slippery slope, to me. If you start arguing about babies having rights, then you will eventually slide into an anti-abortion argument. I'm pro-choice. I think that with certain limitations (how far into the pregnancy, etc.), a woman's body is her own to control, even if she chooses to put drugs into it. If she is choosing to put illegal substances into it, arrest her and put her in jail. Otherwise, it's hers to control. That's one reason I oppose laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. I may not agree with their actions, but I think a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to her body.

But you are also forgetting about the children they could have after they kick the habit, years down the road. If it was temporary sterilization, then I could agree fully with it. But I don't think it is right to completely take away someone's right to bear children just because they made a drug-hazed decision.

To be honest, I don't know what to think. On one hand, the organization isn't forcing anyone to do anything. On the other, they are taking advantage of people's need for money to fund their drug use. I guess what I find truly objectionable about the scenario is the thought that simply being a current addict means that people shouldn't be allowed to have children in the future, even if they kick the habit.

Because the patient is the one that can possibly be harmed by the provider's refusal. The doctor (and possibly the pharmacist - I'm not sure) had to take an oath when they became a doctor that states that they would "do no harm". If the patients is requesting an accepted medical practice, the provider had no right to refuse it to them unless they are able to offer them a reasonable alternative. Whether that means giving them back their prescription and telling them where the nearest pharmacy is, or referring them to a doctor that would be willing to perform the procedure in question, they should look out for the best interest of their patients first and foremost.

I think the patient's rights trump the pharmacist's/doctor's rights, unless there alternative means available to the patient. If there is no other alternative available to the patient, they are denying that patient their right to comprehensive medical care. Wasn't that the basis of the regulation that says that pharmacists do not have to perform duties that conflict with their personal beliefs? I thought they could only refuse care if they were able to provide the patient with an alternative to their services.

I definitely wouldn't refuse her the same food you are feeding her brother. That's food issues waiting to happen. I would try to treat them both the same. If one shouldn't have cookies, neither should the other. I would encourage both to exercise and eat healthy foods. Don't constantly be bringing her weight up, I can guarantee that she knows she isn't as thin as the other girls already. In my family, that's what I always hated. It was like my parents and brother didn't realize that, yes, I DID know I was fat and needed to lose weight. Them trying to start conversations about it didn't make me feel any better about it. In fact, it made me get depressed and eat more.

Another bit I found under Conservapedia Talk.

I found this under Conservapedia Talk.

I went to the biology page and was trying to go through the index, and I kept getting that page. Have you seen the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia? It's great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

Um, I think it crashed. Every time I try to go to a different page, it says Mediawiki 1.9.3 - Please set up the wiki first.

I like what they are calling "vandalism". Apparently, they consider anyone trying to correct their facts and post something that they don't agree with to be a "vandal". This is just funny. And pitiful. But mostly funny. I went to the changes page and was reading some of the dialogue there, and it really IS a hoot. I am more at the "laugh and point" stage than the "pissed off" stage right now, but I'm sure I'll get there eventually.