Women, The baby making factory

[Czar9797]

Are you refering to the fact that the average american lacks critical thinking skills (assuming that's where you're from)? Cause I can understand that a doctor gets all pompous whenever people like my grandmother come in and start begging for antibiotics for her cold, and then on top of that, stop her antibiotics because she feels better. But I come into the office well informed on what I want to do because I feel that it is my responsibility to know what complications there are with my medication (Vyvanse for reference). I stopped drinking Green tea, adjusted myself to not need any coffee in the mornings, and stuff like that so that I could take this med with no complications. So I suppose what I'm trying to get around this turn is that, I'm not the average stupid patient who walks in breathing out of their mouths. I'm an actual patient who has done their research, and has made their decision. If the doctor gives me additional information I would reconsider, but they usually don't. They just tell you no then talk really slow so that their elitism doesn't overwhelm you.

1) When they operate on you, you're unconcious.

2) Medications aren't neccesary for a cold.

[Dusk Voyager]

Screw dat loan, it is her money until it is repaid so she can do what she wants.

Fixed.

[Pierce Elliot]

@Czar: NO SHIT THEY ARE NOT NEEDED FOR A COLD!!! I SAID THAT THREE TIMES!!!! That and you're talking about a surgeon, which the only one I have ever met was an *******. Different terminology for a different kind of rudeness. I don't really have any ill will to him though, he was very lively which made him an ******* about it. But it's not like I hate the guy. He did the operation like he was supposed to do and no bullcrap, just some comments which, had I been of a different opinion I would be very offended at the extremist point of view he was throwing out.

[Pierce Elliot]

The fact a lot of people seem to be missing is that it is HER CHOICE to do what she wants, when doctors start demanding a patient to do something against their will then you may as well say goodbye to free choice.

Bullshit. At least over here, doctors have something called a duty of care. The instant that woman decided she intended to keep that child it became a person and the doctors had as much of a duty to preserve its life as they did its mother's. If she didn't want the kid she could have had it aborted earlier or simply put it up for adoption by parents who would love it. There is no excuse for endangering that child's life when you've already decided to bring it into the world. None. So yes, the doctors were absolutely right to try as hard as they damn well could to preserve the life of that baby. It's their ******** job. Besides which, of course there are times when medical opinion should, can and must outweigh the individual's - sectioning people under the mental health act forces them to do something against their will, but you don't see people complaining about the lack of axe-wielding nutjobs on the street, do you? Putting a patient into quarantine to prevent them spreading a massively infectious and very dangerous illness may well be something that the individual doesn't want to happen, but again, doctors do not have a selective duty of care; they're not bound to only ever consider you or your feelings, they must do what is best not only for you but for others as well, and this is just another of those instances. Having decided to keep it, she had no right to endanger it in that way and the doctor is quite justified in realising that his duty of care applied to the foetus as well, and also in realising that the foetus' circumstances were far graver than the mother's and required much more effort to deal with.

Problem there is. In the States, you cannot force anyone to do something against their will unless out of a contract or something of the likes. And I do feel kind of disturbed forcing a women to not be able to do anything she wants. But I also feel kind of bad that the baby could come out with Tim Tebows face (Looking like it was beat with a golf club and then ran over). So, I dunno.... It's more of a compelling argument if a women signs a contract saying she will be udner the hospitals supervision/guidance until the baby is born. But, that will also be used against those wishing to get an abortion. They already make them wait, and wait, and wait, until finally it's too late to have one (Third stage I believe?) so I don't see how any of these people would be above trying to trick someone who wants an abortion to sign that contract. And it's either the hospital or they risk being beaten going to planned parenthood. Cause those protestors are very, very, violent.

[Archonsod]

Having decided to keep it, she had no right to endanger it in that way

Yes she did. Unless the doctor can obtain a ruling from the judge that the mother is unsuitable to be the child's legal guardian then he must obey the wishes of the mother when it comes to treatment of her child, even if following those wishes would result in the child's death. Their duty of care kicks in only when the patient or their next of kin are unavailable or incapable of giving consent, and then a doctor may take only those steps absolutely necessary to preserve life until consent for treatment can be obtained.

In the States, you cannot force anyone to do something against their will unless out of a contract or something of the likes.

It's the same in the UK and in fact most of Europe. If a patient is incapable of making their own decisions then a doctor must defer to their next of kin. If they disagree with the decision they can request the intervention of a court.

[Swadius]

Order of Proxy in Canada:

Court- rarely invoked.

Spouse

Children

Parents

Other relatives.

[Leprechaun]

Having decided to keep it, she had no right to endanger it in that way

Yes she did. Unless the doctor can obtain a ruling from the judge that the mother is unsuitable to be the child's legal guardian then he must obey the wishes of the mother when it comes to treatment of her child, even if following those wishes would result in the child's death. Their duty of care kicks in only when the patient or their next of kin are unavailable or incapable of giving consent, and then a doctor may take only those steps absolutely necessary to preserve life until consent for treatment can be obtained.

In my opinion, that's frankly an utter crock of shit. I'm sure you're right in that that's the law, but I can't personally find it in any way conscionable.

[DameGreyWulf]

I agree with Lep here.

I mean, laws like that can basically say this about a child, born or intending to be born:
"I'm the mother/father therefore I can do drugs in front of this child, encourage them to drink excessively, give them cigarettes and cigars, and make them eat paint chips because I am their mother/father and I have the right to decide how damaged or undamaged I want them to be."

And yes, in those situations, a lot of mothers may get to keep children. Fathers not so much. Apparently, at least in the US, fathers are considered expendable (yet anti-gay adoption folks like to say "CHILDREN NEED A FEMALE MOTHER AND MALE FATHER FIGURE IN THEIR LIFE!!").

[Pierce Elliot]

I mean, laws like that can basically say this about a child, born or intending to be born:
"I'm the mother/father therefore I can do drugs in front of this child, encourage them to drink excessively, give them cigarettes and cigars, and make them eat paint chips because I am their mother/father and I have the right to decide how damaged or undamaged I want them to be."

And nobody ever said that Freedom was always a good thing. Take away their ability to do that and you are imposing on their liberty. Which is where the issue gets even more complicated. Quite frankly I would prefer if they did that because their offspring will more than likely be of like mind and eventually they will darwinize that out of the gene pool.

[DameGreyWulf]

You'd think that, but with all these Freedoms and Rights we've almost eliminated the ability, nay the NEED to be darwinised.
Those people have the "right" to breed and produce more crackwhores and drug dealers and undermine the economy and corrupt others to do the same, which makes it spread, and the process repeats, because they've got rights to live and have and raise children and ruin their lives (both theirs and the childrens'). They get access to medical care and help by "goodhearted citizens" so they can continue living the way they do.

Darwinism would have eliminated them early on, but since they're allowed to do what they do with little consequence, they just keep spreading like a disease. We have no predators to kill them anymore, we don't smack them down like the flies they are, they stay and continue and create more problems.

Back in the days where we were less civilized, those with diseases and the like were ousted from the group and died quickly from lack of pack safety. The strong and innovative continued, then deemed it wasn't right to be so inhumane and allowed the diseased, disordered, poorly habited to live amongst them and even breed and spread their issues into the gene pool to a level in which there is hardly a child born without some problem.

You may not like to hear it, but that's how it goes. Because we say EVERYONE has the right to live and do as they will, we rather destroy the natural occurances. We save people from their heart attacks caused by overeating, we eliminate the cancer that came to the lungs of the smoker, we illegalize suicide and assisted suicide, even. By emphasizing their right to live, we eliminate their need (or right) to die.

[A_Mustang]

......

Threads like these push me to believe most animals are smarter then humans.

Scratch that... Their not smarter, but have it way better. At least they don't let their lives get tangled up in legal and moral BS.

[Pimple_of_Pixels]

No, the PLANTS are the smartest things on Earth. They don't bother with moving and thinking, they just eat and live. They enjoy life in one spot and never move except to get energy from the sun. Meanwhile, we humans bicker over social and economic issues, fight wars, and develop technology. Plants laugh at us.

[Mage246]

Everything eats planets or damages them somehow. The only reason they survive is because there are so damn many of them. Your average plant has an extremely short lifespan. Being a plant would suck. We laugh at plants.

[ComingWinter]

No, the PLANTS are the smartest things on Earth. They don't bother with moving and thinking, they just eat and live. They enjoy life in one spot and never move except to get energy from the sun. Meanwhile, we humans bicker over social and economic issues, fight wars, and develop technology. Plants laugh at us.

Lol, if you think plants are peaceful organisms, think again. Chemical warfare, poisoning, crowding neighbors out, these guys were doing it long before we were.

Everything eats planets or damages them somehow. The only reason they survive is because there are so damn many of them. Your average plant has an extremely short lifespan. Being a plant would suck. We laugh at plants.

Plants would live as long as their environmental conditions let it. Even annuals will live/bloom all year long if winter and fall didn't come. 

[Pimple_of_Pixels]

But other then that, they spend their entire lifespan, no matter how short, relaxing. They spend more time chillin' in 20 years then we do in 100.

No, the PLANTS are the smartest things on Earth. They don't bother with moving and thinking, they just eat and live. They enjoy life in one spot and never move except to get energy from the sun. Meanwhile, we humans bicker over social and economic issues, fight wars, and develop technology. Plants laugh at us.

Lol, if you think plants are peaceful organisms, think again. Chemical warfare, poisoning, crowding neighbors out, these guys were doing it long before we were.

I'm fully aware that plants can kill each other. Yea, weeds and other plants that suck nutrients from another or produce some kind of chemical to launch at another plant are examples of this. But they do it for different reasons. Like living. Not because they need Oil desperately.