I was asked for my religion today..

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm the one not getting it... Well, If it helps you sleep at night

The CO part of "the ethics" (As you put it in your 'quite excellent' English). Hmm, oddly enough i've never heard of the CO part of ethics (If it even exists). You see that's why I am aiming to study Medicine. If I knew medicine inside and out why would I aim to study it? Needless to say however, we can rest assured that my knowledge of Medical ethics is a bit more substantial than yours.

Do I have to spell it out to a medical student? Sheessh. "conscientious objector"

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I really am lost for words. Do you use any logic when you type posts or do you simply type the first aggravatingly idiotic thing that pops in to your head?

The doctor is not sectarian, none of his patients are "victims". He is following his own code of ethics as he has every right to as a doctor. I have no need for proof. Anyone who has even the slightest interest in Medicine knows that.

I have great English, I was tempted to study English in Trinity as I was top of my class but I instead opted for Engineering.

No need for you to provide proof you say, that speaks volumes.

Why is the doctor using Catholic teachings in making decisions then?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

His points were defeated? Not by you surely?

Yes. Quite substantially.

partyatmygaff

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Medical ethics do not allow physicians to indulge in metaphysical delusions, for all our sakes.

Keep your snide anti-theistic comments out of this thread.

Seaneh

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Medical ethics and religious morality are (and should be legally) mutually exclusive fields.

Should a Fundamentalist Muslim Garda (for the purposes of argument) refer a rape victim to another Garda because he can't morally deal with her without feeling the need to stone her to death for adultery according to his own religiously-inspired morality?

Secular ethics have nothing, repeat nothing to do with religious morality.

Stop moving the goal posts. Do you believe that conscientious objection shouldn't be allowed?

Marcus.Aurelius

Seaneh wrote: »

Stop moving the goal posts. Do you believe that conscientious objection shouldn't be allowed?

The question is moreso if the objection can be ethically defended. In the case of the Garda or the Doctor, the answer is no.

Neither have the luxury of committing such abuses within their chosen careers.

Marcus.Aurelius

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Keep your snide anti-theistic comments out of this thread.

If you'd offer an alternative version of life-destroying horse manure, I will knock it down just as vehemently.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Do I have to spell it out to a medical student? Sheessh. "conscientious objector"

No one uses that abbreviation, you invented it on the spot.

At least now I know for definite that you cannot read. I said I WAS AIMING TO STUDY MEDICINE. That doesn't make me a medical student.

I have great English, I was tempted to study English in Trinity as I was top of my class

WHAT?

With your incoherent sentences and shocking spelling and grammar? Wasn't a foundation level class, was it?

No need for you to provide proof you say, that speaks volumes.

ARGH....
You are so unbelievably aggravating.

No need for proof as it's an axiom. Anyone who has even the tiniest of interests in medicine would know that. You do not. (I wonder if Mr.Top of his English class knows what axiom means? :pac:)

Why is the doctor using Catholic teachings in making decisions then?

Four words.
Personal. Code. Of. Ethics.

Use a dictionary for each word if you must but please understand it.

Yes. Quite substantially.

If you say so.

partyatmygaff

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

If you'd offer an alternative version of life-destroying horse manure, I will knock it down just as vehemently.

Militant atheism. The quintessential example lies above.


Anyway, keep your anti theistic drivel out of this thread. Go to the atheism forum. You'd feel right at home with all the self-righteous back slapping.

MagicSean

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Medical ethics do not allow physicians to indulge in metaphysical delusions, for all our sakes.

You mean it has no limits. Exactly my point. I see this as a flaw.

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

If you'd offer an alternative version of life-destroying horse manure, I will knock it down just as vehemently.

I'd hate to be your kid at christmas time.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No one uses that abbreviation, you invented it on the spot.

At least now I know for definite that you cannot read. I said I WAS AIMING TO STUDY MEDICINE. That doesn't make me a medical student.

You knew well what I meant. It looks to me you are not studying medicine at all as you would of know what CO means.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

WHAT?

With your incoherent sentences and shocking spelling and grammar? Wasn't a foundation level class, was it?

No, honours thank you.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

ARGH....
You are so unbelievably aggravating.

No need for proof as it's an axiom. Anyone who has even the tiniest of interests in medicine would know that. You do not. (I wonder if Mr.Top of his English class knows what axiom means? :pac:)

Four words.
Personal. Code. Of. Ethics.

Where such ethics should not be breached by religion whereby said doctor is a public doctor serving the public who are majorly secular.

Everyone is NOT a Catholic, there are many religions and no religions here. Thats why a catholic doctor refusing medicine or treatment to a patient that is non-Catholic is deeply sectarian.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

whereby said doctor is a public doctor.

Your "argument" falls down again. Both the cases in Kerry and Galway were private practices. The doctor in Kerry was a GP operating his own surgery and the Doctor in Galway Clinic (a private hospital) was running his own PRIVATE fertility clinic. These are not public services. You are wrong, AGAIN.

Marcus.Aurelius

k_mac wrote: »

You mean it has no limits. Exactly my point. I see this as a flaw.

An interesting viewpoint.

I'd hate to be your kid at christmas time.

Bit of a red herring.

Marcus.Aurelius

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Militant atheism. The quintessential example lies above.

Anyway, keep your anti theistic drivel out of this thread. Go to the atheism forum. You'd feel right at home with all the self-righteous back slapping.

I am just as much a militant unbeliever when it comes to unicorns and the flying spaghetti montster. Imagine if I refused you medication because I believed the FSM would be angry with me.

The ridiculous nature of the objection on my part would invalidate it immediately, and you would be correct in condemning my lack of professional behaviour and alignment with accepted secular ethics.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

You knew well what I meant. It looks to me you are not studying medicine at all as you would of know what CO means.

Yes I knew what you meant and what you meant was wrong. Just wrong. If you could accept the fact that sometimes you're wrong, the thread wouldn't have lasted past three pages. Yet again you claim that I am studying Medicine. Secondary schools don't teach Medicine.

No, honours thank you.

Really? You were top of an HL English class?

You knew well what I meant. It looks to me that you are not studying medicine at all as you would of have known what CO means. the meaning of the abbreviation CO.

Hmm...

Where such ethics should not be breached by religion whereby said doctor is a public doctor serving the public who are majorly secular.

Do you understand the meaning of the word personal?

You also do realise that the public that Doctors serve happen to be majorly non-secular? Secularism is growing steadily but that does not mean it is indefinite growth or that it shall ever be the majority. It may and it may not.

Everyone is NOT a Catholic,

A nonsensical statement.

there are many religions and no religions here.

Again another nonsensical statement.
"There are people of many religions here as well as those of no religion"

That's why a catholic doctor refusing medicine or treatment to a patient that is non-Catholic is deeply sectarian.

No it's not.
If you don't understand and don't even want to understand how Medical practice works then please stop talking. It's unbelievable how stubborn you are despite being wrong on almost all accounts.

partyatmygaff

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I am just as much a militant unbeliever when it comes to unicorns and the flying spaghetti montster. Imagine if I refused you medication because I believed the FSM would be angry with me.

I'd find another doctor. You see, Catholicism is part of a major world religion comprising of circa 1.5 Billion people. The FSM is a protest against teaching creationism in a university.
Even so, if a doctor for any reason whatsoever refused to do something on personal moral or ethical grounds I would not question them. They do not owe me anything, they can easily refer me to someone who can perform the treatment.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Why am I doing this again...

garramok you do realise that there is a difference between a doctor not prescribing something as it is against his personal beliefs and a doctor not prescribing something because the patient does not share his beliefs.

All the examples that you have been given are the first option, because they were against the doctor's beliefs. he wasn't trying to punish anyone.

Anyway if he had we would all have heard of the huge court case that would have emerged from it

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes I knew what you meant and what you meant was wrong. Just wrong. If you could accept the fact that sometimes you're wrong, the thread wouldn't have lasted past three pages. Yet again you claim that I am studying Medicine. Secondary schools don't teach Medicine.

What, you are 17yrs old? :eek::eek::eek:

How am i wrong, I haven't been wrong once as far as I can see. I have provided concrete proof to back up my claims yet not a shred of evidence has come from your side of the fence.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Really? You were top of an HL English class?

Hopefully you will be when your Leaving Cert comes.;)

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of the word personal?

You also do realise that the public that Doctors serve happen to be majorly non-secular? Secularism is growing steadily but that does not mean it is indefinite growth or that it shall ever be the majority. It may and it may not.

Who says so, you?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No it's not.
If you don't understand and don't even want to understand how Medical practice works then please stop talking. It's unbelievable how stubborn you are despite being wrong on almost all accounts.

I've given proof how a Catholic doctor uses his Catholic teachings to deny treatment to patients. Thats correct my friend.

gurramok

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Why am I doing this again...

garramok you do realise that there is a difference between a doctor not prescribing something as it is against his personal beliefs and a doctor not prescribing something because the patient does not share his beliefs.

All the examples that you have been given are the first option, because they were against the doctor's beliefs. he wasn't trying to punish anyone.

Anyway if he had we would all have heard of the huge court case that would have emerged from it

Its gurramok not garramok thanks. Its a wonder I didn't spell your name wrong yet!

The doctor in these cases refused treatment because of the patient offended his beliefs. (sex before marriage & contraception).

That indeed is a severe example of punishment, religion should be taken out of the doctors practice. And its a very un-Christian uncaring thing to do.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

What, you are 17yrs old? :eek::eek::eek:

Only two days 17 today.

How am i wrong, I haven't been wrong once as far as I can see. I have provided concrete proof to back up my claims yet not a shred of evidence has come from your side of the fence.

You have been wrong countless times. "Our" side of the fence actually knows what we're talking about.

Hopefully you will be when your Leaving Cert comes.

Thanks

Who says so, you?

Statistics. Most people aren't hardline atheists. Don't forget that agnostic people can't be counted as being secular.

I've given proof how a Catholic doctor uses his Catholic teachings to deny treatment to patients. Thats correct my friend.

He uses his code of ethics derived from his moral beliefs to deny treatment. That's well within his rights. End of story really.

I'm off to do a bit of study.

Enjoy yourselves now :pac:

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

How am i wrong, I haven't been wrong once as far as I can see. I have provided concrete proof to back up my claims yet not a shred of evidence has come from your side of the fence.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

gurramok wrote: »

Its gurramok not garramok thanks. Its a wonder I didn't spell your name wrong yet!

The doctor in these cases refused treatment because of the patient offended his beliefs. (sex before marriage & contraception).

That indeed is a severe example of punishment, religion should be taken out of the doctors practice. And its a very un-Christian uncaring thing to do.

Apologies, i read your name wrong...

In both cases the treatments were against the doctors beliefs NOT the patients. That is not punishing anyone, that is sticking by personal morals

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Only two days 17 today.

Happy birthday.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You have been wrong countless times. "Our" side of the fence actually knows what we're talking about.

Yeh sure:rolleyes:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Statistics. Most people aren't hardline atheists. Don't forget that agnostic people can't be counted as being secular.

I didn't say anything about hardline atheists. What statistics? Remember i'm asking not about their religion but where they will use their religious beliefs to stop treatment.

He uses his code of ethics derived from his moral beliefs to deny treatment. That's well within his rights. End of story really.[/quote]

And you have no problem with that? :eek: Thats the moral of the story indeed, you simply do not care about people's feelings who happen to be non-Catholic.

gurramok

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

In both cases the treatments were against the doctors beliefs NOT the patients. That is not punishing anyone, that is sticking by personal morals

Eh, the patient was punished. You do see that don't you?:rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

Leaving in a moment but I'm going to add one final thing before I go

• A good doctor must be a strong, well-balanced individual.
• Strong, well-balanced people aren't hypocritical.
• Giving a patient treatment despite it being against your beliefs is hypocritical.
• Therefore a doctor who does not abide by their own moral codes and ethics is a poor doctor.

That really should end all arguments but knowing this thread it'll have about 10 more pages by the time I get back.

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

Eh, the patient was punished. You do see that don't you?:rolleyes:

That wasn't the doctor's aim. They weren't punished. They were simply refused by the doctor in question and were given the option to go to another doctor. no one was prevented from getting treatment

strobe

You are all wrong.

gurramok

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

That wasn't the doctor's aim. They weren't punished. They were simply refused by the doctor in question and were given the option to go to another doctor. no one was prevented from getting treatment

This is getting absurd.

So I am a dying patient and the doctor refuses to treat me on religious grounds but there is a doctor 100miles away who will treat me.

In your scenario, i'd have to be transported in an ambulance for many hours. I'd be fecking dead by then :mad:

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

This is getting absurd.

So I am a dying patient and the doctor refuses to treat me on religious grounds but there is a doctor 100miles away who will treat me.

In your scenario, i'd have to be transported in an ambulance for many hours. I'd be fecking dead by then :mad:

Nobody was denied any sort of life saving treatment, the treatments denied were optional treatments. No doctor would deny vital life saving treatment on any grounds as they have taken a Hippocratic Oath.

Irish Catholic Doctors take the following Oath.

"I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation:

To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.
I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform act or omission with direct intent deliberately to end a human life. I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.
With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.
Whatever in connection with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.
While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot."

Part in bold holds relevance.

Marcus.Aurelius

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Leaving in a moment but I'm going to add one final thing before I go

• A good doctor must be a strong, well-balanced individual.
• Strong, well-balanced people aren't hypocritical.
• Giving a patient treatment despite it being against your beliefs is hypocritical.
• Therefore a doctor who does not abide by their own moral codes and ethics is a poor doctor.

That really should end all arguments but knowing this thread it'll have about 10 more pages by the time I get back.

Your third point has nothing to do with medical ethics. Ethics are rules we abide by whether we agree with them or not, they are for the best interests of patients in the vast majority of circumstances. Beliefs are privately held, keep them private, they should not interfere with your duties as a physician in best practice.

End of.

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Not sure if I respond to a poster who constantly shouts abuse at anyone who is non-religious and doesn't care if I wake up in the mornings.:mad:



If you behave, i'll answer you. You should thank me that I have not reported you yet, i'm very tolerant.



What so funny? There was a poster with a so called great knowledge of ethics who kept quoting Santa, that I found amusing.

And whats worrying you? That I stick up for the non-Catholics? :eek:

You are not sticking up for non-Catholics, you are on a personal diatribe. In fact any non_Catholic I know would be highly embarassed by your ranting, allegedly on their behalf. Its funny because your logic is all over the shop. But you are right, its not funny./ Its sad.

HarryPotter41

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Militant atheism. The quintessential example lies above.


Anyway, keep your anti theistic drivel out of this thread. Go to the atheism forum. You'd feel right at home with all the self-righteous back slapping.

Ah yes, the atheism thread, where they talk about God more than any Christian ever does. How they obsess about something they say doesn't even exist. Surely its bordering on insanity to talk at length about things that are not there.

Marcus.Aurelius

Seaneh wrote: »

I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation:

To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.
I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if unless asked by a patient in complete possession of their mental faculties in the presence of verifiable witnesses, having been duly informed of the full ramifications of such a decision nor and only then counsel any such thing nor perform act or omission with direct intent deliberately to end a human life. I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.
With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.
Whatever in connection with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.
While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine, with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot."

FYP to show that the oath itself has huge ethical implications, massive decisions taken on the advice and authority of the Church, none of the crossed out text has any secular basis.

It is interesting, though irrelevant to this discussion, to note that humans are the only animals allowed to suffer in end-of-life agony and prevented from escaping the worst of it by a compassionate euthanisation.