Medical ethics question

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sure, but that's nothing to do with medical ethics.
A sensitive practitioner takes cultural hang-ups into account; has a nurse take the history of female patients; screen patient for suitability at student rounds; have their mothers present; drape them with sheets - even refer to a colleague with whom they would feel more comfortable. An insensitive one doesn't notice - and sometimes that indifference is less embarrassing for the patient than consideration. You do the best you can for each one. Their hang-ups are something they have to deal with.

To say such things, in my book, sells doctors kind of long, as if they know everything. And if we're talking about allopathic doctors, which I'm sure we are, as they have the monopoly, they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, nothing personal to any doctors present.

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

Sure, but that's nothing to do with medical ethics.
A sensitive practitioner takes cultural hang-ups into account; has a nurse take the history of female patients; screen patient for suitability at student rounds; have their mothers present; drape them with sheets - even refer to a colleague with whom they would feel more comfortable. An insensitive one doesn't notice - and sometimes that indifference is less embarrassing for the patient than consideration. You do the best you can for each one. Their hang-ups are something they have to deal with.

To say such things, in my book, sells doctors kind of long, as if they know everything. And if we're talking about allopathic doctors, which I'm sure we are, as they have the monopoly, they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, nothing personal to any doctors present.

Maybe in some cases ALTERNATIVE or COMPLIMENTARY MEDICINE may not be quackery.

[Blaggard]

Sure, but that's nothing to do with medical ethics.
A sensitive practitioner takes cultural hang-ups into account; has a nurse take the history of female patients; screen patient for suitability at student rounds; have their mothers present; drape them with sheets - even refer to a colleague with whom they would feel more comfortable. An insensitive one doesn't notice - and sometimes that indifference is less embarrassing for the patient than consideration. You do the best you can for each one. Their hang-ups are something they have to deal with.

To say such things, in my book, sells doctors kind of long, as if they know everything. And if we're talking about allopathic doctors, which I'm sure we are, as they have the monopoly, they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, nothing personal to any doctors present.

Maybe in some cases ALTERNATIVE or COMPLIMENTARY MEDICINE may not be quackery.

And if it isn't all it has to do is prove it isn't. It's not that hard...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sure, but that's nothing to do with medical ethics.
A sensitive practitioner takes cultural hang-ups into account; has a nurse take the history of female patients; screen patient for suitability at student rounds; have their mothers present; drape them with sheets - even refer to a colleague with whom they would feel more comfortable. An insensitive one doesn't notice - and sometimes that indifference is less embarrassing for the patient than consideration. You do the best you can for each one. Their hang-ups are something they have to deal with.

To say such things, in my book, sells doctors kind of long, as if they know everything. And if we're talking about allopathic doctors, which I'm sure we are, as they have the monopoly, they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, nothing personal to any doctors present.

Maybe in some cases ALTERNATIVE or COMPLIMENTARY MEDICINE may not be quackery.

And if it isn't all it has to do is prove it isn't. It's not that hard...

I'd bet on Naturopathy and a Holistic approach every time!

[Skip]

I'd bet on Naturopathy and a Holistic approach every time!

You have every right to do so.
Meanwhile, real doctors have the law of the land, plus their professional colleges, administrators, oversight committees, insurance lawyers and review boards to answer to, as well as their own consciences. Doctors are individual human beings, just as patients are all individuals... only, doctors are under a helluva lot more scrutiny than people in almost any other field.

BTW Portioning out patients within a shared practice is not very popular: most patients prefer to tell their intimate troubles to only one person. But they are sent to specialists with some particular complaints, including those that involve the reproductive system.

[Blaggard]

And if it isn't all it has to do is prove it isn't. It's not that hard...

I'd bet on Naturopathy and a Holistic approach every time!

Well there is one born every minute...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVV3QQ3wjC8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGSBp_ODzxw

[SpheresOfBalance]

And if it isn't all it has to do is prove it isn't. It's not that hard...

I'd bet on Naturopathy and a Holistic approach every time!

Well there is one born every minute...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVV3QQ3wjC8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGSBp_ODzxw

Sorry but that doesn't apply, look at the specific words I used, don't get confused, now, good try though!

"I often wonder why some merely respond to their preconceptions, as if they're really talking to me."

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'd bet on Naturopathy and a Holistic approach every time!

You have every right to do so.
Meanwhile, real doctors have the law of the land, plus their professional colleges, administrators, oversight committees, insurance lawyers and review boards to answer to, as well as their own consciences. Doctors are individual human beings, just as patients are all individuals... only, doctors are under a helluva lot more scrutiny than people in almost any other field.

BTW Portioning out patients within a shared practice is not very popular: most patients prefer to tell their intimate troubles to only one person. But they are sent to specialists with some particular complaints, including those that involve the reproductive system.

No you misunderstood. It had nothing to do with my rights, rather what was right (correct)! I was speaking of the newest frontier, epigenetics. Sorry, try again.

"I often wonder why some merely respond to their preconceptions, as if they're really talking to me."

[Blaggard]

Well there is one born every minute...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVV3QQ3wjC8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGSBp_ODzxw

Sorry but that doesn't apply, look at the specific words I used, don't get confused, now, good try though!

"I often wonder why some merely respond to their preconceptions, as if they're really talking to me."

Never imagine that a persons misunderstanding is their fault, if they misunderstood despite clear words, it is still your fault. If they misunderstand several times despite careful explanation they are an idiot, but it is still your fault.

Even a tardlord can understand something explained well, it is hubris to expect though that anyone will understand anything explained badly...

I am well aware of what epigenetics is but considering what you said, I fail to see how it was related..?

[SpheresOfBalance]

That some mistake "Naturopathy" and "Holism" for "Homeopathy" is their mistake!

I mean, do they really require I post a definition as well? sheesh!

[Blaggard]

That some mistake "Naturopathy" and "Holism" for "Homeopathy" is their mistake!

I mean, do they really require I post a definition as well? sheesh!

Actually yes because holism is a broad church as I am sure you know...

[SpheresOfBalance]

That some mistake "Naturopathy" and "Holism" for "Homeopathy" is their mistake!

I mean, do they really require I post a definition as well? sheesh!

Actually yes because holism is a broad church as I am sure you know...

Possibly, but one should not presume to know, in their expanding of ones meaning. And no, it is not incumbent upon the wielder of words to ensure the receiver understands, in a single volley, rather it's incumbent upon the receiver, through their initial volley, to do so, before they argue against it, or else to retract, once it's made clear.

Here's an extremely infamous paraphrase for you: 'your meaning is only contained in my response.' I won't beat a dead horse, by going into details, suffice it to say, it's ground already covered. Total BS!


Actually it said: "YOUR MEANING IS IN THE RESPONSE THAT IT GETS," Total bullshit as read. Of course their long winded explanation of what, "they said," was contained within those words actually did make sense, and I agreed 100%. But those words are in no way representative of the explanation. Those words, as read, are total BS. More correctly: "ONES UNDERSTANDING IS IN THE RESPONSE THAT THEY GIVE," which is a no brainer.

[Blaggard]

That some mistake "Naturopathy" and "Holism" for "Homeopathy" is their mistake!

I mean, do they really require I post a definition as well? sheesh!

Actually yes because holism is a broad church as I am sure you know...

Possibly, but one should not presume to know, in their expanding of ones meaning. And no, it is not incumbent upon the wielder of words to ensure the receiver understands, in a single volley, rather it's incumbent upon the receiver, through their initial volley, to do so, before they argue against it, or else to retract, once it's made clear.

Here's an extremely infamous paraphrase for you: 'your meaning is only contained in my response.' I won't beat a dead horse, by going into details, suffice it to say, it's ground already covered. Total BS!

I disagree if you cannot explain your meaning why are you on a philosophy forum at all. It's incumbent on people who profess a knowledge of philosophy to be able to explain themselves, it is not incumbent on the usual suspects to instantly know meaning from vague obfuscation. If you can't explain what you mean, and people misconstrue in a medium like this, it is only your fault and your fault alone...

"Here's an extremely infamous paraphrase for you: 'your meaning is only contained in my response.' I won't beat a dead horse, by going into details, suffice it to say, it's ground already covered. Total BS!"

The art of conversation is not one that lends well to trite homily or parable therefore, if you can't describe your meaning amongst people educated to know reason and language, then it is your deficit not theirs.

The fault is yours, you should know better, and ultimately know better how to relate to the subject and in context without bamboozling people with snide verbiage, asides and subtle word tricks. If it becomes too hard to explain to the hoi poloi or the peasantry it is your fault, only your fault and no-one elses. Speak more appositely or do not, but don't blame your banality of apt on the masses inability to comprehend your word salad.

I apologise for nothing... are not the words of the formally didactic.

Actually it said: "YOUR MEANING IS IN THE RESPONSE THAT IT GETS," Total bullshit as read. Of course their long winded explanation of what, "they said," was contained within those words actually did make sense, and I agreed 100%. But those words are in no way representative of the explanation. Those words, as read, are total BS. More correctly: "ONES UNDERSTANDING IS IN THE RESPONSE THAT THEY GIVE," which is a no brainer.

Aye we are agreed hence.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That some mistake "Naturopathy" and "Holism" for "Homeopathy" is their mistake!

I mean, do they really require I post a definition as well? sheesh!

Actually yes because holism is a broad church as I am sure you know...

Possibly, but one should not presume to know, in their expanding of ones meaning. And no, it is not incumbent upon the wielder of words to ensure the receiver understands, in a single volley, rather it's incumbent upon the receiver, through their initial volley, to do so, before they argue against it, or else to retract, once it's made clear.

Here's an extremely infamous paraphrase for you: 'your meaning is only contained in my response.' I won't beat a dead horse, by going into details, suffice it to say, it's ground already covered. Total BS!

I disagree if you cannot explain your meaning why are you on a philosophy forum at all. It's incumbent on people who profess a knowledge of philosophy to be able to explain themselves, it is not incumbent on the usual suspects to instantly know meaning from vague obfuscation. If you can't explain what you mean, and people misconstrue in a medium like this, it is only your fault and your fault alone...

"Here's an extremely infamous paraphrase for you: 'your meaning is only contained in my response.' I won't beat a dead horse, by going into details, suffice it to say, it's ground already covered. Total BS!"

The art of conversation is not one that lends well to trite homily or parable therefore, if you can't describe your meaning amongst people educated to know reason and language, then it is your deficit not theirs.

The fault is yours, you should know better, and ultimately know better how to relate to the subject and in context without bamboozling people with snide verbiage, asides and subtle word tricks. If it becomes too hard to explain to the hoi poloi or the peasantry it is your fault, only your fault and no-one elses. Speak more appositely or do not, but don't blame your banality of apt on the masses.

All total BS as it supposes you are the smart one, quite the contrary. If a phrase seems vacant, (ambiguous), of anything worth while, one should pass it by, not make up there own version and then hold it's wielder accountable. That's your ego's auto-erotica talking.

[Blaggard]

All total BS as it supposes you are the smart one, quite the contrary. If a phrase seems vacant, (ambiguous), of anything worth while, one should pass it by, not make up there own version and then hold it's wielder accountable. That's your ego's auto-erotica talking.

Well you must ask then why you are here, for one upmanship and verbal masturbation, or to actually philosophise? The point of converse is to make yourself understood no? Not to dance around issues, talk nonsense and generally confuse people?

My ego and super ego are beside the point they are obviously in a constant act of coitus, but I fail to see the relevance of it.

I never said I was smart, you have induced I think I am, I might be a ficking tardlord, I am not really concerned about "smart" just learning about philosophy. I am of course male, and hence by definition 5 and a half at best mentally, but I know one thing and that is 5 or 100, I do likes me the learning.