Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 28, 2014, 11:47 AM   #126
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
I'm not sure about those cases, but wasn't one of the biggest issues in this case that the mother (and therefore the baby) had been without oxygen for almost an hour?

I just wonder how long the doctor's knew the fetus wasn't going to be viable? One of the worries about a law like this is that it could have caused unnecessary suffering (and piling up of legal bills) for all involved because of the delay caused by having to go through the courts.
It's fairly easy to assess fetal well being, with a rhythm strip that looks at fetal heart rate variability.

And the baby was non-viable all along if only because it hadn't reached the age of viability yet. So the doctors knew it the whole time. They were merely trying to allow the fetus to reach the age of viability (23-24 weeks) in an attempt to give it a shot at life.
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 12:13 PM   #127
maflynn
Moderator
 
maflynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston
[MOD NOTE]
Lets stay on topic, the other off topic posts on this page were removed.
__________________
~Mike Flynn
maflynn is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 12:26 PM   #128
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
It's fairly easy to assess fetal well being, with a rhythm strip that looks at fetal heart rate variability.

And the baby was non-viable all along if only because it hadn't reached the age of viability yet. So the doctors knew it the whole time. They were merely trying to allow the fetus to reach the age of viability (23-24 weeks) in an attempt to give it a shot at life.
I guess my question was were they attempting to give it a shot at life, or were they trying to follow the law? Would they have acquiesced sooner to the husband's request had the law not been in place?
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 12:33 PM   #129
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
I guess my question was were they attempting to give it a shot at life, or were they trying to follow the law? Would they have acquiesced sooner to the husband's request had the law not been in place?
I think they were doing both. But yes, I think they would have followed the husbands request if the law was not in place.
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 12:44 PM   #130
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
I think they were doing both. But yes, I think they would have followed the husbands request if the law was not in place.
That was the conundrum I was alluding to. The DNR and husband's requests were at one end, and the law they had to follow was at the other, and they were in complete conflict. There is absolutely no doubt that lawmakers did not think of scenarios like this, to know how to address it. At that point in legislation, they should have taken pause to address the issues that would arise; they didn't, and this was the price for it.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 01:13 PM   #131
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
That was the conundrum I was alluding to. The DNR and husband's requests were at one end, and the law they had to follow was at the other, and they were in complete conflict. There is absolutely no doubt that lawmakers did not think of scenarios like this, to know how to address it. At that point in legislation, they should have taken pause to address the issues that would arise; they didn't, and this was the price for it.

BL.
When the government is taking medical decisions out of the hands of medical professionals and family members, only bad things will come of it.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 02:17 PM   #132
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
When the government is taking medical decisions out of the hands of medical professionals and family members, only bad things will come of it.
Unless you agree with the decisions the government is making, am I right?
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 02:29 PM   #133
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Unless you agree with the decisions the government is making, am I right?
So, as a future doctor, you're ok with allowing the government to make medical decisions which may counteract your medical expertise? Or maybe you'll be ok with just the ones you agree with?

And seriously, it's getting old.....
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 02:39 PM   #134
steve knight
macrumors 65816
 
steve knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
of course now it starts

DALLAS (AP) - The removal of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman from life support has four influential Republicans running for lieutenant governor agreeing again, this time that a judge erred and they'd tighten state law so it doesn't happen in the future.

But the first statewide televised debate Monday night in Texas' most competitive primary also revealed new distinctions - and new attacks. It comes with fewer than six weeks left in a race among four big-name Republicans, all of whom are almost ideologically identical.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and state Sen. Dan Patrick all say a state judge made a mistake by ordering Marlise Munoz and her 23-week-old fetus off life support.

It was the first statewide televised debate. The primary is March 4.
__________________
CNCrouting.biz
steve knight is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 03:12 PM   #135
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
So, as a future doctor, you're ok with allowing the government to make medical decisions which may counteract your medical expertise? Or maybe you'll be ok with just the ones you agree with?

And seriously, it's getting old.....
As a future doctor I plan to follow the law; plain and simple.

If it's getting old, please feel free to bow out.
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 03:21 PM   #136
noisycats
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MeijerLand
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
As a future doctor I plan to follow the law; plain and simple.

If it's getting old, please feel free to bow out.
But wait, you've already stated in another thread that regardless of legality, you won't participate in two specific procedures.

So in essence, you back the government when they agree with your principles. But when they don't, you won't. Am I right?
noisycats is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 03:55 PM   #137
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisycats View Post
But wait, you've already stated in another thread that regardless of legality, you won't participate in two specific procedures.

So in essence, you back the government when they agree with your principles. But when they don't, you won't. Am I right?
There is currently not a law requiring physicians to participate in those procedures so I won't be running afoul of the law by refusing. I'm not sure what you're tryingn to get at with this.
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2014, 04:19 PM   #138
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
As a future doctor I plan to follow the law; plain and simple.

If it's getting old, please feel free to bow out.
You should try thinking for yourself.

It's liberating not having to base opinions on what the government or church tells you is right.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2014, 09:45 AM   #139
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
There is currently not a law requiring physicians to participate in those procedures so I won't be running afoul of the law by refusing. I'm not sure what you're tryingn to get at with this.
How about running afoul of your employer?
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2014, 10:10 AM   #140
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
How about running afoul of your employer?
You clearly don't understand how most physicians are employed, do you. Doctors are generally quite independent, and are not required to do any work they are not completely comfortable with.

But no, I would never work for a group/hospital that required those procedures. Not that such a group exists. And not that I plan on becoming the type of physician who is involved in that type of care anyway.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
You should try thinking for yourself.

It's liberating not having to base opinions on what the government or church tells you is right.
I agree, I do it every day.
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC