Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Lou's response- The Hsi-Pil discussion -trnzehytmp

Posted by bryte on September 9, 2014, at 0:28:41

In reply to Lou's response- The Hsi-Pil discussion -trnzehytmp » bryte, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 14:33:41

> But do you see the grammatical structure of the statement here by Mr. Hsuing to at least be taken as I see it by average readers, or do you see something else that I do not see?


>And also, do you see that what Mr. Hsiung posted here could be considered by a subset or readers to be a transparent attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism and defamation against me to be seen as civil, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole where no justification
> is deserved?
> Lou

There is a rational basis for a subset of readers to conclude misinformed consent enforces acceptance of some flawed assumptions that:

1. No results are promised
2. If there are results, the results will be beneficial for a "group"
3. If one person suffers harm by way of embarrassment or otherwise, a greater number of persons will benefit.
4. Even if no individual benefits, the "group" may benefit.
4. A host's good intentions are sufficient to mitigate whatever harm any one person or group of persons suffers from activities claimed to benefit an amorphous stream of visitors classified as a group.

Those assumptions do not fulfill the promises of the Hippocratic Oath. The oath addresses patients in the plural and in the singular. In no case does the oath address a physician's obligation to a group. It says a physician will prescribe regimens for the benefit of patients, but will not harm any one.

The oath does not say a physician will prescribe regimes that benefit some patients at the expense of others.

The oath does not say "I swear to do no harm... except when I am not involved in a doctor-patient relationship, at which time I may do things that are harmful to some but in my judgement may benefit others."

It says "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients." Every house. Whether wearing the stethoscope or the golf cleats. Whether entering as a practitioner or as a scholar. Whether as a private business owner hosting a milieu online at no cost to invitees or as a caregiver for an academic institution providing a confidential milieu under contractual employment obligations.

In no phrase of the Hippocratic Oath nor in standards of care expected of healthcare professionals -- on the job or otherwise -- are found expectations or justifications for a caregiver to provide non-emergency care for some knowing that others may suffer harm. When two alternatives exist, one which may harm some but theoretically benefit others, and the other alternative may do no harm and may benefit others, the least harmful option would always be better.

A physician may no more single out one person to endure greater harm for the good of a group than a physician may ethically administer lethal drugs under license of a court order. As Lou is wont to remind us, governments have at times licensed physicians to commit the most egregious harm, but that license does not make it ethical - nor lawful under international law.

Especially when a doctor invites visitors to a group in part for the purpose of informing case studies that fulfill a significant portion of his professional imperative to publish or perish a doctor must avoid situations that systematically embarrass, frustrate or disadvantage some invitees.

A subset of readers could consider it misguided for a physician to choose whom will enjoy protection of administrative interventions among a stream of visitors, and claim the administrator's privately held reason justifies overtly protecting some by publicly embarrassing those who may offend them while denying protection to others.

A less harmful means exists to reach the same end. Offending content can be removed. It is the practice used by the vast majority of service providers managing interaction among hundreds of millions of social media users.

An assertion that the better approach is to embarrass some members, some times, for the benefit of other visitors at other times requires evidence. That evidence is not found in the continuing disquiet and discomfort expressed among guests of this social network.

Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit others - certainly not in a non-emergency setting the physician created in part to provide cases for study. In triage situations, physicians may select some patients to receive care while others do not, but ethical doctors do not otherwise invite patients to join groups where some will ostensibly benefit by witnessing embarrassment of others.

Ethical physicians in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue.


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:bryte thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070930.html