Doctor withheld cancer diagnosis from trans man because he was transgender.

[Zeke129]

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;47983384]One of the interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath is that as well as not doing harm, a doctor should do all within their power to prevent harm coming to their patients in the first place. For both abortions and euthanasia one could argue that the act prevents further harm (either in the form of emotional distress or genuine damage) to the patient.[/QUOTE]

There is also a fairly widespread notion that the hippocratic oath is outdated. It's already taken only for ceremonial purposes.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=The golden;47984816]I'm surprised you're not in here trying to judge whether or not this trans person is "worthy" of having tax-payer money spent on their medical treatments.[/QUOTE]

That depends on how one approaches healthcare firstly.

[noruzenchi]

I feel as though we should just collectively ignore all ratings on lgbt threads.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47984893]That depends on how one approaches healthcare firstly.[/QUOTE]

So what would be your justification(using medical science) to say that a person who's already undergone the transgender psychiatric process(As they would have had to) needs additional psychiatric treatment instead of cancer treatment?

Or needs the additional psychiatric sessions at all?

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47985212]So what would be your justification(using medical science) to say that a person who's already undergone the transgender psychiatric process(As they would have had to) needs additional psychiatric treatment instead of cancer treatment?

Or needs the additional psychiatric sessions at all?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't even speaking that specifically, The Golden begs the question in that he assumes anyone is worthy of having tax dollars spent on their medical treatments to begin with.

[zukriuchen]

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;47981716]I'm starting to think the Hippocratic Oath should be tattooed to the inside of every doctor's eyelids.[/QUOTE]

should i treat this guy or not? hmm *closes eyes to read the oath*
wait a second i did not think this through

[Ownederd]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47985230]I wasn't even speaking that specifically, The Golden begs the question in that he assumes anyone is worthy of having tax dollars spent on their medical treatments to begin with.[/QUOTE]

when does the barrier of being worthy for medical care get broken

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47985230]I wasn't even speaking that specifically, The Golden begs the question in that he assumes anyone is worthy of having tax dollars spent on their medical treatments to begin with.[/QUOTE]

So you would take away Canada's healthcare system entirely, and just make it all up to each individual?

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47985882]So you would take away Canada's healthcare system entirely, and just make it all up to each individual?[/QUOTE]

I'm actually not averse to nationalized health healthcare when it comes to common ailments, though I would be in favour of a privatized system to work in tandem with it.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47985972]I'm actually not averse to nationalized health healthcare when it comes to common ailments, though I would be in favour of a privatized system to work in tandem with it.[/QUOTE]

Sure a two tiered system is fine, but a public system needs to cover more than a "common ailment". What is a "Common ailment"?

[bitches]

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;47986175]Can we please go back to banning people for rating threads like this winner?

I know people are going to tell me I'm dumb for caring about ratings but I'm getting pretty sick of seeing forum members saying hooray to people being murdered because they are gay or trans or whatever, even if it's in the form of a 16x16 icon.[/QUOTE]

Back? I wasn't aware this ever occurred. The most I saw was a time when garry banned everyone who rated disagree on some particular post of his.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47986059]Sure a two tiered system is fine, but a public system needs to cover more than a "common ailment". What is a "Common ailment"?[/QUOTE]

What is not self explanatory about "common ailments"?

[bitches]

Moderation has become stricter since garry started unbanning everyone on his birthdays again, but I wouldn't hold my breath on troll/hate ratings getting any attention.

[editline]16th June 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;47986211]There was a short period of time where people got banned for this sort of thing on SH but it didn't last very long.[/QUOTE]

[editline]16th June 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986232]What is not self explanatory about "common ailments"?[/QUOTE]

at what percentage of the population do you stop considering something common?

if a government is footing the bill for huge portions of the population to live a better and ailment-free life, why should it stop and not pay a comparatively insignificant amount to include minorities?

[Rangergxi]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47985972]I'm actually not averse to nationalized health healthcare when it comes to common ailments, though I would be in favour of a privatized system to work in tandem with it.[/QUOTE]

I'll make sure to only get common ailments.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=bitches;47986238]at what percentage of the population do you stop considering something common?

if a government is footing the bill for huge portions of the population to live a better and ailment-free life, why should it stop and not pay a comparatively insignificant amount to include minorities?[/QUOTE]

I couldn't give specific percentages off of the top of my head, whatever numbers would start affecting the state as a whole I'd say (heart conditions for instance).

For minority/fluke ailments however that have negligible effects on the functioning of the state, I don't see why people couldn't cover themselves under privatized healthcare. For these sorts of cases people would be paying into-whichever system for fear that they might in the off-chance get them, essentially treating it like private insurance to begin with.

In the end my default position when it comes to spending tax dollars is that whatever bolsters the state as a whole is worth the money (though of course each scenario is worth individual appraisal).

[bitches]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986384]I couldn't give specific percentages off of the top of my head, whatever numbers would start affecting the state as a whole I'd say (heart conditions for instance).

For minority/fluke ailments however that have negligible effects on the functioning of the state, I don't see why people couldn't cover themselves under privatized healthcare. For these sorts of cases people would be paying into-whichever system for fear that they might in the off-chance get them, essentially treating it like private insurance to begin with.

In the end my default position when it comes to spending tax dollars is that whatever bolsters the state as a whole is worth the money (though of course each scenario is worth individual appraisal).[/QUOTE]

yes clearly humanitarian globalized healthcare (which doesn't benefit state wallets) should exclude minorities because that minority cost would be bad for state wallet
clearly privatized healthcare works [I]so[/I] well and guarantees coverage for minorities

you're everything wrong with health care

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986384]I couldn't give specific percentages off of the top of my head, whatever numbers would start affecting the state as a whole I'd say (heart conditions for instance).

For minority/fluke ailments however that have negligible effects on the functioning of the state, I don't see why people couldn't cover themselves under privatized healthcare. For these sorts of cases people would be paying into-whichever system for fear that they might in the off-chance get them, essentially treating it like private insurance to begin with.

In the end my default position when it comes to spending tax dollars is that whatever bolsters the state as a whole is worth the money (though of course each scenario is worth individual appraisal).[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure people dying or being unable to work counts as affecting the state.

As well as going into massive debt because they didn't gamble on getting insurance in exchange for paying extra money.

Are you thinking of "fluke ailments" like minor eye infections or something? Or do you mean "Only a few thousand people have your disease, and we have the ability to treat it, but fuck you, too bad"?

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=Last or First;47986510]I'm pretty sure people dying or being unable to work counts as affecting the state.

As well as going into massive debt because they didn't gamble on getting insurance in exchange for paying extra money.

Are you thinking of "fluke ailments" like minor eye infections or something? Or do you mean "Only a few thousand people have your disease, and we have the ability to treat it, but fuck you, too bad"?[/QUOTE]

The effects on the state almost purely depend on the scale, if you have an individual who is extremely important to the state with a rare ailment they will more than likely be able to get it anyway.

In reference to your final statement, the latter, although when it comes to thousands that is entirely dependant on the population of the country. Tax dollars are not a charity and we do not do things with them simply because we can.

[Coldmute]

So this doctor has been charged with attempted murder, right? He's going to be seeing the inside of a prison cell for a while, right?
Because, what he did is literally attempted murder.

[_jack]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986232]What is not self explanatory about "common ailments"?[/QUOTE]

it's not self-explanatory at all. either spend months perfecting an exhaustive list defining what is and isn't a 'common ailment' or think up something else. i was pleasantly surprised to find out that therapy and psychiatric sessions were covered under Ontario's province-wide plan, but there it is.

[teslacoil]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986384]I couldn't give specific percentages off of the top of my head, whatever numbers would start affecting the state as a whole I'd say (heart conditions for instance).

For minority/fluke ailments however that have negligible effects on the functioning of the state, I don't see why people couldn't cover themselves under privatized healthcare. For these sorts of cases people would be paying into-whichever system for fear that they might in the off-chance get them, essentially treating it like private insurance to begin with.

In the end my default position when it comes to spending tax dollars is that whatever bolsters the state as a whole is worth the money (though of course each scenario is worth individual appraisal).[/QUOTE]

So, are you telling those that get turned away from national healthcare because of stipulations of their ailment and won't be covered by a private healthcare provider because of money to just go rot?

How is that any better than what we have?

[Headhumpy]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986559]The effects on the state almost purely depend on the scale, if you have an individual who is extremely important to the state with a rare ailment they will more than likely be able to get it anyway.

In reference to your final statement, the latter, although when it comes to thousands that is entirely dependant on the population of the country. Tax dollars are not a charity and we do not do things with them simply because we can.[/QUOTE]

So a cleaner who gets a rare form of cancer that requires a very specific and expensive treatment has less of a right to live than a billionaire who gets the same type of cancer?

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986559]The effects on the state almost purely depend on the scale, if you have an individual who is extremely important to the state with a rare ailment they will more than likely be able to get it anyway.

In reference to your final statement, the latter, although when it comes to thousands that is entirely dependant on the population of the country. Tax dollars are not a charity and we do not do things with them simply because we can.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it the government's job to protect the lives of its citizens?
Sure, you're not killing a foreigner or imprisoning a poor and/or mentally ill person by treating diseases, but it still saves someone's life.
If a murderer vows "that's the only person I'm going to kill", is it okay to let them go because "oh, it's not like they're going to kill anyone else"? Because "it's just one person, and tax dollars aren't a charity"?

Of course not. So why is it different when we're not killing or imprisoning someone in the process?

[Thelurker1234]

Honestly after you take a look at socialized health care and how effective it's been for many of the countries that have employed it I have no idea how you could be against it besides "MUH NANNY STATE"

[Rangergxi]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;47986866]Honestly after you take a look at socialized health care and how effective it's been for many of the countries that have employed it I have no idea how you could be against it besides "MUH NANNY STATE"[/QUOTE]

[video=youtube;YUXwDMqjC-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A[/video]

The arguments against it are always insane.

[bitches]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;47986866]Honestly after you take a look at socialized health care and how effective it's been for many of the countries that have employed it I have no idea how you could be against it besides "MUH NANNY STATE"[/QUOTE]

because fuck the poor, judging by bigfatworm's bait

[Kommodore]

big shout out to our [URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=504378"]Lium[/URL] for confirming once and for all via ratings that you're a huge piece of shit

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47986384]I couldn't give specific percentages off of the top of my head, whatever numbers would start affecting the state as a whole I'd say (heart conditions for instance).

For minority/fluke ailments however that have negligible effects on the functioning of the state, I don't see why people couldn't cover themselves under privatized healthcare. For these sorts of cases people would be paying into-whichever system for fear that they might in the off-chance get them, essentially treating it like private insurance to begin with.

In the end my default position when it comes to spending tax dollars is that whatever bolsters the state as a whole is worth the money (though of course each scenario is worth individual appraisal).[/QUOTE]

So if I was afflicted by a rare disease that I did nothing to give myself, I should suffer and die unless I have the money to pay?

Wow. I seriously bet the Pope would say "What is wrong with you" to that.

[Sonador]

Healthcare is a crapshoot financially.

It's ludicrously expensive to properly train and equip people to properly care for others comprehensively, and it's also very likely that poor and underprivileged are more likely to suffer health problems and injury.

I think it makes sense for major economic/financial powerhouses such as the government to subsidize healthcare to ensure their citizens have reasonably affordable healthcare and that being unfortunate enough to become severely injured or sick doesn't financially ruin them.

[Unknown]

[QUOTE=Glaber;47981896]Despite my Stance on Trangenderism, what this doctor did was clearly in the wrong.

It doesn't matter if people think your life style is wrong, if you have a life threatening condition, you should be treated for it like anyone else.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why people are rating this post dumb.

I presume it's because of "Despite my Stance on Trangenderism". If so, I think you are missing the point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; what someone believes is irrelevant, it is how those beliefs shape their actions that matter.

For example, if someone says they don't believe in abortion, no one should "take offence" regardless of if you agree or not; if someone says they don't believe in abortion and abortion should be banned, then you can because their actions, driven by their beliefs, are impacting other people. This is a key distinction to make. Plenty of people don't believe in abortion but aren't trying to ban others from being able to do it.

Glaber's point is something I think we can all agree with; the action they purport is one of equality. That is all that should matter.