Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[alzan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloendorff_v._Society_of_New_York_Hospital

The doctor thought the tumor needed to be removed and and removed it without the consent of the patient.

The court decision,



Do you see that? Maybe you are blind? Maybe just trolling?

"a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault"

But courts and judges have made bad decisions before, right? Slavery, prohibition, etc.

Why do you now side with the courts instead of pointing previous bad decisions?

Because you are now, have always been and will continue to be a TROLL.

Go take a hike, Texas.

 

[Texashiker]

Sounds more realistic and believable, not something TH would really care about. Guy needs a new hobby, trolling is getting old.

Gee it almost sounds like that first hospital knew exactly what it was doing from the beginning.

Wow, just wow. Yall are ignoring a lot of important facts.

The hospital made the first threat.

The woman was trying to protect her body from a medical procedure she did not consent to.

How difficult is that to understand?

Per United States Code that I've already quoted in this thread, her showing up at the hospital in labor would be considered a medical emergency.

Did you read the article? Probably not.

The hospital did not say "if you show up here in labor".

The letter said, if you set foot inside the hospital.

Where do you get her walking into a hospital is a medical emergency?



It is really sad how many people here support the hospital forcing a woman to go trough a medical procedure she did not consent to.

Yall better hope you are never in disagreement with your doctor. One day you might find yourself being restrained against your will.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting comment on that article:

Wow, what an incredibly sensible tact for the hospital to take. Who'd a thunk it?

Oh, right. Almost everybody.

 

[Texashiker]

But courts and judges have made bad decisions before, right? Slavery, prohibition, etc.

Better hope you are never in disagreement or deny medical care from your doctor.

You might find yourself strapped to a bed being cut open against your will.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wow, what an incredibly sensible tact for the hospital to take. Who'd a thunk it?

Oh, right. Almost everybody.

It's exactly how the hospital spelled it out for my wife and I on our second child.

 

[alzan]

Better hope you are never in disagreement or deny medical care from your doctor.

You might find yourself strapped to a bed being cut open against your will.

Yawn, go play with your chickens.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wow, just wow. Yall are ignoring a lot of important facts.

yea, facts. lol....

 

[Texashiker]

Yawn, go play with your chickens.

If a hospital can make the woman in the opening post go through a medical procedure she does not consent to, what is stopping a doctor or hospital from doing the same to you?

 

[werepossum]

It's exactly how the hospital spelled it out for my wife and I on our second child.

Which is only medically responsible.

 

[alzan]

If a hospital can make the woman in the opening post go through a medical procedure she does not consent to, what is stopping a doctor or hospital from doing the same to you?

Unlike her I'm able to weigh the evidence and see the sense of the doctor's advice. If I hadn't done so last year I wouldn't be posting this now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow, what an incredibly sensible tact for the hospital to take. Who'd a thunk it?

Oh, right. Almost everybody.

I think it'd be easier for me to ignore this flavor of stupid if it wasn't related to what I do. I've seen some sad realities, really tragic things, and here some guy doesn't consider harmful consequences to irresponsible actions. Imagine a gun rights supporter saying the right to bear arms means it would be a violation of human rights if he couldn't order another to fire into a crowd. No right is free from responsibility and the greater the potential harm the more due diligence must be applied. This is a fundamental requirement in any so called free society.

 

[Texashiker]

Unlike her I'm able to weigh the evidence and see the sense of the doctor's advice. If I hadn't done so last year I wouldn't be posting this now.

Doctor - You have cancer and need aggressive treatment.
alzan - what are my chances?
Doctor - 50/50
alzan - I have led a good life, thank you but I would like to die with dignity.
Doctor - stay right here.
Doctor - calls lawyer, gets a court order, restrains you and makes you go through treatment.

Do not make excuses and do not minimize the impact of this example on patient rights.

 

[MrPickins]

Wow, just wow. Yall are ignoring a lot of important facts.

The only one with blinders on here is you.

Did you read the article? Probably not.

The hospital did not say "if you show up here in labor".

The letter said, if you set foot inside the hospital.

Where do you get her walking into a hospital is a medical emergency?

I read the article, but it provides no evidence for its claims of what action the hospital took. You know, the claims refuted by the article comment I quoted (that made a whole lot more sense than the media coverage).


At this point there is not much left to say other than this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Texashiker]

Imagine a gun rights supporter saying the right to bear arms means it would be a violation of human rights if he couldn't order another to fire into a crowd.

No right is free from responsibility and the greater the potential harm the more due diligence must be applied. This is a fundamental requirement in any so called free society.

How is harming other people even related to the article? Because there was a chance the child could be harmed.

Was the child harmed by attempting a vaginal delivery?

Is there something wrong with trying a course of treatment?

So tell me, would you be ok with a doctor restraining you against your will?

Of course you would not.

But because the article in the opening post does not affect you you have no empathy for the lady. Through this whole thread just about everyone has shown a lack of empathy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Doctor - You have cancer and need aggressive treatment.
alzan - what are my chances?
Doctor - 50/50
alzan - I have led a good life, thank you but I would like to die with dignity.
Doctor - stay right here.
Doctor - calls lawyer, gets a court order, restrains you and makes you go through treatment.

Do not make excuses and do not minimize the impact of this example on patient rights.

Tx - my son has head lice.
doc- Here, this will clear that right up.
Tx- well you can't guarantee 100% it will work the first time so set his head on fire.
doc- GTFO
Tx- oh my human rights have been violated!

 

[Texashiker]

Tx - my son has head lice.
doc- Here, this will clear that right up.
Tx- well you can't guarantee 100% it will work the first time so set his head on fire.
doc- GTFO
Tx- oh my human rights have been violated!

haha, not funny. Do you have proof the child was harmed from trying a vaginal delivery?

What is stopping the hospital in the opening post from restraining you against your will?

 

[alzan]

Doctor - You have cancer and need aggressive treatment.
alzan - what are my chances?
Doctor - 50/50
alzan - I have led a good life, thank you but I would like to die with dignity.
Doctor - stay right here.
Doctor - calls lawyer, gets a court order, restrains you and makes you go through treatment.

Do not make excuses and do not minimize the impact of this example on patient rights.

I suppose I could have gone to a different doctor and let him try to reduce the tumor with chemo and radiation, which would have been less than a 50/50 chance of survival. But silly me I let him remove the affected organ, giving me a 100% chance of survival.

The woman in the OP had the option of doing the risk-filled vbac at another hospital, just like I had the option of a 50/50 chance with chemo and radiation.

Quit making a mountain out of a molehill; you're not concerned at all with patient rights, all you want to do is argue and "trap" people with their answers.

 

[Phanuel]

Tx - my son has head lice.
doc- Here, this will clear that right up.
Tx- well you can't guarantee 100% it will work the first time so set his head on fire.
doc- GTFO
Tx- oh my human rights have been violated!

Or;

Tx - my daughter wants an invasive birth control surgery
doc - has she tried birth control pills, or condoms?
Tx - her body, her choice, do it!
doc - I'd rather not, and you can't afford it
Tx - oh my human rights have been violated!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Or;

Tx - my daughter wants an invasive birth control surgery
doc - has she tried birth control pills, or condoms?
Tx - her body, her choice, do it!
doc - I'd rather not, and you can't afford it
Tx - oh my human rights have been violated!

don't forget, the tax payers should have to pay for his daughters promiscuous behavior as well.

 

[SlowSpyder]

don't forget, the tax payers should have to pay for his daughters promiscuous behavior as well.

It does almost sound like he feels that any medical treatment a patient wants should be a social right. Odd, huh?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is harming other people even related to the article? Because there was a chance the child could be harmed.

Was the child harmed by attempting a vaginal delivery?

Is there something wrong with trying a course of treatment?

So tell me, would you be ok with a doctor restraining you against your will?

Of course you would not.

But because the article in the opening post does not affect you you have no empathy for the lady. Through this whole thread just about everyone has shown a lack of empathy.

Although I'm not a physician but "First do no harm" applies to me as a provider. Not once in this entire thread did you acknowledge that actions have consequences and if the current state of medicine demonstrates that harm would certainly result to a person then it would be immoral to do so. Your insistence on absolute freedom of choice means someone's child will die. Why? Because not everyone is qualified to make a rational judgment based on training, experience and knowledge. You want to swallow a bottle of bleach? Fine, but don't try to exercise your "human rights" by violating another's and forcing them to poison you.

So if you sincerely believe forcing a child to swallow a couple bottles of iodine is good for them they'll die anyway. What should happen to you if you kill your child in this way?

 

[Texashiker]

Not once in this entire thread did you acknowledge that actions have consequences

Oh course actions have consequences. Everything we do in life has some kind of consequence.

If the child was harmed because the mother ignored the medical advice of the doctor, she should pay for that.

But where do we draw the line at? Should parents who do not fully vaccinate their children be arrested? Child was not vaccinated against measles, catches the disease and dies. Should the parents be charged with a crime?

Kid riding a bike without a helmet. Gets in wreck with car and dies.

I am just throwing examples out there. They do not have to be answered.

Everything we do in life has some kind of risk.

Something like 10 years ago there was a young man who had both arms ripped off during a farm equipment accident.

Yes there is risk to the baby, there is risk in everything we do.

Your insistence on absolute freedom of choice means someone's child will die.

The child "may" be harmed.

 

[Phanuel]

So you're just misconstruing the actual facts so that you can build up some righteous indignation about nothing?

Excellent.

 

[Texashiker]

So you're just misconstruing the actual facts so that you can build up some righteous indignation about nothing?

Excellent.

Absolutely not.

Do you violate someones rights because of a perceived risk?

Yes there was an increased risk to the child. How much risk risk? So that gives the doctor and hospital permission to restrain and preform a medical procedure against her will?

Well, if we are going to start minimizing risk, when do we start giving lobotomies to convicts?

 

[Exophase]

I love TH threads. Every other thread on P&N results in an explosion of angry bickering, but here everyone can come together to disagree with one person.