An ethical question

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-09 05:48pm

A 'friend' of mine studying medicine has an attitude which I find questionable. He believes that doctors should be able to do 'whatever it takes' to cure a patient, even if the patient has not consent or has refused consent. I have even seen him attpempt to put this into practice. He intends to become a psychiatrist and has studied a branch of hypnotism called neuro linguistic programming, (something which he is absolutely obsessed with and believes is the cure to all the world's problems. It also seems very flawed, because at least when he tries it, it never works, and it has a very broad and incorrect definition of hypnotism as, anything that changes an emotion, which he uses to cover his abuses of it, as he says 'everyone hypnotises people without even trying' which is true, if you accept his definition of hypnotism) anyway he frequently attempts to use this on people without their knowledge our consent, once I have even seen him try to use on some who expressly told him to "stop that hypnotism crap!". He even tries to use it for personal gain. Fortunately eitehr the whole nlp is crap, or he is crap at it coz it never works. However my points are:

(1) Am I right in thinking his view on curing patients with methods against their wishes is morally wrong?

(2)Assuming (1) is true, what would be some good aruments to use to convince him?

(3)What action should I take given his attempted use of nlp/hypnotism on people without their knowledge, for personal gain? If I am right about (1) what action should I take about that? (Remember he is studying to be a doctor (about to star 4th year medicine) and if he actually was to his nlp to work I think that he would definately cause people harm)

(4)Am I just making a mountain out of a mole hill?

*nlp = neuro linguistic programming

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-09 05:56pm

He sounds like an evil SOB.

1) Yes, but a lot of doctors seem to think this.

2) the world is overpopulated enough, if people want to leave it, they should be given the oportunity
If he includes mental illnesses, then where do you draw the line at what constitutes an 'illness'? He's talking about brainwashing.

3)nlp sounds like it is brainwashing.

Ummm.... Kill Him. For the greater good

(Sorry, I can't think of anyting more helpful)

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-09 06:07pm

1) Yes.

2) If he beliefs that brainwashing people against their will, when you belief that it is in their best interrest, is OK, he is probably beyond all reason.

3) Inform the university that he is attending that one of their students might not be quite sane.

4) No, should this loonie ever actualy become a doctor he could do some damege.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-09 06:24pm

First of, I am reassured, you two have said basically what I have been thinking, just was afraid I might be over reacting, I guess I am not.

innerbrat wrote:He sounds like an evil SOB.

1) Yes, but a lot of doctors seem to think this.

2) the world is overpopulated enough, if people want to leave it, they should be given the oportunity
If he includes mental illnesses, then where do you draw the line at what constitutes an 'illness'? He's talking about brainwashing.

Well it is interesting you should say that coz the line he draws for 'mental illness' is very close to what I would call people who are mentally healthy. I will give the example of the time he tried his nlp against someone's request: We as a group were having a debate on whether to create great art the artist must have experienced suffering. Anyway he was of the view this was untrue, and could not accpet that my friend viewed that it was true. He hounded my friend, for his reasons for feeling this, and then decided that my friend felt this way because he had too much self doubt, and then promplty tried to use nlp on him to cure him of his doubts. This was when my friend said "stop that hypnotism crap!". He then CONTINUED to try nlping him, until my friend gave up protesting.
He viewed someone as mildly mentally ill, because he differed in opinion on a philosophical issue!

I got him to teach a little of this nlp so that I would be able to recognise when he was trying to use it on me or others. I have seen that he tries to use it ALL THE TIME!

Sorry bit of a rant there, oh well.

Edit: removed the extra quote tag.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-09 06:27pm

This is a bit trickier than you might think. Should we over-ride a JW's wishes to not get a life-saving blood transfusion and give it to him anyways?

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-09 06:35pm

Darth Servo wrote:This is a bit trickier than you might think. Should we over-ride a JW's wishes to not get a life-saving blood transfusion and give it to him anyways?

No. You have to respect the beliefs of someone who you are treating. It would be wrong to force them to have a transfusion.

There are a few gray areas with this however:

Children, whom are too young to make up their minds and say that they would rather die than be corrupter by a transfusion.

When someone is unconcious and you cannot confirm that it is stil their wish not to get a transfusion.

Plus, for comedic value: Does it really matter if a few of those damn JW's drop off anyway?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-09 06:36pm

Darth Servo wrote:This is a bit trickier than you might think. Should we over-ride a JW's wishes to not get a life-saving blood transfusion and give it to him anyways?

No, we need less idiots in the world. Let the JW die, that's one less person knocking on my door while I'm watching Star Wars.

However, I would say we should overrule the wishes of a parent if they desire is to let their child die when a simple transfusion would save them.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-09 06:52pm

weemadando wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:This is a bit trickier than you might think. Should we over-ride a JW's wishes to not get a life-saving blood transfusion and give it to him anyways?
No. You have to respect the beliefs of someone who you are treating. It would be wrong to force them to have a transfusion.

There are a few gray areas with this however:

Children, whom are too young to make up their minds and say that they would rather die than be corrupter by a transfusion.

When someone is unconcious and you cannot confirm that it is stil their wish not to get a transfusion.

Plus, for comedic value: Does it really matter if a few of those damn JW's drop off anyway?

Wicked Pilot wrote:However, I would say we should overrule the wishes of a parent if they desire is to let their child die when a simple transfusion would save them.

I agree with that, but I would say that the decision to overule parents wishes should not be taken by just one doctor, i think two would have to agree, to protect them from people like my 'friend'.

With unconscious patients it is harder, I am not really sure, I tink it wouold have to be a case by case thing.

And less JW's means less people interrupting my lunch telling me why they don't want blood transfusions and don't believe in evolution.

Edit: Fixed the quote

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-09 06:53pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Darth Servo wrote: However, I would say we should overrule the wishes of a parent if they desire is to let their child die when a simple transfusion would save them.

Of that child is just a future JW...

Seriously, on that particular issue I'm on the fence... a parent has more right to decide about a child's healthcare than a doctor, but parents make some fucked up decisions, like this whole MMR thing...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-09 06:55pm

This med student of yours wouldn't last five minutes in front of an ethics review board and would be liable for an enormous malpractice suit if he actually hypnotised someone against their will and played with their heads. Plus, he's so egotistical that he characterizes any disagreement with him on subjective matters as mental illness.

My solution, should he attempt to hypnotize you against your will and does not stop even when told to do so, is to respond with physical violence. What he's attempting to do to your brain is akin to attempting to knock you out with cloroform and perform surgery on you. A punch probably isn't necessary--a good hard shove should get the message across.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-01-09 07:05pm

Mr Flibble wrote:A 'friend' of mine studying medicine has an attitude which I find questionable. He believes that doctors should be able to do 'whatever it takes' to cure a patient, even if the patient has not consent or has refused consent. I have even seen him attpempt to put this into practice. He intends to become a psychiatrist and has studied a branch of hypnotism called neuro linguistic programming, (something which he is absolutely obsessed with and believes is the cure to all the world's problems. It also seems very flawed, because at least when he tries it, it never works, and it has a very broad and incorrect definition of hypnotism as, anything that changes an emotion, which he uses to cover his abuses of it, as he says 'everyone hypnotises people without even trying' which is true, if you accept his definition of hypnotism) anyway he frequently attempts to use this on people without their knowledge our consent, once I have even seen him try to use on some who expressly told him to "stop that hypnotism crap!". He even tries to use it for personal gain. Fortunately eitehr the whole nlp is crap, or he is crap at it coz it never works. However my points are:

(1) Am I right in thinking his view on curing patients with methods against their wishes is morally wrong?

(2)Assuming (1) is true, what would be some good aruments to use to convince him?

(3)What action should I take given his attempted use of nlp/hypnotism on people without their knowledge, for personal gain? If I am right about (1) what action should I take about that? (Remember he is studying to be a doctor (about to star 4th year medicine) and if he actually was to his nlp to work I think that he would definately cause people harm)

(4)Am I just making a mountain out of a mole hill?

*nlp = neuro linguistic programming

The solution to this is very simple. Tell him, in a very sincere tone, that he's converted you to his view of illness, and that henceforth, you will follow in his footsteps. Then, whenever he attempts to hypnotize anyone, strike the back of his skull soundly with your fist. Should he become angry or confused, politely inform him that his attempts to control others against their will is a sociopathic behavior, and you're endeavouring to cure him of it. That should solve the problem in short order.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-09 07:12pm

RedImperator wrote:This med student of yours wouldn't last five minutes in front of an ethics review board and would be liable for an enormous malpractice suit if he actually hypnotised someone against their will and played with their heads. Plus, he's so egotistical that he characterizes any disagreement with him on subjective matters as mental illness.

the saddest thing is that to become a med student he he had to get moderately good marks, pass an aptitude test and go throw an INTERVIEW, which is supposed to screen out people just like him. There has been a lot of controversy ver people at this uni with high marks not getting into med because they failed the interview. I know two people who didn't get past that interview that would make FAR superior doctors than him. it is obvious that the process is flawed.

Raoul Duke, Jr.: I like your solution, problem is that would require being in close proximity to him.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-01-09 07:14pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:This is a bit trickier than you might think. Should we over-ride a JW's wishes to not get a life-saving blood transfusion and give it to him anyways?
No, we need less idiots in the world. Let the JW die, that's one less person knocking on my door while I'm watching Star Wars.

However, I would say we should overrule the wishes of a parent if they desire is to let their child die when a simple transfusion would save them.

I don't agree with that at all. A doctor is not his or her patient's legal guardian -- it's not their responsibility if the parent refuses treatment for the child, and they should never have the ability to say, "I don't care if you don't think the kid needs this, I'm here to get paid!" Ugh, no. A hospital where you get your surgery whether you want it or not.

Oh, and about that solution... hey man, don't let personal distaste stand in the way of getting the job done. Motherfucker may smell bad, but every suckerpunch is striking a blow for good health... lol

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-09 07:16pm

innerbrat wrote: Seriously, on that particular issue I'm on the fence... a parent has more right to decide about a child's healthcare than a doctor, but parents make some fucked up decisions, like this whole MMR thing...

Well, for me, if I'm an emergency worker, and there is a kid lying in a pool of blood turning white, I give the goddamn transfusion. Who gives a shit if the parent whines and bitches, that kid's gonna live. If any JWs object, then they can just go fuck themselves.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-09 07:38pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:This is a bit trickier than you might think. Should we over-ride a JW's wishes to not get a life-saving blood transfusion and give it to him anyways?
No, we need less idiots in the world. Let the JW die, that's one less person knocking on my door while I'm watching Star Wars.

However, I would say we should overrule the wishes of a parent if they desire is to let their child die when a simple transfusion would save them.
I don't agree with that at all. A doctor is not his or her patient's legal guardian -- it's not their responsibility if the parent refuses treatment for the child, and they should never have the ability to say, "I don't care if you don't think the kid needs this, I'm here to get paid!" Ugh, no. A hospital where you get your surgery whether you want it or not.

Oh, and about that solution... hey man, don't let personal distaste stand in the way of getting the job done. Motherfucker may smell bad, but every suckerpunch is striking a blow for good health... lol

The trouble is the child has a right to live despite the parents moronic beliefs. The parents have a responsibility to protect the life of the child, and if they can't do that, someone else needs to step in, although the doctor is probably not the best person to make the decision on their own. These beliefs cause objective harm (in the case of no treatment = death of the child). If someone believed that they should hit their child daily, and did so, do you think that the parent should remain the guardian of the child? In this situation the harm is due to inaction of the parents, but they are still acting against the interest of the child and so the state should step in to protect the child.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-01-09 09:03pm

Mr Flibble wrote:A 'friend' of mine studying medicine has an attitude which I find questionable. He believes that doctors should be able to do 'whatever it takes' to cure a patient, even if the patient has not consent or has refused consent. I have even seen him attpempt to put this into practice. He intends to become a psychiatrist and has studied a branch of hypnotism called neuro linguistic programming, (something which he is absolutely obsessed with and believes is the cure to all the world's problems. It also seems very flawed, because at least when he tries it, it never works, and it has a very broad and incorrect definition of hypnotism as, anything that changes an emotion, which he uses to cover his abuses of it, as he says 'everyone hypnotises people without even trying' which is true, if you accept his definition of hypnotism) anyway he frequently attempts to use this on people without their knowledge our consent, once I have even seen him try to use on some who expressly told him to "stop that hypnotism crap!". He even tries to use it for personal gain. Fortunately eitehr the whole nlp is crap, or he is crap at it coz it never works. However my points are:

(1) Am I right in thinking his view on curing patients with methods against their wishes is morally wrong?

(2)Assuming (1) is true, what would be some good aruments to use to convince him?

(3)What action should I take given his attempted use of nlp/hypnotism on people without their knowledge, for personal gain? If I am right about (1) what action should I take about that? (Remember he is studying to be a doctor (about to star 4th year medicine) and if he actually was to his nlp to work I think that he would definately cause people harm)

(4)Am I just making a mountain out of a mole hill?

*nlp = neuro linguistic programming

Your friend sounds like he has a bit of a "God" complex. It's not unusual to run into physicians that think they know everything better than everyone else. While there are some brilliant physicians even they don't know everything. Most physicians are just like everyone else, maybe a little smarter but not always, and everyone needs help getting things right some times.

A lot of the stuff you mention sounds like he may be doing things that could get him in trouble with various ethics boards that over see doctors.

Some of the stuff also sounds like he's pushing the limits of his hypocratic oath to "Do No Harm". Harm can come in other ways than the purely physcial.

Hocho · Post by **Hocho** » 2003-01-09 11:38pm

If you criticize his attempts to brainwash people now, he may just learn to be a bit sneakier about it. Whereas if you let him go on thinking there's nothing wrong with it, he's much more likely to get caught and jailed.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-09 11:55pm

Report him to the university. He's clearly insane. Perhaps you should try some reverse psychology and try to "Cure" him of a random thing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-10 09:35am

He sounds like a freshman-year twerp to me, full of arrogance about what he HOPES to become.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-10 09:40am

I agree with Wong. I have known dozens of kids who finish their first year of university and suddenly think they can take on the world with their newfound knowledge. They're always the ones who think they can point out exactly what is wrong with what every other professional in their industry is doing, too, like they have some revolutionary new perspective or something.

As for your friend's attitude, it sounds less like he wants to help people and more like he wants to mesmerize chicks so he can get laid. Seriously.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-10 11:11am

Darth Wong wrote:He sounds like a freshman-year twerp to me, full of arrogance about what he HOPES to become.

The trouble is, he has just finished 3rd year and will be starting 4th in a couple of weeks. I and a few others have tried arguing with his attitude on ethical grounds, but he has a set of defenses, much like a creationist and a wall of ignorance to match.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-10 11:19am

Third year in what? Psych, or pre-med science? I find that surprising, although not as much if it's psych.

PS. There were doctors in the 1930's who thought it was OK to perform experiments on children, deliberately messing them up for life in order to confirm theories. One well-known experiment successfully made a whole classroom of orphans into chronic stutterers, thus almost ruining their lives. The researcher in charge of the experiment confessed that she felt a little guilty because the lonely orphan kids were so happy to be getting personalized attention. That's why we have ethics review boards and rules; immoral people like him have existed in the past. He won't pass GO, he won't collect $200, and if necessary, you must take it upon yourself to contact the people who can stop him and make sure of that.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-10 11:39am

Darth Wong wrote:Third year in what? Psych, or pre-med science? I find that surprising, although not as much if it's psych.

Well here it is just 3rd year Medicine. They do 6 years of it and 1 year as an intern, so he is almost halfway through. He will if he wants to be a psychiatrist have to specialize in that, taking probably another year (I am not sure, they might do that in the 6th year), but he has already done first yr psych as an elective.

Edit: Fixed the quote

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-10 11:42am

Did he do an intercalated course (i.e. Does he have a BSc)?
Report him to the university, get him kicked out with nothing to show for 4 years work...

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-01-10 01:28pm

Mr Flibble wrote:
The trouble is the child has a right to live despite the parents moronic beliefs. The parents have a responsibility to protect the life of the child, and if they can't do that, someone else needs to step in, although the doctor is probably not the best person to make the decision on their own. These beliefs cause objective harm (in the case of no treatment = death of the child). If someone believed that they should hit their child daily, and did so, do you think that the parent should remain the guardian of the child? In this situation the harm is due to inaction of the parents, but they are still acting against the interest of the child and so the state should step in to protect the child.

And to a point, I do agree with that wholeheartedly. And you hit my objection right on the head -- the doctors -- who get paid for the services the parents are objecting to -- should not be those to whose discretion this choice is entrusted. This is, for me anyway, edging into a sort of post-natal "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" area. Now I understand that may be an inflammatory statement; but just where does the law flip from the right of the parent to determine the life (or death) of the child to the right of the state/medical profession/whoever to seize that choice?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

An ethical question

An ethical question

Re: An ethical question

Re: An ethical question

Re: An ethical question