Oklahoma, what have you done?!

[RuleBritannia]

Note to anyone else who might disagree with my position:

I'm willing to discuss this issue in a mature fashion. But if you just feel like acting immaturely (see above post) that's fine, but I'd appreciate knowing in advance so I don't waste my time typing thorough responses.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Trolldor]

I support it.

Not forcing people to do something = freedom.

Let women choose honest doctors and put the liars and secret-keepers out of business.

What a fucking idiotic attitude to have. You do realise that what you're advocating impinges on a woman's freedom to have full and correct information about the child they're carrying? And the importance of having readily available doctors? I take it you're not exactly involved in the medical profession, even as a patient, because if you were you'd understand how important it is to be able to have a local doctor you can trust. It's more than just getting medical advice, as a doctor is a font of connections for network groups and associations and specialists - for example support groups that would help women who do choose to keep a child born with a mild or serious disability. You also fail to take in to account how many women will suffer as a result, how many women will have not taken preparations for a child with special disabilities, how many women may actually die because the doctor lied about a life-threatening deformity. Yeah, go freedom!
How many women will not be able to afford to travel interstate? Or get a second opinion? How families will have to suffer before "liars" are exposed? Freedom my ass. Your freedom does not extend to impinging on the freedom of others. A doctor gains no freedom by being able to lie to a patient, a patient stands to lose everything.

Libertarian - just another bullshit political philosophy disguised as something clever.

I agree 100%!

(and BAA, as a mod, I appreciate that you were attacking the attitude, and not the poster...)

Let's just see what moral obligations have that a doctor violates by refusing to inform a patient.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Great, so every single line of the 'modern' hippocratic oath. Wonderful work there Oklahoma.

"Oohhhh-oh, Oklahoma!"

When a doctor chooses to join the medical profession he full and willingly takes on an obligation to his patients, which is the stern measurement and protection of their lives. A doctor's refusal to accept this makes him not just unworthy to be a doctor, but a hazard to society itself.

Australians may remember "Dr. Death" - the freedom to lie to patients about their condition is precisely the same as the freedom to leave surgical tools inside patients, to give them the wrong medicine, to wilfully misdiagnose a patient.

[Dasein]

there's really nothing new about being lied to by a doctor, or a lawyer backing him/her up in the lie.

there are many things to be ashamed of our country for; but look around at the rest of the fucking world. the worst thing I've seen lately is a poor duckling get smooshed by a car. :-( (of course, I'm white and female so I don't see what REALLY goes on :p}In my experience, doctors care more about the mothers than they do about the law. any good doctor is a scientist at heart.

but of course I feel that this law should be overturned. It's utter Bullshit!


"Oklahoma! when the wind comes sweeping down the plain!"

[Dasein]

Gotta love xtian logic: Thou canst break the 9th commandment in order to prevent another from breaking the 6th. These people are just scared because most of them should have been aborted and they fucking know it! Cunts!

now there's a great argument. yeah!

[RuleBritannia]

In my experience, doctors care more about the mothers than they do about the law.

Everyone cares more about their mothers than the law.

[Martok]

No surprises. Oklahoma is the same state where 70% of school children don't know who the first president of the United States was.

[Trolldor]

No surprises. Oklahoma is the same state where 70% of school children don't know who the first president of the United States was.

Which is nonsense information anyway. What use is remembering the past if you can't even maintain the present?

[Hermit]

I'm willing to discuss this issue in a mature fashion. But if you just feel like acting immaturely...

You are proposing that lying in the course of a professional activity not be subject to legal consequences, AND be taken seriously? Your opinion is worthy of every ounce of derision and ridicule that is thrown its way. Not only is the freedom to lie impinging on the women concerned to make an informed decision, but if the principle of "you may lie without fear of legal repercussions" was applied more generally, it will open the way for every conman and shyster to do whatever they like. The business-world as we know it would collapse.

[kiki5711]

The basis of this hiding the truth reason coming from Christain values right, yes, ok then? If it is then I would right away ask the doctor if they are affiliated with any religious sect and was that going to be a part of their decision making in their professional setting. Now if they lie about that, or give some mumbo jumbo answer that says nether yes nor no and just giving the runaround to keep the patient, I think a law suit would follow. The problem is a lot of women that are in poor noneducational environment will most likely not ask anything at all and be probably grateful they get any health care at all.

[Godless Libertarian]

You are proposing that lying in the course of a professional activity not be subject to legal consequences, AND be taken seriously?

That depends on the terms of the arrangement. For example, if you and I are involved in an exchange, where you pay me $10/hr to watch your dogs, say, while you're on vacation and instead of watching your dogs, I skip out and go to rock concerts, what I have done is theft, since I have not performed the service you expected as terms of the exchange. This same idea could be applied to the mother who wants valid medical information. Obviously, if she pays the doctor for sound, truthful medical information, as part of the contract between them, and does not receive it, the doctor is guilty of theft, and legal action may be pursued.

Not only is the freedom to lie impinging on the women concerned to make an informed decision, [...]

This is effectively the same as saying that websites promoting creationism are impinging on my freedom to be informed about evolution. "Freedom to have" can be taken two ways: a right, or an entitlement. The freedom to pursue an informed decision is not the same as the entitlement to have correct information. This is why there is no right to education, no right to health care: because these things always require the services of other people, who are also supposed to be free, and thus there is an inherent contradiction.

but if the principle of "you may lie without fear of legal repercussions" was applied more generally, it will open the way for every conman and shyster to do whatever they like. The business-world as we know it would collapse.

As I've stated above, if they fail to deliver products or services they agreed to in terms of their exchange, they are guilty of theft, and legal action may be taken against them, and rightly so.

[Martok]

No surprises. Oklahoma is the same state where 70% of school children don't know who the first president of the United States was.

Which is nonsense information anyway. What use is remembering the past if you can't even maintain the present?

If you don't learn from mistakes done in the past you'll likely make those same mistakes in the future.

[Trolldor]

You are proposing that lying in the course of a professional activity not be subject to legal consequences, AND be taken seriously?

That depends on the terms of the arrangement. For example, if you and I are involved in an exchange, where you pay me $10/hr to watch your dogs, say, while you're on vacation and instead of watching your dogs, I skip out and go to rock concerts, what I have done is theft, since I have not performed the service you expected as terms of the exchange. This same idea could be applied to the mother who wants valid medical information. Obviously, if she pays the doctor for sound, truthful medical information, as part of the contract between them, and does not receive it, the doctor is guilty of theft, and legal action may be pursued.

Not only is the freedom to lie impinging on the women concerned to make an informed decision, [...]

This is effectively the same as saying that websites promoting creationism are impinging on my freedom to be informed about evolution. "Freedom to have" can be taken two ways: a right, or an entitlement. The freedom to pursue an informed decision is not the same as the entitlement to have correct information. This is why there is no right to education, no right to health care: because these things always require the services of other people, who are also supposed to be free, and thus there is an inherent contradiction.

but if the principle of "you may lie without fear of legal repercussions" was applied more generally, it will open the way for every conman and shyster to do whatever they like. The business-world as we know it would collapse.

As I've stated above, if they fail to deliver products or services they agreed to in terms of their exchange, they are guilty of theft, and legal action may be taken against them, and rightly so.

lol no.
You're so wrong it's hilarious.

Obviously, if she pays the doctor for sound, truthful medical information, as part of the contract between them, and does not receive it, the doctor is guilty of theft, and legal action may be pursued.

No. Or did you not understand the law?

This is effectively the same as saying that websites promoting creationism are impinging on my freedom to be informed about evolution.

Orly? So a website is a practicing professional capable of destroying your life?

As I've stated above, if they fail to deliver products or services they agreed to in terms of their exchange, they are guilty of theft, and legal action may be taken against them, and rightly so

lol. You actually believe this?

If you don't learn from mistakes done in the past you'll likely make those same mistakes in the future.

Why would you look to the past at all? The circumstances of the past are never the circumstances of the future. Especially more than twenty years ago.

[pcCoder]

As I've stated above, if they fail to deliver products or services they agreed to in terms of their exchange, they are guilty of theft, and legal action may be taken against them, and rightly so.

One of the products/services that is implicitly agreed to and expected upon consulting any professional is truth and honesty. Failing to do so makes them a con man or woman.

[Godless Libertarian]

No. Or did you not understand the law?

Perhaps not. I suppose if it prevents them from being sued, even in light of a pre-existing contract requiring the correct information for the mother, like as a blanket ban, then yes I'll change my position and disagree with the bill.

Orly? So a website is a practicing professional capable of destroying your life?

It was intended as analogy to make a point about rights vs. entitlements. Obviously the situation involving the mother is much more serious.

lol. You actually believe this?

Sure. I see no reason not to. What is incorrect about it?

[Trolldor]

As I've stated above, if they fail to deliver products or services they agreed to in terms of their exchange, they are guilty of theft, and legal action may be taken against them, and rightly so.

One of the products/services that is implicitly agreed to and expected upon consulting any professional is truth and honesty. Failing to do so makes them a con man or woman.

Except this law allows their service to include lying. If they lie to their patient they can not be held accountable by law as they are complying with it.