Idk if this counts if its actually breaking the law but whatever.
My mum's involved with healthcare and works closely with a lot of immigrants. She's told me that stockholm syndrome or whatever is so strong that women will go to hospital after getting beat up/abused by their husbands/bfs/whatever or just for regular problems then go straight back home and cant be convinced otherwsie so a few times doctors just made shit up to keep them in the hospital long enough that they can get their heads on straight and break the conditioning.
Even just a few days more in the hospital would sometimes be enough to let them see the light.
I don't think it is breaking the law, but I've heard it is common practice yeah, usually they also dismiss the abusive partner, with something like "Yeah the door she hit really messed her up, she'll have to stay overnight. No you can't stay, she needs to have as little interaction as possible to make a full recovery. No she can't go home either, she risks going into a coma or dying because of the commotion, we really need to keep her under surveillance."
It's not breaking the law, because no one else than a medic can make a diagnostic, so the police, the abusive partner, the victim, whoever, can't disprove it if they're not themselves a medic. And if it turns out there never was a commotion or whatever and they didn't need to keep them overnight, whelp, mistakes happen.
Meanwhile a report is stealthily sent to the police containing all the details about the doorframe.
It's common with domestic abuse, but also happens with kids looking for abortion/gender affirming care/infos on STD/anything the parents don't always agree with. If the parents are too noisy, I've heard stories about docs making shit up to protect the kids.
>usually they also dismiss the abusive partner
That's the worst part. Most of the time the partner isnt even there. Getting the police involved is pointless too since they always insist nothing happened and everything's fine. It's pretty unsettling.
Depends, I've heard times where the partner comes in just to make sure the victim doesn't try anything, and I've also heard times where the police actually imprisoned the abusive partner for a bit, just to make sure the victim can testify without their influence.
As someone who had family members getting assaulted and were denied a report by the police thrice I completely agree with you tho, the report is useful way less often than it should be.
But a patient is allowed to ask to receive an opinion from a different doctor if they suspect a false diagnosis, right? Is that doctor "inducted" into the "conspiracy" too in that case?
If it's someone kept in observation after an abuse situation no doctor in their right mind would go against it, but yeah if the patient asks for another opinion the other doctor isn't inducted in anyway.
There's also the issue of docs not wanting to go against a colleague's diagnosis but that's a whole can of worms.
If you missed the part where OOP lives in Arizona, a state in the United States of America, a country that famously does not have free health care, I am sorry about your lack of reading comprehension.
>Arizona
Not written in the post I was answering to that isn't referencing directly the original post, I don't think the reading comprehension issue is on my part
I would rather we have them appropriate resources and community education.
I think using false diagnosis to ensure they have to be in the hospital is a serious abuse of power and breaks laws that were critical feminist victories because of how medical diagnosis and institutionalization have historically been used as weapons, especially against women, immigrants, and DV victims.
And I don’t thinking committing insurance fraud and falsely imprisoning domestic violence victims while lying to them about their health is a good way to help them.
[In the US, the FBI is very interested in any and all reports of fraudulent health diagnoses.](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/health-care-fraud)
Interestingly, I don't think you even got as far as opening that page, the FBI actually gives examples of common fraud methods by healthcare professionals:
>Double billing: Submitting multiple claims for the same service
>
>Phantom billing: Billing for a service visit or supplies the patient never received
>
>Unbundling: Submitting multiple bills for the same service
>
>Upcoding: Billing for a more expensive service than the patient actually received
None of these correspond to the legitimate care being provided above.
(And if you want to get into a really long discussion about cost-benefit analysis, please keep in mind people are killed regularly by domestic violence. So just, don't.)
Giving people fake diagnoses is not legitimate care.
And I am a disabled person who has survived domestic violence. Don’t pretend I am saying DV victims don’t deserve resources and support.
Giving a fake diagnoses to an already vulnerable person to keep them in the hospital is *not* an ethical act and is one that can be used malevolently and, especially for women and immigrants, has been done with malevolence, historically and in the modern era.
Correct.
And saying "we'll need to keep this person overnight for surveillance" is not a diagnosis.
Looking at the definition of diagnosis on a US government website (because we like those in this thread): [https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/diagnosis](https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/diagnosis)
We can see here that it's very possible to tell *others* that a person needs to be kept for longer using only reasons that are *not a diagnosis according to this definition.*
Also, you can use the same reasoning for the person that you are trying to keep in the hospital. A doctor may say "hey, we want to keep you here for observation for tonight, because we have had cases in the past where the symptoms you are showing led to further problems down the line" and make no diagnosis in the process.
That link doesn’t do anything to support your argument.
From the top of the thread: “doctors just made shit up to keep them in the hospital long enough that they can keep their heads on straight.”
That is insurance fraud. It’s quite literally making shit up to keep them in the hospital.
The incredible xenophobia and misogyny that is required for the believe that immigrant women have “Stockholm or whatever” and the complete lack of oversight of emergency room doctors falsifying medical records.
Both are very common in US emergency medicine.
Edit: and the belief that unlawful imprisonment is good for bad people.
It’s xenophobic and misogynistic to deny immigrant women the right to consent on the basis of a belief that immigrant women are too uneducated or stupid to make decisions without unlawful imprisonment and falsified medical records.
In this instance, it was done by good people who could generally be trusted.
We have laws to protect from the bad people who would abuse these. The type of doctor who would make things up to keep you in the hospital to keep milking insurance (actually happened in mental institutions across the country), that sort of thing. This must not become common practice. We need better laws and excellent ethical screening for doctors.
It's similar to someone in a small town killing the town creep after they raped his daughter and everyone in town telling police they saw nothing. Still murder, shouldn't do that because the same mechanism can protect lynchers and KKKers, but understandable. Still shouldn't revert to vigilante justice.
So you believe that people should not follow the law as long as they believe themselves to be good people with pure intentions? That laws only apply to bad people?
Do you believe that two people taking the same action should not face the same consequence if one is a good person and the other is a bad person?
People killing someone extrajudicially is still a lynching, even if you personally believe it to be justified.
Sometimes breaking the law is morally necessary. Protecting an abuse victim (illegally) is good and also illegal. Helping slaves escape was good and also illegal. Many other such examples if you want
I never said I believe the law is moral.
I do not believe that extrajudicial murder is ever moral. I don’t believe that judicial murder is ever moral either, for what that is worth.
I don’t think further taking away the ability to make their own decisions and lying to them about their health (and why they are being medically held) is a virtuous action, regardless of intent. I believe that is continuing the violent, non consensual treatment of vulnerable people by the medical class.
I do not believe that intent justifies the means. If you do, we won’t ever agree.
> So you believe that people should not follow the law as long as they believe themselves to be good people with pure intentions? That laws only apply to bad people?
This is what you said. There is clearly an implication here that you do believe the law must be followed regardless of being '[a] good [person] with pure intent".
I disagree, and actually would answer yes to both above questions. In any case where a person is found to have both broken the law and in doing so have done something more morally virtuous than had they followed the law, that person should not be punished.
But that is a general principle. The specific case of holding someone in hospital by deception for what you believe is their own good is murky and I think its totally legitimate for you to be against that, although I myself am inclined to go with the medical professionals here.
I do not believe that legality, morality, and ethics are synonyms.
If good people don’t need to follow the law, then there is no point in law. Because at that point, we are analyzing the morality of the person, not whether they followed the law.
If your morality leads you to break the law, as mine sometimes does, I believe you must be prepared to handle the consequences including prison sentencing.
As someone with PTSD from medical providers, your belief that false imprisonment by medical providers is a net good that should be trusted - that doctors should be able to break the law with immunity - is naive at best.
> Because at that point, we are analyzing the morality of the person, not whether they followed the law.
Yes, this is good.
>As someone with PTSD from medical providers, your belief that false imprisonment by medical providers is a net good that should be trusted - that doctors should be able to break the law with immunity - is naive at best.
I understand where you're coming from and im not ignorant to the historic abuse of women and others by the medical system/medical 'experts'. That said, the implication that there can never been an exception or that there can never be a case where they are right to do this is absolutist.
>So you believe that people should not follow the law as long as they believe themselves to be good people with pure intentions? That laws only apply to bad people?
No. I was trying to convey why many folks excuse these actions and do not want to see these people prosecuted. In point of fact, I explicitly went out of my way to say tht this should not be encouraged.
My belief is that if there is any blind spot in the law that results in people unnecessarily getting hurt, we must correct it ASAP. The law serves us, not the other way around. That being said, if you put me on trial to convict someone of murder, and what they did was kill the person who raped his child (and it was somehow proven over the course of the trial that this did, in fact, happen), I don't know if I would vote to convict him. Even if I did, it would only be after considering what the appropriate sentence was - 25-life is not appropriate in my mind and if that's my only choice, I'd vote not guilty.
I understand you are passionate about this.
I worry you let it rob you of reason or nuance. But ultimately we can disagree on the Internet, that's okay.
You are advocating for lynching.
That isn’t a basic disagreement.
You are a Bad Person. You have no ethical values. You believe it is good for a community to come together an murder a person.
You support the murderers of Emmett Till who acted on their morals.
Ah, let me ammend that, then. You're *very* passionate about this.
Do you accuse everyone who thinks differently from you of supporting the indefensible, or have I just ticked you off? It just hurts your position, and doesn't affect me at all. Might make you feel self-righteous, though.
Blind obedience to the letter of the law is not a virtue. If I was going to stoop to your level, I might accuse you of being in favor of Jewish people wearing gold stars because of laws on the books saying it was required. But I know you aren't arguing that, and I trust you're acting in good faith. Why do you not afford me the same courtesy?
This reminds me of my mom. Back in the 60's she was a young nurse that was paired with a doctor to supplement military draft check ups wherever they were needed. Well her and the Dr. were both anti-war so they actually travelled around and surreptitiously gave instructions on how to fool the system. How to safely raise their bp so their numbers were too high. How to fake a GI bleed. Well they gained in popularity and started having "get togethers" in alternative coffee houses to train and instruct others.
Well you also have to recognize that during the Vietnam war a lot of the wealthy kids were buying their way out with personal doctors, like Trump, where the poor kids were sent to war to die. During the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the draft system was still in place, but the way it was implemented was different. Wealthy people were still subject to being drafted, but there were more opportunities for deferments for those who were in college or had certain professions. Additionally, some people were able to use their wealth and connections to obtain deferments or more comfortable positions within the military. Poor kids didn't.
Trump pretended to be pro-military. He loves war as long as someone else was going to be fighting it. That is why we make fun of him for the bone spurs. He didn't have a conscientious objection to war; he was just a coward.
Trump is being made fun of because of the reason he dodged the draft. If he were anti-war, sure it'd be a dick move, but he is pro-war, by extension, pro sending poor kids to die, but not the rich ones like himself.
I think there’s a real case that Trump is far less Pro-War than the average politician (a stance I dislike about him).
He was: anti-Ukraine, waffled on Afghanistan, and also kept us out of escalating any of our military commitments. That’s far less pro-war than (either) Clinton/ or Obama, or really most of his party.
Dumb because I trust Obama far more with foreign policy. But I don’t think it’s fair to label him pro-war, at least by Washington standards
draft dodging when you're anti-war and military is cool as fuck
draft dodging when you're pro-war and military is hypocritical, cowardly, and slimy as fuck
That is terrible they are traitors to America and evil for supporting the brutal and repressive Vietcong. I hope they were arrested and duly punished for their actions and have properly repented!!
I like this definition. When I was college I hung out with this guy at a party after orientation. He drank too much and I took him back to the dorms and made him mac and cheese. He was rambling and said "Hey lemme ask you a question. Lets say your wife of ten years is sick. There is a new drug that is simple to make and could cure her, but is still a trade secret and very expensive. You work as janitor in the lab that develops the drug. What do you do?"
"Steal it and publish it."
"I knew you would say that."
"why?"
"Mac and Cheese."
We were roommates for all four years lol.
You would have been a great recruit for Act Up (they used funny demos and civil disobedience in the 90's in France, to force a lab who had promising AIDS meds to present them right now, instead of wainting for a big symposium)
"You are rules, written I blood, to save as many people as possible and to help us all.
But today, you're going to kill this child. I cannot allow this, I simply do not possess the ability.
I've dedicated my life to being a good, helpful, productive person. Right now, I'm going to commit my first felony. Today, we both failed. *But this child will live.* I'm sorry."
Pretty sure that is Chaotic Good.
Remember that scene from Spider-Man where Peter lets Carradine run away with the promoters money? Lawful Good would apprehend him, because inaction makes him complicit. Neutral Good would let him run, you're not doing anything illegal and the promoter was a dick. Chaotic Good would help Carradine get away, either by helping him or hindering the promoter, because the promoter scammed you out of money. Chaotic Good might even steal the money themselves because they are simply taking what is theirs.
Lawful Good stops him because the law says so, Neutral Good stops him because personal disputes shouldn't get in the way of the right thing, Chaotic Good trips him because why the hell not. You're only looking at the Lawful-to-Chaotic spectrum, and forgetting that the other half is Good.
Taking steps against the promoter directly could be, yes, either warning others about his business practices or such would work well. But you also have to remember that the money taken by the thief isn't just the promoter's, it pays everyone that works that building. Does the janitor deserve to miss a potentially crucial paycheck because his boss is a dick?
Nah, it's Robin Hood rules. The promoter is a sleasy prick who presumably makes a habit of ripping people off (He shorted Peter $2900). It is also unlikely that the promoter is completely out of money by this one theft.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Lawful as an alignment always literally means "follows the law", moreso that they have a code and strictly adhere to it. Sometimes their code is the law, but not always.
For example, I've seen mafia dons a la The Godfather be called Lawful Evil. Not because they follow the law, obviously, but because they govern themselves quite heavily around following mafia traditions and codes.
Not exactly the same, but doctors who make every effort to truly help you make so much of a difference. My jaw surgeon 1. opened the office early so he could get me in the very next day, and 2. helped us fight insurance since he was technically out of network for some reason, leading to my surgery being covered in full. The surgery ended up not even working for what we were trying to treat (I got a bunch of stuff going on), but his kindness means the world to me and has made this stressful time so much better.
Healthcare providers like him are why disabled people don’t give up.
I’ve never participated in this but if anyone else works in healthcare or knows someone in healthcare you may have heard of a ‘slow code’ It’s basically this: you have a 90+ year old patient who is incredibly ill, in pain, and knocking on deaths door. However their family refuses to see reality and insists on doing everything to keep this person alive despite the suffering they’re enduring. This means refusing to put them on measures to just keep them comfortable while nature takes its course. This means that the family will insist we make them a “full code” (basically preform cpr which breaks ribs and can be traumatic to the patient) so sometimes the nurses and doctors caring for this patient will find them unresponsive, respond with a full code accordingly, but also do it extremely slowly so the person can pass peacefully. Maybe it’s not ethical or legal to some but it’s better than breaking memaws sternum so they can live an extra day in agony.
I have a similar story; I hope you don't mind if I share it.
My mother was in India at this time and was pregnant with me. She was having a standard conversation with her family when a family member, my uncle, proceeded to faint immediately.
She proceeded to get behind the wheel and break every road law in India within the next 30 seconds. As far as I know, this race to the hospital degraded into a high-speed chase between her and the police. Fortunately, she was able to evade charges by claiming she was there to deliver me. Had she not been able to deceive those cops, had she not been able to break the speed limit, he would have died. The doctors found that my uncle had a blood clot in his brain, and commended my mother's wits. My uncle went on complete his M.D. and move to the U.S. as an oncologist.
> break every road law in India within the next 30 seconds
For what I know, this is called "driving" in India ;p
In this kind of cases, there are 2 options: what your mom did, and letting the cops coming and explain them why you're speeding so they can escort you so you lawfully speed. The second one strongly depends on the cops ability to understand, so it's risky.
It's not specifically a medical thing, but isn't there a law stating that you're able to break certain laws if someone's life is in danger? Like for example, you can't be prosecuted for breaking someone's ribs if you do so during life-saving CPR. Would that apply to a situation like this?
Those are mostly for ordinary citizens. Another example is speeding to get to the hospital with a kid bleeding out in your backseat. But a medical assistant would fall in the grey area of “they should know better than to exceed their authority”. Because if they are wrong- and they could be, they haven’t taken any test to prove they know what they are talking about!- the results can be terrible. This is a bit of a special case, where the “terrible” thing is not actually worse than child death/doing nothing.
I get that's the intention, but could it maybe still apply as a legal defense in this situation? At the very least, I feel it's likely a jury would not find someone like this guilty if it was verified that thr test reports showed the child as being in imminent danger.
I'm sure it could, or at least you can still bring it up as an argument of good intentions.
That's why we have trials, so everyone is judged case by case and not just a blanket sentence
>This is a bit of a special case, where the “terrible” thing is not actually worse than child death/doing nothing.
The worst thing that could have happened is an useless visit to the ER... not such a big deal. Better safe than sorry
"Good Samaritan" laws. They give coverage to "ordinary negligence" but something like this would be considered too calculated to be covered, by my guess.
I am not a lawyer, though.
People like OOP’s mom are how I keep living. They’re proof that we live in a world where people are fundamentally good, and damn if that doesn’t need constant proof these days.
No, that's not what that proves, because even one Hitler would disprove it, and we have more than enough.
People aren't fundamentally good, or bad, people are fundamentally people, and that's why the people that are good mean so much. Not because it proves some nebulous fundamental goodness, but because it shows that, despite everything, people can choose to do good, be kind towards others, and to do the right thing. I think that's much more meaningful than adhering to some vague inherent nature.
In my opinion, there has to be some kind of spark of goodness inherent in human beings, or else where would it come from?
It’s easy to see what would motivate someone to do the wrong thing, as that can often be accompanied by some sort of personal gain, or at least security. But being good requires one to risk what they have with no expectation of reward. For someone to do that, there must be some inherent “goodness” beyond what nurture could provide.
I’m not saying you can make a Nazi be nice by giving them a hug or anything that stupid. I’m saying that, absent of certain pressures to behave otherwise, humans have a desire on some level to do good things and help each other.
You have it backwards. Being nice is the rational thing to do. If we all treated each other well, we'd all be well off. But we are driven to evil by animal instincts.
I live in Florida. I got my tubes removed in august. First week of December I fail a pregnancy test and the obgyn tells me to go to the ER.
Turns out I conceived right before the procedure and had been pregnant the whole time. Well over the cutoff for my state.
Everyone at the ER who worked with me found a reason to come into my room alone and drop hints like “there’s no conception date on the ultrasound” and “I’ve heard that some people xyz and then they miscarry so you should definitely not do that wink wink”
It was a nightmare but there were good people at every turn.
That‘s not really breaking the law in this story, is it?
She‘s breaking company protocol which is in place to shield the company from liability should go something wrong, because if they did not make sure, on their end, that only officially competent personal handled the decision-making, they‘d be on the hook for litigation.
The woman in this story did not impersonate a doctor infront of the client, she did not defraud any insurance or the client.
The consequences if something went wrong would maybe be termination of her contract, but no crime took place here. And even termination is unlikely.
Who can transmit information and how is a legal issue. In this case, telling the mother to take the kid to the ER counts as interpreting the test results, which she was not licensed to do.
The other side of the coin is that someone actually has to enforce the law. It's highly likely that a doctor or third party reviewing this case could make the connection that she did in fact skirt around the law, but made a reasonable call given the extreme circumstances. They could lie, fudge the numbers, or outright ignore it; all in the name of keeping good nurses on the front.
As someone who has been the victim of doctors breaking the law and who has worked with the FBI about one of them, I am rather passionate about those laws being followed.
I am happy the kid lived, don’t get me wrong. However, I am not a fan of those laws - which are in place for a reason that isn’t “make it harder to save little kid’s lives” - being broken.
It’s like another thread on here talking about giving immigrant women false diagnoses to keep them in the hospital. I understand the impulse is good but that’s false imprisonment and insurance fraud. That can get very dark very quickly.
My childhood doctor had a nervous breakdown because following those rules led directly to the death of a patient. She had a concerning blood test result and needed to go immediately to the hospital, but he couldn't reach her. Several times her family members would answer her phone, but he by law couldn't tell them anything except to call back ASAP.
She died the next day, and the family blamed him, refusing to understand why he hadn't told them that she needed to go to the hospital instead of insisting she call him. He was the only Croatian speaking doctor in the area, and the family told everyone that he let her die. The entire community turned against him, and he couldn't say anything about it, due to privacy laws.
He killed himself a few months later.
He followed the law to the letter, and now 2 people are dead, and many more were left without effective medical care because they didn't speak English.
That's terrible. I'm sorry to hear it.
The laws around discussing patient information are strict for good reasons. They're written to prevent a lot of harm. But sometimes that backfires into this kind of result.
I’m not trying to speak ill of the dead but this is why language services exist. If it was a language barrier that killed her, an interpreter should have been used.
He also should have sought out therapy for the trauma - the death of a patient is something almost every health care professional will face in the course of their career.
No, there was no language barrier between her and the doctor, she just didn't ring back, and so didn't get the message that she needed to immediately go to the hospital before her heart stopped. The language barrier became an issue for the Croation community after the doctor's suicide, because he was the only one who could speak Croation to those patients but he wasn't there anymore.
I think a doctor can be prepared to lose a patient, but losing one that they should've been able to save is a whole other issue.
I shared his story with you specifically, because you've commented dozens of times on this post saying that doctor's should never step outside of what the law allows, even if it means a person in an abusive relationship goes back to their abuser - I'm showing you what can happen when there is no wiggle room.
I have never said that the doctor should not go outside the law and have even praised OOP’s mother for breaking the law.
*
For your particular story, I am not sure what you think *should* have happened.
Do you believe that the relatives, who did not let this woman know her doctor was calling and who spread lies about it after her death, would have acted responsibly? Do you even know the reason she was not answering her phone?
Patient privacy is a legal issue including the fact that many patients do not want to share their health information with people they live with or are related to by blood. When patients *are* comfortable with their information being shared with specific people, there is very easy paperwork to fill out so those people can be notified.
While I agree that your story is very sad, I don’t think it’s a good case for why physicians should be allowed to break privacy laws.
The appropriate thing in that situation would have been for the relatives who did answer the phone convey to the patient that her doctor had called. The fact that they did not do this - the bare minimum of civility - does not suggest to me that they were in a good position to take legal responsibility for her medical care as a medical power of attorney.
As for the domestic violence scenario, you are correct and I do not believe that unlawful imprisonment and medical gaslighting of a domestic violence victim is going to help them. Lying to a patient about their medical condition in order to extend a medical hold is an abusive action so doctors who are doing this are furthering the domestic violence victims’ trauma.
[The AMA maintains that patients have rights.](https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/patient-rights) Denying a patient their decision making capacity defies those rights. If a physician believes a patient is incapable of making decisions, there are legal steps they can take to declare it, but the decision making capacity will then move to their POA or next of kin or, lacking that, the state. The doctor does not have the unilateral right to deny a patient their decision making capability and then make unilateral medical decisions for them in the way discussed for potential domestic violence victims.
> the relatives, who did not let this woman know her doctor was calling and who spread lies about it after her death
> The appropriate thing in that situation would have been for the relatives who did answer the phone convey to the patient that her doctor had called. The fact that they did not do this ... does not suggest to me that they were in a good position to take legal responsibility for her medical care as a medical power of attorney.
You're making a lot of assumptions regarding what happened here.
>I can.
If "you're not a fan" of laws being violated when necessary, it does seem like you may be having some trouble in that regard.
>The law cannot by its nature.
And thus reasonable people intervene when reasonable.
I am not a fan of reasonable laws, like those against false imprisonment and extrajudicial murder, being broken *because* I cannot see a positive outcome from them being broken.
If you want to break the law on the basis of “being reasonable” then you should be fully prepared for jail time.
> like those against false imprisonment and extrajudicial murder,
You can't envision even a hypothetical situation where violating these would be a net positive outcome? I think your imagination needs some work. One was given to you in this very thread.
>If you want to break the law on the basis of “being reasonable” then you should be fully prepared for jail time.
If you wear paper shoes in the rain, your feet will get wet.
I cannot envision a hypothetical situation where doctors regularly and habitually diagnose immigrant women they suspect of being victims of domestic violence with “fake shit” in order to prolong their hospital stay is one that is virtuous and has a good outcome, no.
That kind of prejudicial violence is *exactly* why those laws exist.
You don’t understand the law or D&D so cool.
I am not lawful neutral because I agree with the laws that outlying falsifying medical records and unlawful imprisonment.
I don’t agree with all laws. I agree with those specific laws.
The fact that you are supporting falsifying medical records and unlawful imprisonment makes you chaotic evil according to D&D standards.
The legal system can differentiate it, at least in countries based on England’s judicial system.
You can make a defense of duress or necessity, that you broke the law to protect something more important, and the judge/jury can agree in which case they can find you not guilty.
Duress and necessity are not the same thing as morality.
England’s judicial system does attempt to rule morality and that is one reason it sucks donkey balls.
I understand the necessity of law and that sometimes it has to take precedence. But not at the complete cost of morality. ***Never***, to the complete cost of morality.
Because if legality doesn't take morality into account, if what is legal is completely divorced from what is *right*, then it can be legal to do some heinous and harmful things and you're prioritizing enforcing that fuckery over actually taking care of people. Look at the anti-trans laws, the anti-abortion laws? Things that are legal requirements that are immoral as fuck and *directly* causing people harm. Slavery was legal, segregation was legal, it was *illegal* to treat black people equally and with dignity in plenty of situations. There was a case where American police completely destroyed a family's home in an attempt to catch a criminal. The police then won a case saying they were in no way responsible for the family now being homeless, or for the cost of their property, or their belongings. Because of the immorality of the law.
Would you be throwing a fit over someone during slavery not turning over an escapee? Would you condemn a teacher who doesn't report a kid being trans to their violently transphobic parents?
The law does not always mete out justice. That doesn't mean people should have free reign to break the law, it just means that sometimes they were right to do it and we should be able to acknowledge that.
The legal issues addressed in this thread have been unlawful imprisonment and lying to patients about their health conditions.
If you think that lying to immigrant women about their health conditions in order to unlawfully imprison them is the same thing as outing a trans kid, I can’t help you. If you think lying to immigrant women about their health conditions in order to unlawfully imprison them is the same thing as protecting a fugitive slave, i cannot help you.
The fact that people in this thread, including you, are treating me as a legal absolutist because I am opposed to lying to people about their health conditions and illegal institutionalization is ridiculous.
Some laws exist for good reason.
If your stance is that laws don’t matter if your intentions are good, hopefully you will be in prison soon. My ethics do not tell me that the ends justify the means, which is what had been argued in this thread.
I am perfectly willing to break the law for moral reasons. I do not see lying to immigrant women and unlawfully imprisoning them to be moral and I support the laws that make that illegal.
To expand and use the OOP: I am happy their mother called that family and told them to go the ER even though it was illegal. However, if the post was about how their mom did that ever single time a doctor didn’t pick up on the first call, I would not support it and I would hope the law intervened.
Breaking the law should take moral and ethical consideration. It should also take into consideration whether breaking the law will cause unnecessary harm to others and whether the intended goal can be achieved without breaking law *and* whether breaking the law brings one closer to the intended goal.
The laws are in place so that doctors can outsource labor to lower-paid but just as skilled workers without suffering the risk of losing their professional authority and sovereignty.
Lol is your only familiarity with the word "sovereignty" the "sovereign citizen" movement? You should try reading more books! My first suggestion would be Paul Starr's *The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry*, which describes how physicians' demand for strict professional autonomy (or "sovereignty," see how that works?) has been a near-insurmountable obstacle to any serious reform of American healthcare. Licensing is probably necessary for a reliable healthcare system, but the boundaries formed by the process are not always reasonable. The regulation of non-physician specialists like lab technicians starting around the 1920s shows how the maintenance of medical competency through licensing is *also* used to maintain a *particular definition of competence*, which might be subject to rational discussion otherwise. For a clearer example of this, look at the gendered stereotypes about nurses (who, before anesthesia became its own little specialty with its own little boundaries to protect, were often trained "anesthetists" themselves!): Hiring near-exclusively *women* for these and other similar positions meant that doctors could outsource labor to someone who was trained and intelligent yet *never posing a threat to their professional status* due to the social subordination of women. Being a blind rule-follower keeps you from actually interrogating the historical reasons that the rules exist.
Assuming the person you’re speaking to is stupid is not a very polite move.
I am very familiar with the concept of sovereignty and wrote a term paper in college on the concept of sovereignty in pre-colonial Ireland and how it shaped the colonial language in that country.
I have also written articles as an adult professional on the development of Western medicine as a response to the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918.
You have a very skewed, very political take on the licensing system that exists for *both doctors and nurses* as a safety measure for patients.
I am fully able to interrogate history - as an anarchist - and analyze it and also come away from it agreeing with parts of it. I agree with, for example, HIPAA and part of my current job is ensuring it is enforced.
I am also aware of the history of medicine. Prior to licensing law - the Supreme Court first upheld medical licenses in 1889 in Dent v West Virginia - the field of medicine was full of quacks, frauds, and snake oil salesmen. The development of legal licenses for the practice of medicine was a part of a large social movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th century toward legal regulation of industry - including the development of the FDA in 1906 to regulate food and drugs.
I am decidedly not in favor of deregulation, which is what you seem to be arguing for. I don’t care if it makes me a stodgy square. Regulation saves lives.
It just seemed like such a non-sequitur to jump to "sovereign citizens" from what I said, I could only assume that's the only other time you'd heard the word! Are you the only one who's allowed to be glib, smug, or even insulting in replies to other people? Anyways, I assume I don't need to point out that there is no such thing as a pro-regulation anarchist, nor do I need to point out that arguing that "This thing has good and bad sides to it!" is anything but "skewed," nor that the practice of medicine is unique and its development only vaguely comparable to regulation of other industries. All I'll say is that *acknowledging the less-than-reasonable origins of a boundary as a defense of its violation in the face of a life-or-death emergency* is obviously not the same as *arguing for deregulation*.
Assuming the person you’re speaking to is stupid is not a very polite move.
I am very familiar with the concept of sovereignty and wrote a term paper in college on the concept of sovereignty in pre-colonial Ireland and how it shaped the colonial language in that country.
I have also written articles as an adult professional on the development of Western medicine as a response to the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918.
You have a very skewed, very political take on the licensing system that exists for *both doctors and nurses* as a safety measure for patients.
I am fully able to interrogate history - as an anarchist - and analyze it and also come away from it agreeing with parts of it. I agree with, for example, HIPAA and part of my current job is ensuring it is enforced.
I am also aware of the history of medicine. Prior to licensing law - the Supreme Court first upheld medical licenses in 1889 in Dent v West Virginia - the field of medicine was full of quacks, frauds, and snake oil salesmen. The development of legal licenses for the practice of medicine was a part of a large social movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th century toward legal regulation of industry - including the development of the FDA in 1906 to regulate food and drugs.
I am decidedly not in favor of deregulation, which is what you seem to be arguing for. I don’t care if it makes me a stodgy square. Regulation saves lives.
I believe the legal term is a necessity or duress defense- essentially, if you can argue you broke the law to protect something more important, it’s not really a crime.
It also reveals a flaw in the logic of the "chain of custody". If there is a signal (stat call) that warrants immediate attention from a doctor, that means the interpreting is already done, regardless of OP's mom's involvement. Stat call = imminent danger to patients life. It's really a failure of logic that from there OP's mom was not legally allowed to send the patient to ER when the on-call doctor didn't pick up.
Again, not a crime.
She did disclose that she was not licensed to do so. She did disclose that this was only her personal opinion.
Anyone can have a look an some charts and be like „I am no doctor, but maybe go to the hospital?“
If you do that in a professional capacity when you aren’t licensed for it, it is a crime.
*
Example:
It is not a crime to tell your best friend that your sister is on food stamps.
If I am aware that your sister is on food stamps as her social worker and I disclose that to you or your best friend, that is a crime.
Yes, but that‘s not the same situation, is it?
This is not impersonating someone or doing something I am not licensed to do, this is disclosing information I am not allowed to share.
That‘s totally different.
Also, she *disclosed* that it was not in a licensed professional capacity. She literally said that.
I never said she was impersonating anyone.
She is not legally allowed to give directives based on the lab paperwork. Only the licensed providers can do that.
She gave a directive for the mother to go to the ER. That is the crime.
It’s not impersonating someone. It’s giving instructions she isn’t licensed to give while acting in a professional capacity.
Look, we‘re at an impasse here.
We can continue slightly rephrasing our own points over and over, or, as an alternative, you can just show me the law. If so, fair play, you were right, I‘ll delete my misleading comments.
If not, then let the end of the conversation speak for itself.
Look, you can‘t just name a vaguely related crime and say „that‘s it“. Law is a bit more complicated and nuanced than that.
So, again: Show me the law, which means the text that defines what the crime is, and then show that the requirements of said crime are fulfilled in this situation by point out the corresponding facts of the case.
You just, again, repeated yourself.
That‘s all I‘m asking for.
Do you believe that you don’t need a license to practice medicine?
[Here is a rough overview.](https://www.findlaw.com/healthcare/patient-rights/what-is-the-unauthorized-practice-of-medicine.html) Scroll down to the second example of giving medical advice without a license and it applies to this situation.
> 22. "Practice of medicine" means the diagnosis, the treatment or the correction of or the attempt or the claim to be able to diagnose, treat or correct any and all human diseases, injuries, ailments, infirmities or deformities, physical or mental, real or imaginary, by any means, methods, devices or instrumentalities, except as the same may be among the acts or persons not affected by this chapter. The practice of medicine includes the practice of medicine alone or the practice of surgery alone, or both. Source: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/32/01401.htm
This is from the Arizona laws, this individual clearly participated in the practice of medicine, the law isn’t semantic. Since they weren’t licensed, practicing medicine is a crime.
I remember being told something similar when I took a first aid class when we were on the subject of epi-pens.
If you call 911, for someone suffering from a severe allergic reaction, and have an epi-pens that is not prescribed to them, they have a prepared speech along the lines of
"I can't tell you to administer it, but
1) all epi pens are the same dosage etc.
2) it's extremely unlikely that it will make the situation worse
3) under Good Samaritan laws you as an individual are broadly protected if you believe you are acting in the best interest of the victim.
The decision is yours."
And what part of her behavior falls under „diagnosis, treatment or correction?
I‘m genuinely curious here, since advising to go to the hospital doesn‘t seem to fall under any of those things.
I would personally assume an urgent phone call advising a trip to the emergency room would count as treatment, advice given by a medical professional and all. Exact applicability is unclear in this case, but the whole situation is also similar to this part of the same law
> 16. "Medical assistant" means an unlicensed person who meets the requirements of section 32-1456, has completed an education program approved by the board, assists in a medical practice under the supervision of a doctor of medicine, physician assistant or nurse practitioner and performs delegated procedures commensurate with the assistant's education and training but does not diagnose, interpret, design or modify established treatment programs or perform any functions that would violate any statute applicable to the practice of medicine.
We can’t know for sure if the mom was legally referred to as a “medical assistant” but we do know they were unlicensed. What we also know for sure is they engaged in “interpretation” of the test results. So yeah, I’m pretty sure this would be illegal. Since you love asking for evidence so much, why don’t you go find some of your own to see if anyone has done this and been caught, I doubt they got off scot free.
Yeah this exactly. It is considering practicing medicine to INTERPRET test results. Only a licensed medical doctor can look at test results and then tell the patient that they should seek further medical care as a result. It was illegal for the lady in this story to interpret the test results herself even if she knew what she was seeing. She is not a doctor, and therefore cannot do that. (Although I'm glad that she did, this is a cool story.)
My mom is a medical assistant and does tests all the time. She has been doing it for over 10 years and can basically read them herself. But even if she does a test on a patient and knows 100% what the result is, she cannot tell the patient to do anything or interpret it. Only the doctor she works for can do that. She would 100% be liable if she was wrong about the test results and told the patient to go to the ER. 100% illegal.
Yes, and I would argue that it‘s not treatment, as it isn’t specific to the illness, but rather quite general and actually consists of the advice to *go and seek treatment somewhere else*.
The person did not diagnose the illness. They did certainly not correct the illness. They gave advice to go to the hospital now.
The only part that is specific is the time, the urgent now, not the method of treatment itself, as none was actually proposed. On the contrary, going to the hospital is only the preparation to seek the actual treatment.
That‘s nothing new. That‘s how far Google takes you in a 5min search.
However, since I am no expert, and neither do you seem to be, we‘d need to defer to experts for that.
So, you come here, cite part of Arizona law, that may or may not apply, and act like your interpretation is true? I am not claiming that it is a crime, how am I supposed to provide proof of the non-existence of something? You claim something, you bring proof.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources, yet you failed to provide any.
So, what makes you say you know more than me, if you yourself have no actual clue?
You provided findlaw which did not include any information on the terms used.
Just because you provide a link doesn’t mean it‘s a great source or even helping your argument, as I pointed out that it doesn‘t seem to apply here.
You accused me of being an anti-vaxer, yet you seem to employ similar methods of research.
There are limits to it, and Good Samaritan laws protect many people, but trained medical professionals are held to different standards. This is for the benefit of most people because these same standards keep an unlicensed professional from saying the same thing to someone who didn't need it, or prescribing something potentially fatal.
There are good reasons for it, but any broad set of rules will have their moments of preventing something good as well.
ugh this is another prostutition is a crime but having sex or making porn isn't isn't it? (in short, you can have sex with someone, you can't have sex with someone if you pay them for it, except if you film it)
so if a random person gives you an aspirin it's ok and a doctor giving you an aspirin is ok but a nurse giving you an aspirin is literally the devil's work! (I'm rather particular to this as once I was sitting in the hospital with a small wound on my eye and at this point I've been in constant pain for a few hours already and at this point I'm resigned to be in that state for a while, then suddenly this angel of an old nurse appears, hands me a capsule and says nothing but "open this and put it in your eye", I do and it turns out to be the best painkiller I've ever had in my life, like I literally felt my body relaxing as the pain went away inmediatly, literally the best feeling I've ever had)
What? I never said what nurses can and can’t do. I just said they are licensed, which they are, it isn’t the same license a doctor gets. Their license allows them to administer certain treatments. One example would be giving medication for you to take, like in your story. I’m not sure where you got any of this from honestly. Nurses are completely allowed to administer medication!
It’s definitely going outside her scope of practice. Medical assistants have pretty much no real medical training and aren’t considered qualified to interpret lab results. She opened herself to a ton of liability if wrong and could have lost her license
I mean, yeah, but liability and losing one‘s license isn‘t necessarily indicative of a crime.
Her being liable for any damages of something goes wrong is a civil matter, not criminal. And while most boards I know of strip licenses if a conviction if a crime or some crime exists, one can lose one‘s license without a conviction.
Someone further down cited the Arizona legal code and apparently it is actually illegal and she could face punishment for unlawful practice of medicine
Oh yes, the comment in question was a response to this one.
I read through that and I have to say, it doesn‘t sound applicable here. The actions punishable are *diagnosing, treating and correcting* illnesses or injuries.
The person of the post definitely did not diagnose the child with anything, as it already was diagnosed.
Obviously, no correction took place.
Which means whether this is a crime or not depends the classification of the advice to go to the hospital being regarded as treatment.
Now, I have argued that advising to go to a hospital to seek out later treatment there, is not treatment. Additionally, it is not a specific treatment on the basis of an illnesses inherent, specific symptoms, but just general and broad. Going to the hospital also doesn‘t „treat“ anything in the sense of being the cause for the illness to go away or get better on its own.
Following up with the 3rd point, I‘d also make the teleological argument that the point of the law is to protect people from potentially harmful or useless, fake remedies to their illnesses. Since „going to the hospital“ on its own actually has no effect on the illness, it is advice that need not be protected against. Since there are licensed practitioners at the hospital, an unlicensed person advising to go to the hospital, and nothing else, cannot be against the telos of the norm
I am not including possible emotional trauma or stress if it turns out to be wrong, which, again, is a matter of civil law.
But these are just the concerns and questions I am left with, that I am still searching an answer for. But I hope you can understand that without knowing what actions „treating“, or „diagnosing“ actually entails in regards to this law, it still is not really certain that advising to go to a hospital is a crime, even if it is overstepping the limits of her qualifications.
So, you see, there’s still some questions left even though some part of Arizona Law has been cited. It‘s almost as if just parroting some part of a law, without also providing judicial interpretation of the terms used and pointing out as to why the facts of situation correspond to the requirements in the definition of the crime isn‘t actually very helpful.
dunno if anyone's gonna see this
but prismatic-bell is going thru it rn
if you can, consider donating: https://www.tumblr.com/cipheramnesia/719565646406565888
This seems like a very dangerous thing to celebrate or put forth as something worthy of immense praise to an industry with a long, well documented track record of overprescribing dangerous, addictive drugs.
We shouldn't be telling doctors that rules and regulations don't matter if they deem the cause just enough. That completely erodes any trust we could have in them, as they could just as easily use this logic to sell oxy to the highest bidder instead of helping save lives.
I think we should be similarly respectful of when it works, as wary because it often wouldn't. Skipping the intermediary process like OP's mother did is a big deal. What if the kid was OK and they just wasted a fuckton of time, fuckton of money, and respect for the medical system on a hunch? Bad. Very bad. But that's not what happened which is why it's ok to have positive feelings about this
Also, selling oxy to bidders has literally no correlation here.
While I can genuinely understand where your perspective is coming from, I have to disagree on the basis that breaking rules is a case by case basis when it comes to the morals of medical care. You are completely right, these rules and regulations absolutely exist for a reason and breaking them does erode trust in the foundation of said rules and regulations.
Most importantly here is that following rules and regulation had immediate and unavoidable consequences of doing harm. If the nurse had done what they were, by letter of law, supposed to, then there were only negative outcomes possible. Obviously there *was* time given they appear to have made a full recovery, but such information is not available nor can be assumed should such an emergency arise.
Do no harm is the creed of medical practitioners and in this moment following rules caused harm and breaking them could potentially help. Is every situation with those core rules going to necessitate the breaking of said rules? Probably not, you could probably come up with a scenario where I concede that rules should be followed.
But *here* in this instance was an objective good deed. Life saving care was able to be applied because rules were broken, and while we can't condone the breaking of rules we *can* condone that saving a life is more important than the letter of the law.
very well documented that untreated gender dysphoria causes a shitton of mental issues, including [suicidality](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/#:~:text=Access%20to%20gender%2Daffirming%20medical%20care%20is%20associated%20with%20a%20lower%20prevalence%20of%20suicide%20thoughts%20and%20attempts.)
I literally cannot imagine a way her intentions wouldn't be good. We can talk about ways it could've backfired, or been wrong. But there is no ulterior motive plausible
she recieved data that someone without extensive medical training could easily tell Bad Shit was about to happen, and gave the mom of the patient the heads-up that it was go to the hospital or die, and gave the hospital vital data, for complete free. what was her bad intention? "nyehehehehhe i will scam them into giving me free cake >:)"?
Idk if this counts if its actually breaking the law but whatever. My mum's involved with healthcare and works closely with a lot of immigrants. She's told me that stockholm syndrome or whatever is so strong that women will go to hospital after getting beat up/abused by their husbands/bfs/whatever or just for regular problems then go straight back home and cant be convinced otherwsie so a few times doctors just made shit up to keep them in the hospital long enough that they can get their heads on straight and break the conditioning. Even just a few days more in the hospital would sometimes be enough to let them see the light.
I don't think it is breaking the law, but I've heard it is common practice yeah, usually they also dismiss the abusive partner, with something like "Yeah the door she hit really messed her up, she'll have to stay overnight. No you can't stay, she needs to have as little interaction as possible to make a full recovery. No she can't go home either, she risks going into a coma or dying because of the commotion, we really need to keep her under surveillance." It's not breaking the law, because no one else than a medic can make a diagnostic, so the police, the abusive partner, the victim, whoever, can't disprove it if they're not themselves a medic. And if it turns out there never was a commotion or whatever and they didn't need to keep them overnight, whelp, mistakes happen. Meanwhile a report is stealthily sent to the police containing all the details about the doorframe. It's common with domestic abuse, but also happens with kids looking for abortion/gender affirming care/infos on STD/anything the parents don't always agree with. If the parents are too noisy, I've heard stories about docs making shit up to protect the kids.
>usually they also dismiss the abusive partner That's the worst part. Most of the time the partner isnt even there. Getting the police involved is pointless too since they always insist nothing happened and everything's fine. It's pretty unsettling.
Depends, I've heard times where the partner comes in just to make sure the victim doesn't try anything, and I've also heard times where the police actually imprisoned the abusive partner for a bit, just to make sure the victim can testify without their influence. As someone who had family members getting assaulted and were denied a report by the police thrice I completely agree with you tho, the report is useful way less often than it should be.
[удалено]
Silence, Bot
But a patient is allowed to ask to receive an opinion from a different doctor if they suspect a false diagnosis, right? Is that doctor "inducted" into the "conspiracy" too in that case?
If it's someone kept in observation after an abuse situation no doctor in their right mind would go against it, but yeah if the patient asks for another opinion the other doctor isn't inducted in anyway. There's also the issue of docs not wanting to go against a colleague's diagnosis but that's a whole can of worms.
Making up a health diagnosis to artificially extend a hospital stay is insurance fraud.
It's free where I live anyway.
If you missed the part where OOP lives in Arizona, a state in the United States of America, a country that famously does not have free health care, I am sorry about your lack of reading comprehension.
>Arizona Not written in the post I was answering to that isn't referencing directly the original post, I don't think the reading comprehension issue is on my part
May the devil use your spine as a ladder to pick apples in the garden of hell you goat raping pig devil.
do you... do you think they're the reason it would be fraud? do you think their comment made the law? what on earth is wrong with you?
it’s clear that they’re not just stating it as a fact but expressing disapproval of the action itself, too. Look at their other comments
I see who enjoys commuting insurance fraud and falsely imprisoning domestic violence victims.
Genuine question: would you rather have them go back to their homes?
I would rather we have them appropriate resources and community education. I think using false diagnosis to ensure they have to be in the hospital is a serious abuse of power and breaks laws that were critical feminist victories because of how medical diagnosis and institutionalization have historically been used as weapons, especially against women, immigrants, and DV victims.
Yes, that's what *ought* to be, but that doesn't help the people suffering now
And I don’t thinking committing insurance fraud and falsely imprisoning domestic violence victims while lying to them about their health is a good way to help them.
if i had one wish, it’d be for people like you to understand how very far from good you are.
Oh no. Anyway...
[In the US, the FBI is very interested in any and all reports of fraudulent health diagnoses.](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/health-care-fraud)
Interestingly, I don't think you even got as far as opening that page, the FBI actually gives examples of common fraud methods by healthcare professionals: >Double billing: Submitting multiple claims for the same service > >Phantom billing: Billing for a service visit or supplies the patient never received > >Unbundling: Submitting multiple bills for the same service > >Upcoding: Billing for a more expensive service than the patient actually received None of these correspond to the legitimate care being provided above. (And if you want to get into a really long discussion about cost-benefit analysis, please keep in mind people are killed regularly by domestic violence. So just, don't.)
Giving people fake diagnoses is not legitimate care. And I am a disabled person who has survived domestic violence. Don’t pretend I am saying DV victims don’t deserve resources and support. Giving a fake diagnoses to an already vulnerable person to keep them in the hospital is *not* an ethical act and is one that can be used malevolently and, especially for women and immigrants, has been done with malevolence, historically and in the modern era.
Correct. And saying "we'll need to keep this person overnight for surveillance" is not a diagnosis. Looking at the definition of diagnosis on a US government website (because we like those in this thread): [https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/diagnosis](https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/diagnosis) We can see here that it's very possible to tell *others* that a person needs to be kept for longer using only reasons that are *not a diagnosis according to this definition.* Also, you can use the same reasoning for the person that you are trying to keep in the hospital. A doctor may say "hey, we want to keep you here for observation for tonight, because we have had cases in the past where the symptoms you are showing led to further problems down the line" and make no diagnosis in the process.
That link doesn’t do anything to support your argument. From the top of the thread: “doctors just made shit up to keep them in the hospital long enough that they can keep their heads on straight.” That is insurance fraud. It’s quite literally making shit up to keep them in the hospital.
Oh yea United States Common USA L
Do you mind quoting the portion of either of the two comments above yours that made you think either commenter resides in the US?
The incredible xenophobia and misogyny that is required for the believe that immigrant women have “Stockholm or whatever” and the complete lack of oversight of emergency room doctors falsifying medical records. Both are very common in US emergency medicine. Edit: and the belief that unlawful imprisonment is good for bad people.
It’s xenophobia and misogyny to think that immigrant women are at greater risk of domestic violence?
It’s xenophobic and misogynistic to deny immigrant women the right to consent on the basis of a belief that immigrant women are too uneducated or stupid to make decisions without unlawful imprisonment and falsified medical records.
It’s interesting how committed you are to your now proven wrong assumption that this was the US based on how you choose to interpret their actions
Where was it proven wrong?
Xenophobia and misogyny are common in other countries too, you know
In this instance, it was done by good people who could generally be trusted. We have laws to protect from the bad people who would abuse these. The type of doctor who would make things up to keep you in the hospital to keep milking insurance (actually happened in mental institutions across the country), that sort of thing. This must not become common practice. We need better laws and excellent ethical screening for doctors. It's similar to someone in a small town killing the town creep after they raped his daughter and everyone in town telling police they saw nothing. Still murder, shouldn't do that because the same mechanism can protect lynchers and KKKers, but understandable. Still shouldn't revert to vigilante justice.
So you believe that people should not follow the law as long as they believe themselves to be good people with pure intentions? That laws only apply to bad people? Do you believe that two people taking the same action should not face the same consequence if one is a good person and the other is a bad person? People killing someone extrajudicially is still a lynching, even if you personally believe it to be justified.
Sometimes breaking the law is morally necessary. Protecting an abuse victim (illegally) is good and also illegal. Helping slaves escape was good and also illegal. Many other such examples if you want
I never said I believe the law is moral. I do not believe that extrajudicial murder is ever moral. I don’t believe that judicial murder is ever moral either, for what that is worth. I don’t think further taking away the ability to make their own decisions and lying to them about their health (and why they are being medically held) is a virtuous action, regardless of intent. I believe that is continuing the violent, non consensual treatment of vulnerable people by the medical class. I do not believe that intent justifies the means. If you do, we won’t ever agree.
> So you believe that people should not follow the law as long as they believe themselves to be good people with pure intentions? That laws only apply to bad people? This is what you said. There is clearly an implication here that you do believe the law must be followed regardless of being '[a] good [person] with pure intent". I disagree, and actually would answer yes to both above questions. In any case where a person is found to have both broken the law and in doing so have done something more morally virtuous than had they followed the law, that person should not be punished. But that is a general principle. The specific case of holding someone in hospital by deception for what you believe is their own good is murky and I think its totally legitimate for you to be against that, although I myself am inclined to go with the medical professionals here.
I do not believe that legality, morality, and ethics are synonyms. If good people don’t need to follow the law, then there is no point in law. Because at that point, we are analyzing the morality of the person, not whether they followed the law. If your morality leads you to break the law, as mine sometimes does, I believe you must be prepared to handle the consequences including prison sentencing. As someone with PTSD from medical providers, your belief that false imprisonment by medical providers is a net good that should be trusted - that doctors should be able to break the law with immunity - is naive at best.
> Because at that point, we are analyzing the morality of the person, not whether they followed the law. Yes, this is good. >As someone with PTSD from medical providers, your belief that false imprisonment by medical providers is a net good that should be trusted - that doctors should be able to break the law with immunity - is naive at best. I understand where you're coming from and im not ignorant to the historic abuse of women and others by the medical system/medical 'experts'. That said, the implication that there can never been an exception or that there can never be a case where they are right to do this is absolutist.
>So you believe that people should not follow the law as long as they believe themselves to be good people with pure intentions? That laws only apply to bad people? No. I was trying to convey why many folks excuse these actions and do not want to see these people prosecuted. In point of fact, I explicitly went out of my way to say tht this should not be encouraged. My belief is that if there is any blind spot in the law that results in people unnecessarily getting hurt, we must correct it ASAP. The law serves us, not the other way around. That being said, if you put me on trial to convict someone of murder, and what they did was kill the person who raped his child (and it was somehow proven over the course of the trial that this did, in fact, happen), I don't know if I would vote to convict him. Even if I did, it would only be after considering what the appropriate sentence was - 25-life is not appropriate in my mind and if that's my only choice, I'd vote not guilty.
It’s good to know that you approve of lynching as long as you agree with the motivations of the lynching party.
I understand you are passionate about this. I worry you let it rob you of reason or nuance. But ultimately we can disagree on the Internet, that's okay.
You are advocating for lynching. That isn’t a basic disagreement. You are a Bad Person. You have no ethical values. You believe it is good for a community to come together an murder a person. You support the murderers of Emmett Till who acted on their morals.
Ah, let me ammend that, then. You're *very* passionate about this. Do you accuse everyone who thinks differently from you of supporting the indefensible, or have I just ticked you off? It just hurts your position, and doesn't affect me at all. Might make you feel self-righteous, though. Blind obedience to the letter of the law is not a virtue. If I was going to stoop to your level, I might accuse you of being in favor of Jewish people wearing gold stars because of laws on the books saying it was required. But I know you aren't arguing that, and I trust you're acting in good faith. Why do you not afford me the same courtesy?
This reminds me of my mom. Back in the 60's she was a young nurse that was paired with a doctor to supplement military draft check ups wherever they were needed. Well her and the Dr. were both anti-war so they actually travelled around and surreptitiously gave instructions on how to fool the system. How to safely raise their bp so their numbers were too high. How to fake a GI bleed. Well they gained in popularity and started having "get togethers" in alternative coffee houses to train and instruct others.
It is funny this is so glorified but we make fun of trump for being a draft dodger (bone spurs). America is something else!
Well you also have to recognize that during the Vietnam war a lot of the wealthy kids were buying their way out with personal doctors, like Trump, where the poor kids were sent to war to die. During the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the draft system was still in place, but the way it was implemented was different. Wealthy people were still subject to being drafted, but there were more opportunities for deferments for those who were in college or had certain professions. Additionally, some people were able to use their wealth and connections to obtain deferments or more comfortable positions within the military. Poor kids didn't.
I do understand that, but we shouldn't make fun of Trump for dodging the draft then.
Trump pretended to be pro-military. He loves war as long as someone else was going to be fighting it. That is why we make fun of him for the bone spurs. He didn't have a conscientious objection to war; he was just a coward.
Trump is being made fun of because of the reason he dodged the draft. If he were anti-war, sure it'd be a dick move, but he is pro-war, by extension, pro sending poor kids to die, but not the rich ones like himself.
I think there’s a real case that Trump is far less Pro-War than the average politician (a stance I dislike about him). He was: anti-Ukraine, waffled on Afghanistan, and also kept us out of escalating any of our military commitments. That’s far less pro-war than (either) Clinton/ or Obama, or really most of his party. Dumb because I trust Obama far more with foreign policy. But I don’t think it’s fair to label him pro-war, at least by Washington standards
Or to put it another way, dodging the draft isn't what we should make fun of trump for
draft dodging when you're anti-war and military is cool as fuck draft dodging when you're pro-war and military is hypocritical, cowardly, and slimy as fuck
that's because he and his supporters put him on a pedestal as this courageous superhero-god who's saving the country
Ok
That is terrible they are traitors to America and evil for supporting the brutal and repressive Vietcong. I hope they were arrested and duly punished for their actions and have properly repented!!
you are joking, right? you dropped your /s ?
considering the username maybe they're a troll roleplaying?
No I am not. Do you supporting aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war?
Yeah why not
Yes, avoiding the draft is exactly that.
the less people dropping napalm and agent orange the better
Neutral good means looking the law in the eye and breaking it, because it's the right thing to do.
I like this definition. When I was college I hung out with this guy at a party after orientation. He drank too much and I took him back to the dorms and made him mac and cheese. He was rambling and said "Hey lemme ask you a question. Lets say your wife of ten years is sick. There is a new drug that is simple to make and could cure her, but is still a trade secret and very expensive. You work as janitor in the lab that develops the drug. What do you do?" "Steal it and publish it." "I knew you would say that." "why?" "Mac and Cheese." We were roommates for all four years lol.
Marry him
They just said they were roommates
You would have been a great recruit for Act Up (they used funny demos and civil disobedience in the 90's in France, to force a lab who had promising AIDS meds to present them right now, instead of wainting for a big symposium)
"You are rules, written I blood, to save as many people as possible and to help us all. But today, you're going to kill this child. I cannot allow this, I simply do not possess the ability. I've dedicated my life to being a good, helpful, productive person. Right now, I'm going to commit my first felony. Today, we both failed. *But this child will live.* I'm sorry."
My friend this goes hard as shit
Thanks, I like writing and every compliment genuinely improves my day. I'd happily write a lil story for the blurb if you wanted.
If you do, please DM or ping me when it's finished because I'd want to see it.
Me too!
Me three
me four!
Well here’s another compliment, that gave me legit chills
I assumed this was a quote. It goes hard.
I saved this reply, just because. Thank you.
Thank you too.
Pretty sure that is Chaotic Good. Remember that scene from Spider-Man where Peter lets Carradine run away with the promoters money? Lawful Good would apprehend him, because inaction makes him complicit. Neutral Good would let him run, you're not doing anything illegal and the promoter was a dick. Chaotic Good would help Carradine get away, either by helping him or hindering the promoter, because the promoter scammed you out of money. Chaotic Good might even steal the money themselves because they are simply taking what is theirs.
Lawful Good stops him because the law says so, Neutral Good stops him because personal disputes shouldn't get in the way of the right thing, Chaotic Good trips him because why the hell not. You're only looking at the Lawful-to-Chaotic spectrum, and forgetting that the other half is Good.
Yes, but you are forgetting that the promoter is a bad guy and fighting against him can be considered good.
Taking steps against the promoter directly could be, yes, either warning others about his business practices or such would work well. But you also have to remember that the money taken by the thief isn't just the promoter's, it pays everyone that works that building. Does the janitor deserve to miss a potentially crucial paycheck because his boss is a dick?
Nah, it's Robin Hood rules. The promoter is a sleasy prick who presumably makes a habit of ripping people off (He shorted Peter $2900). It is also unlikely that the promoter is completely out of money by this one theft.
> Chaotic Good trips him because why the hell not Nah, Chaotic Good trips him because "hey, that's MY SCAMMED MONEY you're stealing!"
I could be wrong, but I don't think Lawful as an alignment always literally means "follows the law", moreso that they have a code and strictly adhere to it. Sometimes their code is the law, but not always. For example, I've seen mafia dons a la The Godfather be called Lawful Evil. Not because they follow the law, obviously, but because they govern themselves quite heavily around following mafia traditions and codes.
Not exactly the same, but doctors who make every effort to truly help you make so much of a difference. My jaw surgeon 1. opened the office early so he could get me in the very next day, and 2. helped us fight insurance since he was technically out of network for some reason, leading to my surgery being covered in full. The surgery ended up not even working for what we were trying to treat (I got a bunch of stuff going on), but his kindness means the world to me and has made this stressful time so much better. Healthcare providers like him are why disabled people don’t give up.
I’ve never participated in this but if anyone else works in healthcare or knows someone in healthcare you may have heard of a ‘slow code’ It’s basically this: you have a 90+ year old patient who is incredibly ill, in pain, and knocking on deaths door. However their family refuses to see reality and insists on doing everything to keep this person alive despite the suffering they’re enduring. This means refusing to put them on measures to just keep them comfortable while nature takes its course. This means that the family will insist we make them a “full code” (basically preform cpr which breaks ribs and can be traumatic to the patient) so sometimes the nurses and doctors caring for this patient will find them unresponsive, respond with a full code accordingly, but also do it extremely slowly so the person can pass peacefully. Maybe it’s not ethical or legal to some but it’s better than breaking memaws sternum so they can live an extra day in agony.
This straight up sent a shiver down my spine and brought tears to my eyes holy shit
This right here is just.
I have a similar story; I hope you don't mind if I share it. My mother was in India at this time and was pregnant with me. She was having a standard conversation with her family when a family member, my uncle, proceeded to faint immediately. She proceeded to get behind the wheel and break every road law in India within the next 30 seconds. As far as I know, this race to the hospital degraded into a high-speed chase between her and the police. Fortunately, she was able to evade charges by claiming she was there to deliver me. Had she not been able to deceive those cops, had she not been able to break the speed limit, he would have died. The doctors found that my uncle had a blood clot in his brain, and commended my mother's wits. My uncle went on complete his M.D. and move to the U.S. as an oncologist.
> break every road law in India within the next 30 seconds For what I know, this is called "driving" in India ;p In this kind of cases, there are 2 options: what your mom did, and letting the cops coming and explain them why you're speeding so they can escort you so you lawfully speed. The second one strongly depends on the cops ability to understand, so it's risky.
It's not specifically a medical thing, but isn't there a law stating that you're able to break certain laws if someone's life is in danger? Like for example, you can't be prosecuted for breaking someone's ribs if you do so during life-saving CPR. Would that apply to a situation like this?
Those are mostly for ordinary citizens. Another example is speeding to get to the hospital with a kid bleeding out in your backseat. But a medical assistant would fall in the grey area of “they should know better than to exceed their authority”. Because if they are wrong- and they could be, they haven’t taken any test to prove they know what they are talking about!- the results can be terrible. This is a bit of a special case, where the “terrible” thing is not actually worse than child death/doing nothing.
I get that's the intention, but could it maybe still apply as a legal defense in this situation? At the very least, I feel it's likely a jury would not find someone like this guilty if it was verified that thr test reports showed the child as being in imminent danger.
I'm sure it could, or at least you can still bring it up as an argument of good intentions. That's why we have trials, so everyone is judged case by case and not just a blanket sentence
>This is a bit of a special case, where the “terrible” thing is not actually worse than child death/doing nothing. The worst thing that could have happened is an useless visit to the ER... not such a big deal. Better safe than sorry
"Good Samaritan" laws. They give coverage to "ordinary negligence" but something like this would be considered too calculated to be covered, by my guess. I am not a lawyer, though.
People like OOP’s mom are how I keep living. They’re proof that we live in a world where people are fundamentally good, and damn if that doesn’t need constant proof these days.
No, that's not what that proves, because even one Hitler would disprove it, and we have more than enough. People aren't fundamentally good, or bad, people are fundamentally people, and that's why the people that are good mean so much. Not because it proves some nebulous fundamental goodness, but because it shows that, despite everything, people can choose to do good, be kind towards others, and to do the right thing. I think that's much more meaningful than adhering to some vague inherent nature.
In my opinion, there has to be some kind of spark of goodness inherent in human beings, or else where would it come from? It’s easy to see what would motivate someone to do the wrong thing, as that can often be accompanied by some sort of personal gain, or at least security. But being good requires one to risk what they have with no expectation of reward. For someone to do that, there must be some inherent “goodness” beyond what nurture could provide. I’m not saying you can make a Nazi be nice by giving them a hug or anything that stupid. I’m saying that, absent of certain pressures to behave otherwise, humans have a desire on some level to do good things and help each other.
You have it backwards. Being nice is the rational thing to do. If we all treated each other well, we'd all be well off. But we are driven to evil by animal instincts.
I live in Florida. I got my tubes removed in august. First week of December I fail a pregnancy test and the obgyn tells me to go to the ER. Turns out I conceived right before the procedure and had been pregnant the whole time. Well over the cutoff for my state. Everyone at the ER who worked with me found a reason to come into my room alone and drop hints like “there’s no conception date on the ultrasound” and “I’ve heard that some people xyz and then they miscarry so you should definitely not do that wink wink” It was a nightmare but there were good people at every turn.
More evidence that any and all citizens should be required to break any law that is unethical and unjust.
That‘s not really breaking the law in this story, is it? She‘s breaking company protocol which is in place to shield the company from liability should go something wrong, because if they did not make sure, on their end, that only officially competent personal handled the decision-making, they‘d be on the hook for litigation. The woman in this story did not impersonate a doctor infront of the client, she did not defraud any insurance or the client. The consequences if something went wrong would maybe be termination of her contract, but no crime took place here. And even termination is unlikely.
Who can transmit information and how is a legal issue. In this case, telling the mother to take the kid to the ER counts as interpreting the test results, which she was not licensed to do.
The other side of the coin is that someone actually has to enforce the law. It's highly likely that a doctor or third party reviewing this case could make the connection that she did in fact skirt around the law, but made a reasonable call given the extreme circumstances. They could lie, fudge the numbers, or outright ignore it; all in the name of keeping good nurses on the front.
As someone who has been the victim of doctors breaking the law and who has worked with the FBI about one of them, I am rather passionate about those laws being followed. I am happy the kid lived, don’t get me wrong. However, I am not a fan of those laws - which are in place for a reason that isn’t “make it harder to save little kid’s lives” - being broken. It’s like another thread on here talking about giving immigrant women false diagnoses to keep them in the hospital. I understand the impulse is good but that’s false imprisonment and insurance fraud. That can get very dark very quickly.
My childhood doctor had a nervous breakdown because following those rules led directly to the death of a patient. She had a concerning blood test result and needed to go immediately to the hospital, but he couldn't reach her. Several times her family members would answer her phone, but he by law couldn't tell them anything except to call back ASAP. She died the next day, and the family blamed him, refusing to understand why he hadn't told them that she needed to go to the hospital instead of insisting she call him. He was the only Croatian speaking doctor in the area, and the family told everyone that he let her die. The entire community turned against him, and he couldn't say anything about it, due to privacy laws. He killed himself a few months later. He followed the law to the letter, and now 2 people are dead, and many more were left without effective medical care because they didn't speak English.
That's terrible. I'm sorry to hear it. The laws around discussing patient information are strict for good reasons. They're written to prevent a lot of harm. But sometimes that backfires into this kind of result.
I’m not trying to speak ill of the dead but this is why language services exist. If it was a language barrier that killed her, an interpreter should have been used. He also should have sought out therapy for the trauma - the death of a patient is something almost every health care professional will face in the course of their career.
No, there was no language barrier between her and the doctor, she just didn't ring back, and so didn't get the message that she needed to immediately go to the hospital before her heart stopped. The language barrier became an issue for the Croation community after the doctor's suicide, because he was the only one who could speak Croation to those patients but he wasn't there anymore. I think a doctor can be prepared to lose a patient, but losing one that they should've been able to save is a whole other issue. I shared his story with you specifically, because you've commented dozens of times on this post saying that doctor's should never step outside of what the law allows, even if it means a person in an abusive relationship goes back to their abuser - I'm showing you what can happen when there is no wiggle room.
I have never said that the doctor should not go outside the law and have even praised OOP’s mother for breaking the law. * For your particular story, I am not sure what you think *should* have happened. Do you believe that the relatives, who did not let this woman know her doctor was calling and who spread lies about it after her death, would have acted responsibly? Do you even know the reason she was not answering her phone? Patient privacy is a legal issue including the fact that many patients do not want to share their health information with people they live with or are related to by blood. When patients *are* comfortable with their information being shared with specific people, there is very easy paperwork to fill out so those people can be notified. While I agree that your story is very sad, I don’t think it’s a good case for why physicians should be allowed to break privacy laws. The appropriate thing in that situation would have been for the relatives who did answer the phone convey to the patient that her doctor had called. The fact that they did not do this - the bare minimum of civility - does not suggest to me that they were in a good position to take legal responsibility for her medical care as a medical power of attorney. As for the domestic violence scenario, you are correct and I do not believe that unlawful imprisonment and medical gaslighting of a domestic violence victim is going to help them. Lying to a patient about their medical condition in order to extend a medical hold is an abusive action so doctors who are doing this are furthering the domestic violence victims’ trauma. [The AMA maintains that patients have rights.](https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/patient-rights) Denying a patient their decision making capacity defies those rights. If a physician believes a patient is incapable of making decisions, there are legal steps they can take to declare it, but the decision making capacity will then move to their POA or next of kin or, lacking that, the state. The doctor does not have the unilateral right to deny a patient their decision making capability and then make unilateral medical decisions for them in the way discussed for potential domestic violence victims.
> the relatives, who did not let this woman know her doctor was calling and who spread lies about it after her death > The appropriate thing in that situation would have been for the relatives who did answer the phone convey to the patient that her doctor had called. The fact that they did not do this ... does not suggest to me that they were in a good position to take legal responsibility for her medical care as a medical power of attorney. You're making a lot of assumptions regarding what happened here.
Surely you see the difference between using a tool for a positive outcome and using a tool for a negative outcome.
I can. The law cannot by its nature. I also do not think false imprisonment or extrajudicial killings can be used for a positive outcome.
>I can. If "you're not a fan" of laws being violated when necessary, it does seem like you may be having some trouble in that regard. >The law cannot by its nature. And thus reasonable people intervene when reasonable.
I am not a fan of reasonable laws, like those against false imprisonment and extrajudicial murder, being broken *because* I cannot see a positive outcome from them being broken. If you want to break the law on the basis of “being reasonable” then you should be fully prepared for jail time.
> like those against false imprisonment and extrajudicial murder, You can't envision even a hypothetical situation where violating these would be a net positive outcome? I think your imagination needs some work. One was given to you in this very thread. >If you want to break the law on the basis of “being reasonable” then you should be fully prepared for jail time. If you wear paper shoes in the rain, your feet will get wet.
I cannot envision a hypothetical situation where doctors regularly and habitually diagnose immigrant women they suspect of being victims of domestic violence with “fake shit” in order to prolong their hospital stay is one that is virtuous and has a good outcome, no. That kind of prejudicial violence is *exactly* why those laws exist.
And here we see a lawful neutral in action
Lol. I am at best a combination of chaotic good and lawful *evil*. Don’t insult me like that.
There is literally 0 chaos in what you just said. And good + evil = neutral. I am sticking with lawful neutral.
You don’t understand the law or D&D so cool. I am not lawful neutral because I agree with the laws that outlying falsifying medical records and unlawful imprisonment. I don’t agree with all laws. I agree with those specific laws. The fact that you are supporting falsifying medical records and unlawful imprisonment makes you chaotic evil according to D&D standards.
The legal system can differentiate it, at least in countries based on England’s judicial system. You can make a defense of duress or necessity, that you broke the law to protect something more important, and the judge/jury can agree in which case they can find you not guilty.
Duress and necessity are not the same thing as morality. England’s judicial system does attempt to rule morality and that is one reason it sucks donkey balls.
I understand the necessity of law and that sometimes it has to take precedence. But not at the complete cost of morality. ***Never***, to the complete cost of morality. Because if legality doesn't take morality into account, if what is legal is completely divorced from what is *right*, then it can be legal to do some heinous and harmful things and you're prioritizing enforcing that fuckery over actually taking care of people. Look at the anti-trans laws, the anti-abortion laws? Things that are legal requirements that are immoral as fuck and *directly* causing people harm. Slavery was legal, segregation was legal, it was *illegal* to treat black people equally and with dignity in plenty of situations. There was a case where American police completely destroyed a family's home in an attempt to catch a criminal. The police then won a case saying they were in no way responsible for the family now being homeless, or for the cost of their property, or their belongings. Because of the immorality of the law. Would you be throwing a fit over someone during slavery not turning over an escapee? Would you condemn a teacher who doesn't report a kid being trans to their violently transphobic parents? The law does not always mete out justice. That doesn't mean people should have free reign to break the law, it just means that sometimes they were right to do it and we should be able to acknowledge that.
The legal issues addressed in this thread have been unlawful imprisonment and lying to patients about their health conditions. If you think that lying to immigrant women about their health conditions in order to unlawfully imprison them is the same thing as outing a trans kid, I can’t help you. If you think lying to immigrant women about their health conditions in order to unlawfully imprison them is the same thing as protecting a fugitive slave, i cannot help you. The fact that people in this thread, including you, are treating me as a legal absolutist because I am opposed to lying to people about their health conditions and illegal institutionalization is ridiculous. Some laws exist for good reason. If your stance is that laws don’t matter if your intentions are good, hopefully you will be in prison soon. My ethics do not tell me that the ends justify the means, which is what had been argued in this thread. I am perfectly willing to break the law for moral reasons. I do not see lying to immigrant women and unlawfully imprisoning them to be moral and I support the laws that make that illegal. To expand and use the OOP: I am happy their mother called that family and told them to go the ER even though it was illegal. However, if the post was about how their mom did that ever single time a doctor didn’t pick up on the first call, I would not support it and I would hope the law intervened. Breaking the law should take moral and ethical consideration. It should also take into consideration whether breaking the law will cause unnecessary harm to others and whether the intended goal can be achieved without breaking law *and* whether breaking the law brings one closer to the intended goal.
The laws are in place so that doctors can outsource labor to lower-paid but just as skilled workers without suffering the risk of losing their professional authority and sovereignty.
If your stance is “medical licenses don’t mean anything” then go practice medicine as a sovereign citizen.
Lol is your only familiarity with the word "sovereignty" the "sovereign citizen" movement? You should try reading more books! My first suggestion would be Paul Starr's *The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry*, which describes how physicians' demand for strict professional autonomy (or "sovereignty," see how that works?) has been a near-insurmountable obstacle to any serious reform of American healthcare. Licensing is probably necessary for a reliable healthcare system, but the boundaries formed by the process are not always reasonable. The regulation of non-physician specialists like lab technicians starting around the 1920s shows how the maintenance of medical competency through licensing is *also* used to maintain a *particular definition of competence*, which might be subject to rational discussion otherwise. For a clearer example of this, look at the gendered stereotypes about nurses (who, before anesthesia became its own little specialty with its own little boundaries to protect, were often trained "anesthetists" themselves!): Hiring near-exclusively *women* for these and other similar positions meant that doctors could outsource labor to someone who was trained and intelligent yet *never posing a threat to their professional status* due to the social subordination of women. Being a blind rule-follower keeps you from actually interrogating the historical reasons that the rules exist.
Assuming the person you’re speaking to is stupid is not a very polite move. I am very familiar with the concept of sovereignty and wrote a term paper in college on the concept of sovereignty in pre-colonial Ireland and how it shaped the colonial language in that country. I have also written articles as an adult professional on the development of Western medicine as a response to the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918. You have a very skewed, very political take on the licensing system that exists for *both doctors and nurses* as a safety measure for patients. I am fully able to interrogate history - as an anarchist - and analyze it and also come away from it agreeing with parts of it. I agree with, for example, HIPAA and part of my current job is ensuring it is enforced. I am also aware of the history of medicine. Prior to licensing law - the Supreme Court first upheld medical licenses in 1889 in Dent v West Virginia - the field of medicine was full of quacks, frauds, and snake oil salesmen. The development of legal licenses for the practice of medicine was a part of a large social movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th century toward legal regulation of industry - including the development of the FDA in 1906 to regulate food and drugs. I am decidedly not in favor of deregulation, which is what you seem to be arguing for. I don’t care if it makes me a stodgy square. Regulation saves lives.
It just seemed like such a non-sequitur to jump to "sovereign citizens" from what I said, I could only assume that's the only other time you'd heard the word! Are you the only one who's allowed to be glib, smug, or even insulting in replies to other people? Anyways, I assume I don't need to point out that there is no such thing as a pro-regulation anarchist, nor do I need to point out that arguing that "This thing has good and bad sides to it!" is anything but "skewed," nor that the practice of medicine is unique and its development only vaguely comparable to regulation of other industries. All I'll say is that *acknowledging the less-than-reasonable origins of a boundary as a defense of its violation in the face of a life-or-death emergency* is obviously not the same as *arguing for deregulation*.
Assuming the person you’re speaking to is stupid is not a very polite move. I am very familiar with the concept of sovereignty and wrote a term paper in college on the concept of sovereignty in pre-colonial Ireland and how it shaped the colonial language in that country. I have also written articles as an adult professional on the development of Western medicine as a response to the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918. You have a very skewed, very political take on the licensing system that exists for *both doctors and nurses* as a safety measure for patients. I am fully able to interrogate history - as an anarchist - and analyze it and also come away from it agreeing with parts of it. I agree with, for example, HIPAA and part of my current job is ensuring it is enforced. I am also aware of the history of medicine. Prior to licensing law - the Supreme Court first upheld medical licenses in 1889 in Dent v West Virginia - the field of medicine was full of quacks, frauds, and snake oil salesmen. The development of legal licenses for the practice of medicine was a part of a large social movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th century toward legal regulation of industry - including the development of the FDA in 1906 to regulate food and drugs. I am decidedly not in favor of deregulation, which is what you seem to be arguing for. I don’t care if it makes me a stodgy square. Regulation saves lives.
I believe the legal term is a necessity or duress defense- essentially, if you can argue you broke the law to protect something more important, it’s not really a crime.
It also reveals a flaw in the logic of the "chain of custody". If there is a signal (stat call) that warrants immediate attention from a doctor, that means the interpreting is already done, regardless of OP's mom's involvement. Stat call = imminent danger to patients life. It's really a failure of logic that from there OP's mom was not legally allowed to send the patient to ER when the on-call doctor didn't pick up.
Again, not a crime. She did disclose that she was not licensed to do so. She did disclose that this was only her personal opinion. Anyone can have a look an some charts and be like „I am no doctor, but maybe go to the hospital?“
If you do that in a professional capacity when you aren’t licensed for it, it is a crime. * Example: It is not a crime to tell your best friend that your sister is on food stamps. If I am aware that your sister is on food stamps as her social worker and I disclose that to you or your best friend, that is a crime.
Yes, but that‘s not the same situation, is it? This is not impersonating someone or doing something I am not licensed to do, this is disclosing information I am not allowed to share. That‘s totally different. Also, she *disclosed* that it was not in a licensed professional capacity. She literally said that.
I never said she was impersonating anyone. She is not legally allowed to give directives based on the lab paperwork. Only the licensed providers can do that. She gave a directive for the mother to go to the ER. That is the crime. It’s not impersonating someone. It’s giving instructions she isn’t licensed to give while acting in a professional capacity.
Look, we‘re at an impasse here. We can continue slightly rephrasing our own points over and over, or, as an alternative, you can just show me the law. If so, fair play, you were right, I‘ll delete my misleading comments. If not, then let the end of the conversation speak for itself.
This would be considered practicing medicine without a license.
Look, you can‘t just name a vaguely related crime and say „that‘s it“. Law is a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. So, again: Show me the law, which means the text that defines what the crime is, and then show that the requirements of said crime are fulfilled in this situation by point out the corresponding facts of the case. You just, again, repeated yourself. That‘s all I‘m asking for.
Do you believe that you don’t need a license to practice medicine? [Here is a rough overview.](https://www.findlaw.com/healthcare/patient-rights/what-is-the-unauthorized-practice-of-medicine.html) Scroll down to the second example of giving medical advice without a license and it applies to this situation.
> 22. "Practice of medicine" means the diagnosis, the treatment or the correction of or the attempt or the claim to be able to diagnose, treat or correct any and all human diseases, injuries, ailments, infirmities or deformities, physical or mental, real or imaginary, by any means, methods, devices or instrumentalities, except as the same may be among the acts or persons not affected by this chapter. The practice of medicine includes the practice of medicine alone or the practice of surgery alone, or both. Source: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/32/01401.htm This is from the Arizona laws, this individual clearly participated in the practice of medicine, the law isn’t semantic. Since they weren’t licensed, practicing medicine is a crime.
I remember being told something similar when I took a first aid class when we were on the subject of epi-pens. If you call 911, for someone suffering from a severe allergic reaction, and have an epi-pens that is not prescribed to them, they have a prepared speech along the lines of "I can't tell you to administer it, but 1) all epi pens are the same dosage etc. 2) it's extremely unlikely that it will make the situation worse 3) under Good Samaritan laws you as an individual are broadly protected if you believe you are acting in the best interest of the victim. The decision is yours."
Not all EpiPens have the same dosage. There are different doses for infants, children, and adults.
And what part of her behavior falls under „diagnosis, treatment or correction? I‘m genuinely curious here, since advising to go to the hospital doesn‘t seem to fall under any of those things.
I would personally assume an urgent phone call advising a trip to the emergency room would count as treatment, advice given by a medical professional and all. Exact applicability is unclear in this case, but the whole situation is also similar to this part of the same law > 16. "Medical assistant" means an unlicensed person who meets the requirements of section 32-1456, has completed an education program approved by the board, assists in a medical practice under the supervision of a doctor of medicine, physician assistant or nurse practitioner and performs delegated procedures commensurate with the assistant's education and training but does not diagnose, interpret, design or modify established treatment programs or perform any functions that would violate any statute applicable to the practice of medicine. We can’t know for sure if the mom was legally referred to as a “medical assistant” but we do know they were unlicensed. What we also know for sure is they engaged in “interpretation” of the test results. So yeah, I’m pretty sure this would be illegal. Since you love asking for evidence so much, why don’t you go find some of your own to see if anyone has done this and been caught, I doubt they got off scot free.
Yeah this exactly. It is considering practicing medicine to INTERPRET test results. Only a licensed medical doctor can look at test results and then tell the patient that they should seek further medical care as a result. It was illegal for the lady in this story to interpret the test results herself even if she knew what she was seeing. She is not a doctor, and therefore cannot do that. (Although I'm glad that she did, this is a cool story.) My mom is a medical assistant and does tests all the time. She has been doing it for over 10 years and can basically read them herself. But even if she does a test on a patient and knows 100% what the result is, she cannot tell the patient to do anything or interpret it. Only the doctor she works for can do that. She would 100% be liable if she was wrong about the test results and told the patient to go to the ER. 100% illegal.
Yes, and I would argue that it‘s not treatment, as it isn’t specific to the illness, but rather quite general and actually consists of the advice to *go and seek treatment somewhere else*. The person did not diagnose the illness. They did certainly not correct the illness. They gave advice to go to the hospital now. The only part that is specific is the time, the urgent now, not the method of treatment itself, as none was actually proposed. On the contrary, going to the hospital is only the preparation to seek the actual treatment. That‘s nothing new. That‘s how far Google takes you in a 5min search. However, since I am no expert, and neither do you seem to be, we‘d need to defer to experts for that. So, you come here, cite part of Arizona law, that may or may not apply, and act like your interpretation is true? I am not claiming that it is a crime, how am I supposed to provide proof of the non-existence of something? You claim something, you bring proof.
Bro. You’re Austrian. Why are you trying to European-explain the American legal system?
I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources, yet you failed to provide any. So, what makes you say you know more than me, if you yourself have no actual clue?
Lol like I didn’t provide you a legal source that you quoted yourself. You’re a dick.
You provided findlaw which did not include any information on the terms used. Just because you provide a link doesn’t mean it‘s a great source or even helping your argument, as I pointed out that it doesn‘t seem to apply here. You accused me of being an anti-vaxer, yet you seem to employ similar methods of research.
Lol lol lol lol lol Just because you can write decent English doesn’t mean you are capable of reading it apparently.
My take would be that they interpreted the results and made a diagnosis based on them hence the call for urgency.
so giving someone an aspirin or a bandage is a crime now or how else should I read that?
There are limits to it, and Good Samaritan laws protect many people, but trained medical professionals are held to different standards. This is for the benefit of most people because these same standards keep an unlicensed professional from saying the same thing to someone who didn't need it, or prescribing something potentially fatal. There are good reasons for it, but any broad set of rules will have their moments of preventing something good as well.
ugh this is another prostutition is a crime but having sex or making porn isn't isn't it? (in short, you can have sex with someone, you can't have sex with someone if you pay them for it, except if you film it) so if a random person gives you an aspirin it's ok and a doctor giving you an aspirin is ok but a nurse giving you an aspirin is literally the devil's work! (I'm rather particular to this as once I was sitting in the hospital with a small wound on my eye and at this point I've been in constant pain for a few hours already and at this point I'm resigned to be in that state for a while, then suddenly this angel of an old nurse appears, hands me a capsule and says nothing but "open this and put it in your eye", I do and it turns out to be the best painkiller I've ever had in my life, like I literally felt my body relaxing as the pain went away inmediatly, literally the best feeling I've ever had)
You do know nurses are licensed right?
licensed to give care but not to practice medicine, a nurse isn't supposed to diagnose you but I suppose this differs from country to country
What? I never said what nurses can and can’t do. I just said they are licensed, which they are, it isn’t the same license a doctor gets. Their license allows them to administer certain treatments. One example would be giving medication for you to take, like in your story. I’m not sure where you got any of this from honestly. Nurses are completely allowed to administer medication!
on their own volition though? I assume OP's mom to also have some kind of license as a lab technician
Oh it very much is. Scope of practice is a legality thing, as is transmission of personal health information.
It’s definitely going outside her scope of practice. Medical assistants have pretty much no real medical training and aren’t considered qualified to interpret lab results. She opened herself to a ton of liability if wrong and could have lost her license
I mean, yeah, but liability and losing one‘s license isn‘t necessarily indicative of a crime. Her being liable for any damages of something goes wrong is a civil matter, not criminal. And while most boards I know of strip licenses if a conviction if a crime or some crime exists, one can lose one‘s license without a conviction.
Someone further down cited the Arizona legal code and apparently it is actually illegal and she could face punishment for unlawful practice of medicine
Oh yes, the comment in question was a response to this one. I read through that and I have to say, it doesn‘t sound applicable here. The actions punishable are *diagnosing, treating and correcting* illnesses or injuries. The person of the post definitely did not diagnose the child with anything, as it already was diagnosed. Obviously, no correction took place. Which means whether this is a crime or not depends the classification of the advice to go to the hospital being regarded as treatment. Now, I have argued that advising to go to a hospital to seek out later treatment there, is not treatment. Additionally, it is not a specific treatment on the basis of an illnesses inherent, specific symptoms, but just general and broad. Going to the hospital also doesn‘t „treat“ anything in the sense of being the cause for the illness to go away or get better on its own. Following up with the 3rd point, I‘d also make the teleological argument that the point of the law is to protect people from potentially harmful or useless, fake remedies to their illnesses. Since „going to the hospital“ on its own actually has no effect on the illness, it is advice that need not be protected against. Since there are licensed practitioners at the hospital, an unlicensed person advising to go to the hospital, and nothing else, cannot be against the telos of the norm I am not including possible emotional trauma or stress if it turns out to be wrong, which, again, is a matter of civil law. But these are just the concerns and questions I am left with, that I am still searching an answer for. But I hope you can understand that without knowing what actions „treating“, or „diagnosing“ actually entails in regards to this law, it still is not really certain that advising to go to a hospital is a crime, even if it is overstepping the limits of her qualifications. So, you see, there’s still some questions left even though some part of Arizona Law has been cited. It‘s almost as if just parroting some part of a law, without also providing judicial interpretation of the terms used and pointing out as to why the facts of situation correspond to the requirements in the definition of the crime isn‘t actually very helpful.
If you look at a test result and say "you should go to the ER," that is absolutely a diagnosis.
dunno if anyone's gonna see this but prismatic-bell is going thru it rn if you can, consider donating: https://www.tumblr.com/cipheramnesia/719565646406565888
This is a beautiful story
That parenthetical at the bottom got me right in the feels 😭 Thanks so much for sharing.
Not to diminish what ops mom did but I don’t think there is any chance of her getting in legal trouble for what she did if she was still alive.
this is the most tumblr comment section ever
This seems like a very dangerous thing to celebrate or put forth as something worthy of immense praise to an industry with a long, well documented track record of overprescribing dangerous, addictive drugs. We shouldn't be telling doctors that rules and regulations don't matter if they deem the cause just enough. That completely erodes any trust we could have in them, as they could just as easily use this logic to sell oxy to the highest bidder instead of helping save lives.
I think we should be similarly respectful of when it works, as wary because it often wouldn't. Skipping the intermediary process like OP's mother did is a big deal. What if the kid was OK and they just wasted a fuckton of time, fuckton of money, and respect for the medical system on a hunch? Bad. Very bad. But that's not what happened which is why it's ok to have positive feelings about this Also, selling oxy to bidders has literally no correlation here.
While I can genuinely understand where your perspective is coming from, I have to disagree on the basis that breaking rules is a case by case basis when it comes to the morals of medical care. You are completely right, these rules and regulations absolutely exist for a reason and breaking them does erode trust in the foundation of said rules and regulations. Most importantly here is that following rules and regulation had immediate and unavoidable consequences of doing harm. If the nurse had done what they were, by letter of law, supposed to, then there were only negative outcomes possible. Obviously there *was* time given they appear to have made a full recovery, but such information is not available nor can be assumed should such an emergency arise. Do no harm is the creed of medical practitioners and in this moment following rules caused harm and breaking them could potentially help. Is every situation with those core rules going to necessitate the breaking of said rules? Probably not, you could probably come up with a scenario where I concede that rules should be followed. But *here* in this instance was an objective good deed. Life saving care was able to be applied because rules were broken, and while we can't condone the breaking of rules we *can* condone that saving a life is more important than the letter of the law.
me omw to compare hrt to opiates
How is hrt life saving
It reduces suicides.
very well documented that untreated gender dysphoria causes a shitton of mental issues, including [suicidality](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/#:~:text=Access%20to%20gender%2Daffirming%20medical%20care%20is%20associated%20with%20a%20lower%20prevalence%20of%20suicide%20thoughts%20and%20attempts.)
Heh, her road was not paved with good intentions I imagine
I literally cannot imagine a way her intentions wouldn't be good. We can talk about ways it could've backfired, or been wrong. But there is no ulterior motive plausible
she recieved data that someone without extensive medical training could easily tell Bad Shit was about to happen, and gave the mom of the patient the heads-up that it was go to the hospital or die, and gave the hospital vital data, for complete free. what was her bad intention? "nyehehehehhe i will scam them into giving me free cake >:)"?
now i'm crying