I'm not sure how the death penalty by lethal injection is under so much scrutiny. They get a huge dose of barbiturate, so anything they feel (paralysis; burning from potassium) would be really minimized. Fine, sure, add a lethal dose of morphine and make it four steps.
But I've met people raped, beaten, jaw broken in 4 places. If they can face that... heck how about the simple knowledge you're going to be killed? This is different from saying I'm a fan of the death penalty. Currently I hear its cheaper to do life in prison, with all the Court costs, so until that's resolved... make em work for their food.
Obama
Moderator: Available
IJ
"CXT....you can have the last word."
Ok, as usual, I'm right and your wrong...on almost every point.
What your mainly doing is blowing smoke, spinning, parsing and mixing your fallicies...often in post hoc fasion.....oh and you also mis-statement my actual arguments.
"We would not report them if the governement deported them punitively"
Well no....we certainly don't want lawbreakers punished.
And of course IJ is in an excellent postion to speak for the entire helath care industry when he invokes the "royal" "we."
My guess is that those taxpaying citizens that no longer have easy accsess to any health care what-so-ever might disagree with IJ stance...buts its not about them....those folks are just legal citizens and the little people that actually have to suffer...who are they to have a voice?.......
Odd really how you can show such overwhelming concern and compassion for the needs of lawbreakers but none for legal citizens just trying to get by.
"Doctor-patiant relationship"
Again, lets recall that your first aguement was that hospitals etc don't essentially act as arms of law enforcement......which I proved to be untrue.
So that is your 2nd....or is it 3td fall back postion.....one is highly nuanced, heavily parsed....and which really does not address the central point......which is hosptials etc already de-facto act in such a capacity........IJ just does not like it....IJ wishes to be arbiter of whom "should" be reported....my postion is that is a subject better left to the voters---you know the people actually paying for said treatment.
Again, a very complex question of competing ethical problems that IJ wishes to reduce to a bumper sticker slogan-----unless of course he is pinned to the plate at which point then of course you want to parse and nuance the heck out of it.
"But no, I wouldn't help, "I was just following orders" is no excuse."
A-So you admit that even if such a law exsisted....you would not follow it.........what can one say to somebody that already knows the truth and refuse's to be confused with the facts, reality, alternative POV's, logic etc.
B-You quite clearly do see it as you role to dictate to others how they should behave......as you stated above....even of the voters decide otherwise.....you in your role as medical provider will act as you see fit....with others peoples money.
Wonder if you feel the same about other medical providers that refuse to provide abortion services, give the morning after pills to rape victems or heaven forbide some NAMBLA leaning medicial provider that decides...quite on his own.....that abuse of chlidren is really not something that should be reported?
"I said they didn't pose an immediate risk of crime that justified and immedate warning"
A-Nope, that is not actually what you said.
B-Whoa...IJ is now claiming to be a mind reader that claims to not only to somehow "know" what people are going to do......he even claims to know "when" they are going to do it......sheesh......and people say I have an ego problems......least I don't claim to be Uri Geller or Edger Cayce.
C-What about crimes they have committed....since nobody is reporting them...nobody is checking to see what else they may have done.
D-Notice the "immediate risk" part----not sure that I am all that comfortable with a line of ahm......."reasoning" that essentially would A-OK with a person that is a threat to public safety......as long as it was not "immediate"
"medical professional don't participate in activities that may harm their patients"
Unless of course they may have abused a child, committed abuse, been shot etc.
You also didn't really say it correctly----you put the important part after that neat little declaritive statement way down in another sentence... the whole sentence would more properly be:
"Medical professional don't participate in activities that may harm their patients...........unless there is a compelling reason."
You simply disagree what counts as "compeling"....I have a different POV.
As a taxpayer......I disagree.......and I would hazard a guess so would the victems of crimes committed by illegals.....the people that no longer easily available medical care period because of the strain illgeals have placed on the health care system have forced hosptials to close down.
"if you want to ramble whine and split hairs"
This from you IJ??????---Well, lets just say that your house has waaaayyyyy to much glass in it to be throwing those particular stones old boy.
Besides---there is very little I can say that illustrates my points better than your own words.
As you put it:
"Its (people without insurance) not a problem for me personally, so I don't care."
Like I said prior----that is the whole problem in a nutshell......if its not a problem for IJ personally then IJ simply does not even consider that its a problem for anyone.
Like many Leftists, your perceptions of problems begin and end at your own front door and the ethics of spending other peoples hard earned money are something quite different from spending your own.
"CXT....you can have the last word."
Ok, as usual, I'm right and your wrong...on almost every point.
What your mainly doing is blowing smoke, spinning, parsing and mixing your fallicies...often in post hoc fasion.....oh and you also mis-statement my actual arguments.
"We would not report them if the governement deported them punitively"
Well no....we certainly don't want lawbreakers punished.
And of course IJ is in an excellent postion to speak for the entire helath care industry when he invokes the "royal" "we."
My guess is that those taxpaying citizens that no longer have easy accsess to any health care what-so-ever might disagree with IJ stance...buts its not about them....those folks are just legal citizens and the little people that actually have to suffer...who are they to have a voice?.......
Odd really how you can show such overwhelming concern and compassion for the needs of lawbreakers but none for legal citizens just trying to get by.
"Doctor-patiant relationship"
Again, lets recall that your first aguement was that hospitals etc don't essentially act as arms of law enforcement......which I proved to be untrue.
So that is your 2nd....or is it 3td fall back postion.....one is highly nuanced, heavily parsed....and which really does not address the central point......which is hosptials etc already de-facto act in such a capacity........IJ just does not like it....IJ wishes to be arbiter of whom "should" be reported....my postion is that is a subject better left to the voters---you know the people actually paying for said treatment.
Again, a very complex question of competing ethical problems that IJ wishes to reduce to a bumper sticker slogan-----unless of course he is pinned to the plate at which point then of course you want to parse and nuance the heck out of it.
"But no, I wouldn't help, "I was just following orders" is no excuse."
A-So you admit that even if such a law exsisted....you would not follow it.........what can one say to somebody that already knows the truth and refuse's to be confused with the facts, reality, alternative POV's, logic etc.
B-You quite clearly do see it as you role to dictate to others how they should behave......as you stated above....even of the voters decide otherwise.....you in your role as medical provider will act as you see fit....with others peoples money.
Wonder if you feel the same about other medical providers that refuse to provide abortion services, give the morning after pills to rape victems or heaven forbide some NAMBLA leaning medicial provider that decides...quite on his own.....that abuse of chlidren is really not something that should be reported?
"I said they didn't pose an immediate risk of crime that justified and immedate warning"
A-Nope, that is not actually what you said.
B-Whoa...IJ is now claiming to be a mind reader that claims to not only to somehow "know" what people are going to do......he even claims to know "when" they are going to do it......sheesh......and people say I have an ego problems......least I don't claim to be Uri Geller or Edger Cayce.
C-What about crimes they have committed....since nobody is reporting them...nobody is checking to see what else they may have done.
D-Notice the "immediate risk" part----not sure that I am all that comfortable with a line of ahm......."reasoning" that essentially would A-OK with a person that is a threat to public safety......as long as it was not "immediate"
"medical professional don't participate in activities that may harm their patients"
Unless of course they may have abused a child, committed abuse, been shot etc.
You also didn't really say it correctly----you put the important part after that neat little declaritive statement way down in another sentence... the whole sentence would more properly be:
"Medical professional don't participate in activities that may harm their patients...........unless there is a compelling reason."
You simply disagree what counts as "compeling"....I have a different POV.
As a taxpayer......I disagree.......and I would hazard a guess so would the victems of crimes committed by illegals.....the people that no longer easily available medical care period because of the strain illgeals have placed on the health care system have forced hosptials to close down.
"if you want to ramble whine and split hairs"
This from you IJ??????---Well, lets just say that your house has waaaayyyyy to much glass in it to be throwing those particular stones old boy.
Besides---there is very little I can say that illustrates my points better than your own words.
As you put it:
"Its (people without insurance) not a problem for me personally, so I don't care."
Like I said prior----that is the whole problem in a nutshell......if its not a problem for IJ personally then IJ simply does not even consider that its a problem for anyone.
Like many Leftists, your perceptions of problems begin and end at your own front door and the ethics of spending other peoples hard earned money are something quite different from spending your own.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
