Armour666 0 #1 February 17, 2007 http://healthbolt.net/2007/02/16/christian-pediatrician-turns-away-child-because-of-parents-tatoos/ What the hell is this guy thinking ? in the name of christanity he dosn't treat a kid due to the parents tats? with thinking like that I wouldnt want the guy with in a hundred fet of my kids.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 37 #2 February 17, 2007 Quotehttp://healthbolt.net/2007/02/16/christian-pediatrician-turns-away-child-because-of-parents-tatoos/ What the hell is this guy thinking ? in the name of christanity he dosn't treat a kid due to the parents tats? with thinking like that I wouldnt want the guy with in a hundred fet of my kids. How very Christian of the good doctor "Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #3 February 17, 2007 Doctor CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #4 February 17, 2007 Sounds like he needs to spend more time in Bible study. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #5 February 17, 2007 Quotehttp://healthbolt.net/2007/02/16/christian-pediatrician-turns-away-child-because-of-parents-tatoos/ What the hell is this guy thinking ?... Someone one said: "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses." And like any Opiate -- It completely fucks you up if you get addicted to it. Here Endeth the Lesson according to The Gospel of Marx. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #6 February 17, 2007 How about Lenin? Just an idea .... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #7 February 17, 2007 QuoteHow about Lenin? Just an idea .... Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov is an excellent case in point. While I admire him (in comparison to the regime he overthrew), He's really just another person who took the letter of teachings rather than the concept, and in aplying the letter, lost the concept (In fairness, having a paranoid psychopath as a successor didn't help). Is Ulyanov (or more to the point; Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili) really so very different from some of the religious extremists of either Christianity of Islam? My own belief is that the REAL war has always been between extremism and moderation... Unfortuantely, the extremists tend to be heard more because they are louder. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #8 February 17, 2007 Oh dear: How about a simple on-liner as a reply? At this stage of late night, it's overextending my poor little brain to have a serious debate about books written by Karl Marx or theories stated by Wladimir Iljitsch Uljanow (*caugh*) Please, excuse me until tomorrow dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #9 February 17, 2007 QuoteOh dear... overextending my poor little brain... Please, excuse me until tomorrow Can't. Tomorrow's the Sabbath. Spending the day in Church! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #10 February 17, 2007 I know thats the case but why do people tent to listen to the loudest even when it goes agains the own gut instinct?SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #11 February 17, 2007 Well here's an intersting Capitalist dilema.... a few months ago, folk around here were arguing that an airline (for exampe) could dertermine who they would allow to be carried, based upon a t-shirt or noisy kid etc.... but now a doctor cann't choose his clients.... What's it to be folk? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #12 February 17, 2007 QuoteI know thats the case but why do people tent to listen to the loudest even when it goes agains the own gut instinct? Herd Instinct? A desire to conform is powerful. Most of the noise that extremists make starts with something like "Everybody KNOWS..." People hear that, and decide that they'll know it also... Or they'd be better off "knowing it". Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #13 February 17, 2007 well the kid didn't have tats so witch is it the mother or the child is the client ?SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #14 February 17, 2007 QuoteWell here's an intersting Capitalist dilema.... a few months ago, folk around here were arguing that an airline (for exampe) could dertermine who they would allow to be carried, based upon a t-shirt or noisy kid etc.... but now a doctor cann't choose his clients.... What's it to be folk? The AMA, and no doubt the state medical board, will have a published code of ethics. You need to compare this asshole's[ quack's behavior with the code of ethics for his profession, not with the standards of another business altogether. from the AMA, Principle VI: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care. He's within his rights, but he's still a jerk.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #15 February 17, 2007 Got to admit he DOES have the right to refuse service. We've become so accustomed to our property rights being trampled in the name of well-meaning legislation. If you don't believe this try smoking a cigarette in a privately-owned restaurant. In fact, any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If the owner does not want to do business with black people, foreigners, crippled folks, or skydivers who do not use AAD's it's their right to make that choice. Of course, in most situations they are making a poor choice, one which will create bad publicity and most certainly hurt, not help, the business. The real scandal is the creation of these stupid laws which punish "free" citizens for exercising unpopular choices, especially when these laws are not applied with an even hand. Remember that string of accusations against the Denny's restaurant chain a few years back? Black people would act rowdy and create a nuisance, prompting management to refuse service. Then came the lawsuits accusing the restaurant of mistreating people solely for racial reasons when it was their behavior, not their race, which caused the problem. Meanwhile, I remember those popular nightclubs in New York City back in the late '70's that carefully selected the people they would allow to enter while rudely turning the others away. I don't recall any "civil liberties" lawyers threatening any lawsuits forcing these businesses to relax their policies and accepted everyone equally. But getting back to this doctor; He might be sincere in his desire to create a certain type of atmosphere but, as a previous poster noted, his actions do not fully coincide with the example set by Jesus. Cheers,. Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #16 February 17, 2007 ...simply another case of the mindless putting words into other's mouths. Re-read and show me where he says he refused treatment based on "Christianity" or "Christian beliefs". His personal beliefs in that respect may have come from his Gypsy mother...who knows? "...Ostensibly sighting the teachings of Christ as justification of his decision". ...and who's the dolt who wrote the article? How very convenient using the word "ostensibly" to try to put one over on somebody...only the idiot would not see through that. Are YOU one of those? ...and who doesn't know the difference between "sighting" and "citing"?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #17 February 18, 2007 Why? It won't cure him of his ignorance and will probably just make it worse.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #18 February 19, 2007 I agree that he's within his rights, but he's an asshole. That poor kid had to go all night without medicine, and ear infections can be damn painful. See the kid, write a script, and tell them not to come back. Somehow, I think Jesus would've seen the kid. According to the bible, Jesus was a guy who hung out with lepers. I don't think he'd mind a few tattoos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #19 February 19, 2007 Quotehttp://healthbolt.net/2007/02/16/christian-pediatrician-turns-away-child-because-of-parents-tatoos/ What the hell is this guy thinking ? in the name of christanity he dosn't treat a kid due to the parents tats? with thinking like that I wouldnt want the guy with in a hundred fet of my kids. He obviously slept through the Mary Magdalene sermon. The thing that puts this over the top for me is he refused a child treatment because of the appearance of the mother. It's a real shame the ethical guidelines of his profession permit this kind of thing. Maybe they need a revision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #20 February 19, 2007 P.S. Maybe some locals could picket his office and make his customers aware of the kind of doctor he is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #21 February 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteWell here's an intersting Capitalist dilema.... a few months ago, folk around here were arguing that an airline (for exampe) could dertermine who they would allow to be carried, based upon a t-shirt or noisy kid etc.... but now a doctor cann't choose his clients.... What's it to be folk? The AMA, and no doubt the state medical board, will have a published code of ethics. You need to compare this asshole's[ quack's behavior with the code of ethics for his profession, not with the standards of another business altogether. from the AMA, Principle VI: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care. He's within his rights, but he's still a jerk. I'm going to take the position that he was NOT within his rights. I'm reconciling the AMA passage you quote with the broader physicians' ethical mandate of: "Above all else, do no harm." I submit that a physician refusing to assure that an apparent ear infection in a child wasn't a symptom of a medically-urgent, possibly obscure underlying problem, or even just deliberately leaving a child to suffer treatable pain through the night, is a form of nonfeasance that rises to the level of malfeasance, and thus is "doing harm". I think he should be disciplined by his licensing board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #22 February 19, 2007 IF the guy is really a Christian, he should have treated the child. The mother could have been given a smock or something to cover her tats while the child was treated if the tats were really offensive. A couple of things here- yes, he is within AMA guides about this, ear infections aren't emergencies. yes- he does have the right to refuse treatment based on the mom's tats because the child is a minor and the mom is the legal rep in this case. no- it was not the right thing to do. The child was suffering and needed treatment. It's another case of the fringe of Christianity giving the rest of us a bad name. If I was the doc, I'd certainly have treated the child. Christ was all about caring for children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #23 February 19, 2007 Quoteear infections aren't emergencies. Unless they are. That is to say, unless they are a symptom of a medically-urgent, possibly obscure underlying problem requiring immediate treatment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #24 February 19, 2007 The severity of the problem wasn't evident from the article. Generally speaking, ear infections aren't an emergency. Untreated, they can have serious complications. My niece had one that didn't get treated for a while and she's nearly completely deaf as a result. The doc was still a jerk for not helping the kid, mom's tats or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #25 February 19, 2007 There is absolutely no teachings of Christ that would give this man's belief's any validity. Now his own personal doctrine, or doctrine of the church or its pastor may have dictate that. But Christ's teaching are exactly the opposite of the stand he took. Luke 10 steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
