@farmerman,
Quote:What did the lawyers do that was rong ?
(other than perpetuating and perpetrating bad spelling on a non-fonetic basis)
farmerman wrote:
Quote:This was a passing comment on you inparticlulqar, not lawyers in general.
You seem to carry no concern about a dr doing harm to a patient
when a drs very oath contains the words that forbid a dr from
knowibgly doing harm to his patients.
The oath was a product of duress n extortion inflicted by an interloper.
It shoud not be deemed binding, the same as a contract made at gunpoint.
However, he is still liable for professional negligence.
The elements of negligence r:
1. duty
2. violation thereof
3. proximity of causation, and
4. damages.
If MJ
absolved him of that duty, opting instead to take his chances,
then the M.D.'s conduct was morally OK and free of negligence.
If he is prosecuted criminally or civilly,
I hope that good Americans on his jury will defend him.
In 2004, I was hospitized.
My physician
ignored my multiple complaints of imminent danger,
as I grew progressively more alarmed. The problem was relieved
b4 it exploded. I resented his having ignored my complaints
for as long as he did. Accordingly, I do NOT assert that it is OK
for an M.D. to inflict harm upon his patients, unless this is
a course of action demanded by the patient involved.
As to MJ, I have heard it
alleged that after injecting the
controversial substance into MJ, the M.D. was not as
WATCHFUL
as he shoud have been. If that is true,
this matter shoud be litigated against the M.D., because
MJ presumably did not tell him to be inattentive.
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Im merely reminding you that Dr Murray must be held accountable.
See above.
David wrote:
Quote: I was questioning the existence of jurisdiction
to stop someone from offering his efforts
to help someone else, if the helpeee desires that.
farmerman wrote:
Quote: Its what we in civilization do.
Then the victims of that interference owe it to themselves
to
DEFEND their freedom of choice.
Such defenses were successfully brought into existence in the 1930s against
Prohibition of alcohol. Eventually, government recognized its futility; 21st Amendment.
The philosophy that u espouse and support was manifested
by the ladies who disfavored men drinking alcohol.
Thay adduced arguments qua the general well being.
At least the ladies had the intellectual honesty to employ
a constitutional amendment, not to just pretend n fake that
government
had jd to ban alcohol and hope that no one noticed.
farmerman wrote:
Quote:Prevention of anyone from hanging out a shingle
without a license and training is at least a minimal "intervention".
A step higher is auditing behavior and demanding strict adherence
to a code of wethics (theres that nasty ethics again)
David wrote:
Quote: My reflexive reaction is to approve of your throwing your liberty
in the garbage, but I don 't want u to throw mine in along with it.
farmerman wrote:
Quote:Theres some of that wacky libertarian logic again.
Professor, its not wacky; its really very simple
and vitally important for our living in freedom.
Life is worthless, without freedom.
The logic begins with that of John Locke,
whose wisdom the Founders incorporated into the Supreme Law of the Land.
(See 9th n 10th Amendments.)
It was his position that human beings are older than government.
B4 government was brought into existence,
we were in the State of Nature.
At some point, it became clear to them that there was defensive
strength in numbers, to repel the raids of more distant men,
and to inflict vengeance upon the locals for their abuses (theft, rape, etc.)
so thay organized a government to accomplish those goals
of defense and vengeance. Locke argues that the resulting
government, a product of their imaginations, of their agreement,
like lines of longitude n latitude, consist only of what was granted
by the founders of that government; i.e.,
it had no authority
other than what thay granted to it.
It is the same way with our Republic; (see 9th and 10th Amendments, US Constitution).
The libertarian logic is just that we have the right to live in unlimited freedom,
except
only for jurisdiction that has
ACTUALLY been
GRANTED to government
to interfere with that freedom. Except
ONLY for that,
EVERYTHING is a universe of FREEDOM.
farmerman wrote:
Quote:Im not going to let Dr Murray pump you full of dangerous drugs
knowing that they can potentially interact causing a state of premanent torpor
and declining core temperature. Nope, not me.
That statement implies that a 3rd person has the right
to
subject to his will the conduct of other people,
if he does not like that conduct, or if he can get enuf folks
to agree with him. To that, I object.
EXHIBIT 1:
About 15 years ago, a woman
shrieked when she saw me buy some cotton candy,
with evident intentions of ingestion. She was
anti-sugar.
She tried to stop me from eating my property.
I am
pro-sugar, as a good hedonist.
EXHIBIT 2:
About 25 years ago, one of my tenants told me that she looked
thru the window of a neighbor and saw a teenaged boy
in an act of massage, relieving his sexual tensions.
She expressed to me her disapproval of that and of the look on his face at that moment.
She told me that she ran around to the front of his house and began banging on his door,
to bring an end to his massage, and presumably
to rectify the expression on his face.
According to the logic of your assertion in the last nested quote,
she was correct to do this; in other words, someone has the right
to interfere in what others r doing, if he (or she) disapproves.
From that, I must dissent.
