I traditionally have a thread heading to the election, here we go.
Get out the popcorn for this one.
Quote
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to formally announce next week he is running for president in 2024, NBC News reported Thursday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
The governor's official entry into the Republican primary field will put him head-to-head with former President Donald Trump, the party's current frontrunner for the nomination. Trump has already spent months treating DeSantis as his primary campaign rival, thrashing him with torrents of criticism over his gubernatorial record, his political skills and his personality.
If a physician does something illegal, then that means there is already an applicable law. Unethical behavior may result in loss of licensure. So both of your scenarios are already covered.
Is there any other medical procedure you think needs to be regulated by the government? Perhaps we need a law to outlaw DNR orders. I mean, what if an unethical provider refuses to initiate heroic measures?
On the issue of abortion, good applicable laws is what we're trying to get to. Currently, there are some places where it's illegal after 6 weeks (too restrictive imo) and places where there are no restrictions (too lenient imo).
When I try to discuss this, it's to see what common ground we agree on. Tweety, Subee, and I seem to be on the same page. I believe our views mirror that of most Americans. Others are OK for no restrictions as it's a matter between the doctor and patient. What's interesting is how those folks are uncomfortable just saying it and instead dance around it just like their Democrat leaders.
Yes, there are many restrictions imposed by the government on medical matters. Prescriptions for medications jumps to mind. When you mentioned DNR's, I thought of physician assisted suicides.
Anyway, I'm crawling back out of this rabbit hole as we've gone way deep into it in the past.
Of course we have. When they are unethical or doing illegal things they get into legal trouble. In Texas, right now, doctors are worried about getting into legal trouble for providing reproductive care to women that is considered standard and necessary - not because they are unethical or doing something illegal.
That's because you get to describe freedom from government intrusion into medical decisions in the words that make sense to you. That is how YOU described my stance. Would there be some point in disputing your words with you?
My stance is that we are supposed to have privacy in our health matters and decisions and I trust women and their doctors to make those decisions without government interference in those private matters. You can spin that as you prefer.
Freedom is no longer a Republican construct. They sling the word around liberally, but it's freedom for me and not for thee. Kind of like RFK's position on the Covid vaccine. It's okay for me and my family but shouldn't be available to everyone else.
IOW, I should be seen and not heard until you give me permission to talk? Not hardly ...
As for your question, show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Ah, bless your heart. I wasn't giving you permission. I was actually challenging you to speak up.
I believe abortions should be allowed for any reason up to a time when a pregnant woman, man, or non binary person has a reasonable amount of time to make a decision. I haven't yet arrived at what that time should be.
After that, abortions should be allowed when mothers or baby's health is in danger.
Ah, bless your heart. I wasn't giving you permission. I was actually challenging you to speak up.
I believe abortions should be allowed for any reason up to a time when a pregnant woman, man, or non binary person has a reasonable amount of time to make a decision. I haven't yet arrived at what that time should be.
After that, abortions should be allowed when mothers or baby's health is in danger.
Your turn.
Bless your heart, don't **** on my foot and tell me it's raining.
Now, once more, with feeling:
The question of time limits on abortion hinges on fetal viability and separate personhood. Beliefs about the beginning of separate personhood are purely religious and/or matters of personal opinion. They are both highly variable. Neither of them are an appropriate basis for secular law under the First Amendment. That leaves fetal viability as the only objectively verifiable estimate of viability. 24 weeks is the point where survival outside the womb starts to exceed 50% consistently and is, therefore, a reasonable cut-off for elective abortion.
Bless your heart, don't **** on my foot and tell me it's raining.
Now, once more, with feeling:
The question of time limits on abortion hinges on fetal viability and separate personhood. Beliefs about the beginning of separate personhood are purely religious and/or matters of personal opinion. They are both highly variable. Neither of them are an appropriate basis for secular law under the First Amendment. That leaves fetal viability as the only objectively verifiable estimate of viability. 24 weeks is the point where survival outside the womb starts to exceed 50% consistently and is, therefore, a reasonable cut-off for elective abortion.
Interesting on how you arrived at that. I can't find a reason to disagree.
Why do you suppose Democrat politicians are so hesitant to speak out in agreement with a rationale like yours?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
On the issue of abortion, good applicable laws is what we're trying to get to. Currently, there are some places where it's illegal after 6 weeks (too restrictive imo) and places where there are no restrictions (too lenient imo).
When I try to discuss this, it's to see what common ground we agree on. Tweety, Subee, and I seem to be on the same page. I believe our views mirror that of most Americans. Others are OK for no restrictions as it's a matter between the doctor and patient. What's interesting is how those folks are uncomfortable just saying it and instead dance around it just like their Democrat leaders.
Yes, there are many restrictions imposed by the government on medical matters. Prescriptions for medications jumps to mind. When you mentioned DNR's, I thought of physician assisted suicides.
Anyway, I'm crawling back out of this rabbit hole as we've gone way deep into it in the past.
Reasonable applicable law was what we had. Every women in every state had the same rights to privacy in reproductive health choices. What we have now is chaos with some American women enjoying privacy and freedom and rights and some not so much. That cruel and invasive chaos exists because of the religious beliefs or feelings of conservative politicians in their states.
Do you think that I'm uncomfortable? Maybe that's projection of your discomfort when I will not conform my words to please you. Maybe privacy and freedom in health matters are concepts that come attached with more restrictions in your neck of the woods. I can only offer up guesses as to why you would think I'm uncomfortable about a topic that I have an interest in.
Physician assisted suicides aren't a recognized treatment like an abortion is. That is not an apples to apples comparison.
I don't understand the comparison of pharmacy or prescription laws to laws restricting access to necessary health care.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Ah, bless your heart. I wasn't giving you permission. I was actually challenging you to speak up.
I believe abortions should be allowed for any reason up to a time when a pregnant woman, man, or non binary person has a reasonable amount of time to make a decision. I haven't yet arrived at what that time should be.
After that, abortions should be allowed when mothers or baby's health is in danger.
Your turn.
Why should anyone else get a say in when that time is? Could that time depend upon a bunch of variables which might not be obvious to the casual busy body?
Don't you trust women and their doctors to decide when abortion is safe, especially when it's necessary?
You make it sound like we live in some sort of an arbitrary patriarchy rather than a free country. That's more like our history and I don't want to go back to that.
A DNR is signed by a capable adult usually towards the later years of life.
But the government could pass a law to make a DNR illegal. then it wouldn't matter if a capable adult signed it. So everybody gets coded: assaulted, electrocuted and poisoned, until all efforts have been made, or a judge issues a ruling.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Or never heard of a parent that comits infantcide? Or murder their children? I can name off the teen in New Mexico (no abortion restrictions) that gave birth in a bathroom a threw her baby in the garbage. Alexi Travisio (may be spelt wrong). It's unknown if he was alive or she killed him first. Casey Anthony. The list is long. But yeah, no woman would ever abort her full term baby. And a Dr would never be unethical. I think we all have seen Dr being unethical in our careers.
And if it doesn't happen or wouldn't happen, put a Restriction. It's easy. Government regulates all types of medical policy so that's BS right there. This is one of the primary reason I moved away from the democrats.
You do know that it is currently illegal to kill newborn babies or children, right? Besides, if we really wanted to protect already born children we might consider some better gun laws instead of thoughts and prayers.
Name another effective and safe medical treatment which is arbitrarily limited or banned because of the feelings and beliefs of other people.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
What did you think about medical privacy when you had to prove your vaccine status to go to work? Due to government regulations?
Vaccination status is a matter of public health, especially during a pandemic. Nurses have long had to demonstrate vaccination to train and work in the USA. Funny how Trump made a vaccine political, isn't it?
Most nurses don't work for the government, they work for private employers.
You do know that it is currently illegal to kill newborn babies or children, right? Besides, if we really wanted to protect already born children we might consider some better gun laws instead of thoughts and prayers.
Name another effective and safe medical treatment which is arbitrarily limited or banned because of the feelings and beliefs of other people.
Heh! You gotta admit that it's an interesting riff on the baby-eating trope: re-name infanticide as "post-birth abortion". The possibilities are endless. She who defines the issues wins the debate.
In my religion, words, especially names, have enormous power. Calling anything out of its name is dangerous. IOW, be careful what you wish for.
heron, ASN, RN
4,670 Posts
IOW, I should be seen and not heard until you give me permission to talk? Not hardly ...
As for your question, show me yours and I'll show you mine. Again.