- This topic has 164 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes, still.
Go back again and read what feivel wrote with an open mind, and read what Syag, Avram, and I have written, and how we are all on the same page, while you’re not.
easy math? I disagree. My brain fills in blanks based on my insides. And I’m pretty good at math 🙂
ubiquitin,
Yes
I cannot see how that can be so in a monotheistic framework.
Of course! Though that isnt what we are discussing
It may not be what you are discussing, but it is what feivel et al. are discussing. That’s my entire point.
Fair enough, but Good intentions are deffinitly not relaterd to evil intentions
Never said they were.
A personal example: when my wife and I were expecting our first, we went to a doctor for our prenatal appointments. At one very early appointment, the doctor offered some screening that would potentially detect issues, so we could (in the doctor’s words) “decide whether we wanted to continue with the pregnancy.” Now, I fully 100% believe that the doctor is a good person, and had the purely good intentions of giving us the ability to avoid potential anguish and suffering. We didn’t switch doctors, and the doctor was amazing throughout the pregnancy, birth, and even beyond. But I also believe that the concept of killing an unborn baby because of a potential problem is 100% wrong and evil. So it’s a good person, with good intentions, but a dangerously wrong application.
In case this thread gets closed here is my closing statement:
Hopsitals in general and ICU’s in particular are a stressful environment. This is true for the satf as well as the patients. Emotions often run high, and conflicts often ensue. These conflicts can be amongst family members or between the caregivers and patient/family. The key to successful conflict resolution is communication. Of course communication has to be respectful to be effective. IT is hard if not impossible to have respect for those who are coming from a “dark and evil place”. Most caregivers honestly want to do what is best for their patient. If there is a conflict explain your value system and listen to theirs. By no means should you accept theirs if you disagree with it, but try to understand them and where they are coming from it is rarely if ever coming from “a dark and evil place”. 99.9% of conflicts can be resolved with open and honest communication in a respectful way.
That is my main point, all else was commentary.
MAy none of you have to be placed in such situations, and may those who are have a refuah sheleima besoch shar cholei yisroel
99.9% of conflicts can be resolved with open and honest communication in a respectful way.
ubequitin,
so where is it coming from (for that .1%?
Avram: Only because you characterize terminating the pregnancy as “killing an unborn baby”. He clearly doesn’t.
ubiquitin,
diversions can be instituted for a lot of reasons, however this again has nothing to do with the individual cases that were noted in this thread or what a lot of people have witnessed.
The funny thing is, that this is not even a secret among health care providers.
You mentioned that you are not referring to the bigger or general picture, yet you brought up the argument of diversions. Diversions, short in staff or drug shortages has nothing to do with this attitude. using the general argument as a means of mistreating a patient is what this discussion is about.
ubiquitin,
I agree with your closing argument, most clinicians techs and nurses are wonderful people, they have dedicated years of their life only to enter a field that deals mainly with treating sick people.
However, there are some health care providers that are not like that, they do not share this same passion and they stand out. They make the rest look bad.
And I agree with ubiquitin’s last post 100%!
0% sarcasm intended.
Ok the esteemed moderators were not maskim to my suggestion.
How about the non-esteemed mods?
woops, that would be me. Let me find the lever….
ubiquitin,
Regarding feivel’s strong language, I cannot speak for him, but I think his intention was this:
We are living in a world where secular ethics is increasingly diverging from Jewish values. In many circles, circumcision is already regarded as evil mutilation, and within a decade or two that position could be mainstream. As the Earth’s population continues growing, having large families may soon be regarded as selfish and wrong. Kosher slaughter is termed barbaric already throughout much of Europe. This is nothing new, but now these positions come armed with the chain-mail of “science” and the arrows of “research studies”, whether or not that is truly the case. And there is considerable pressure to conform to these secular “ethical values”, particularly among Jews, who have an innate spiritual desire to be perceived as morally good. I think feivel’s strong language is an attempt to counter this type pressure. It is not intended to demean doctors or medical professionals, but to strengthen our conviction that our beliefs are correct, even when faced with a doctor’s facepalm at our choices.
Sam2,
Avram: Only because you characterize terminating the pregnancy as “killing an unborn baby”. He clearly doesn’t.
How does the way the doctor characterizes the unborn baby change anything?
Uh oh, I don’t want to be the one caught holding the bag when the thread closes. Quick! Someone else post something!
Avram
“How does the way the doctor characterizes the unborn baby change anything? “
Um becasue this entire conversation is about the doctor’s intentions
I have encountered people with the exact story as you just a few steps earlier namely regarding Dor Yesharim, intervening with Hashem’s will, preventing life from coming to the world. I assume you dont agree with them, and I dont. And of course to you the two cases are different, but to them our view on Dor Yeshorim is more similar to the Doctor;s than you would like.
That is just a side point though. The main distinction is as Sam2 said
2scents
“You mentioned that you are not referring to the bigger or general picture, yet you brought up the argument of diversions. “
I mentioned the opposite repeatedly, this conversation is about the “medical establishment”
CA
“so where is it coming from (for that .1%? )”
From “a dark and evil place to satisfy their lust”
Seriously though some conflicts even among decent people cant be resolved even with open honest respectful communication. Plus not all medical proffessionals are decent
“secular ethics is increasingly diverging from Jewish values. “
This is a gross oversimplification, in some ways but not others
“…even when faced with a doctor’s facepalm at our choices.”
In those cases explain your choice.
Okay, I’ll throw in a maybe last word –
This conversation PROCESS (not content) reminds me of two kids talking about where apples come from. They are arguing on the details and disagreeing until they realize one of them was talking about the tree, and the other was talking about the fruit store.
Avram to Sam2 – Hold that thought and transfer it to a new thread because this one is done for now. Thank you everyone for speaking from the heart.
- The topic ‘Hospital Horror Stories?’ is closed to new replies.