RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community?

RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 9:24:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim The proof is in the pudding. On Clinton's "legal" watch the 1st WTC terrorist attack plus 6 subsequent terrorist attacks against non-domestic U.S. assets. On Bush's "torture" watch the 2nd WTC terrorist attack plus 0 subsequent terrorist attacks against any U.S. assets. Huh? Have you been sharing a cave with Osama since 9/11/01? 2006-09-12: Gunmen attack US Embassy in Syria (NY Times) Three gunmen were killed and one was wounded yesterday in a foiled attack on the American Embassy in Damascus. One car used by the attackers burned, and a pickup truck packed with pipe bombs and propane canisters did not detonate. 16 Dead in Attack at US Embassy in Yemen - ABC NewsSep 17, 2008 ... Militants linked to al-Qaida launched a brazen attack against the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital Wednesday, firing automatic weapons and ...

rulemylife -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 9:32:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So are you saying there is only one value, RML? That nothing is more important than a refusal to use harsh interrogation? There is a difference between harsh interrogation and torture. If it seems unclear think of what you would define as torture should your wife, son, or daughter have to endure it.

TheHeretic -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 10:34:32 AM)
Way to toss logic out the window, and leap for the emotional appeal, RML. And if it is your 'whatever' relation who will be on the receiving end of the attack we are unable to prevent through interrogation? Are you now saying that harsh interrogation is ok, but torture isn't? Care to elaborate on the differences? I'd be very interested in hearing your definitions.

slvemike4u -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 10:43:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Way to toss logic out the window, and leap for the emotional appeal, RML. And if it is your 'whatever' relation who will be on the receiving end of the attack we are unable to prevent through interrogation? Are you now saying that harsh interrogation is ok, but torture isn't? Care to elaborate on the differences? I'd be very interested in hearing your definitions. The question posed to Rule is unfair and intellectualy(for the purposes of this debate)dishonest example Rich.It would seem to be an example straight out of "24" with Keifer Sutherland doing the questioning....that wasn't what was going on at Gitmo...there were no incidents,that we know of,where an imminant attack was avoided by extracting actionable intelligence through the use of torture. Now I realise the "that we know of" part of that leaves a great big hole in my statement...but can't we assume,given all the defence of these methods Cheney and co. have engaged in...if there were such a success they would have pointed it out to defend their nefarious policies.

TheHeretic -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 11:48:40 AM)
The question being posed is that he elaborate on his own statements, and apply the same standards to a reversed situation, Mike. Yes. I suppose that is horribly unfair of me...

slvemike4u -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 11:52:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The question being posed is that he elaborate on his own statements, and apply the same standards to a reversed situation, Mike. Yes. I suppose that is horribly unfair of me... Rich you wouldn't be getting sarcastic with me...would you?

rulemylife -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 12:03:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The question being posed is that he elaborate on his own statements, and apply the same standards to a reversed situation, Mike. Yes. I suppose that is horribly unfair of me... I think I have elaborated, extensively. Meanwhile, you keep deflecting my questions asking for further elaboration while providing none of your own. You want me to reverse the situation while pointedly ignoring what I asked of you, do you believe that these techniques, such as waterboarding, would be torture if applied to your wife, son, or daughter?

slvemike4u -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 12:16:28 PM)
Rule,if you don't mind might I take a shot at the question. Yes I think waterboarding would be torture if applied to my ex-wife,when would you be able to do it?

TheHeretic -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 12:22:39 PM)
What you are asking me to do is set aside logic and context, and answer from a purely emotional point of view. That isn't a rational foundation for an opinion. BTW, I have sat back and watched someone torture my wife. Enjoyed the hell out of it. So did she. [:D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 12:23:37 PM)
My ex wouldn't...when can we do it?

Emperor1956 -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 4:07:50 PM)
To TreasureKY and the OP, and the other folks that commented on my comment -- First, I was surprised at the unanimity of my students. I expected some debate. I certainly did not expect the three persons with military service to be so firmly in the camp favoring (indeed, demanding) discipline. The reason I cited my class' discussions was because to them, there WAS no dispute. The conduct of the physicians reported in the NYT report was as heinous, and subject to discipline, as would a report that military physicians were using their rank to sexually molest patients. I was surprised that THEY found it so cut-and-dried. The basic consensus of the group, by the way, was around two points: One, that a physician has no place being involved in essentially destructive, not healing, behaviors (I think you could safely call this "first do no harm"). Two, that the acts were in fact illegal -- and some of my students might come out the other way if the torture was done according to the "rulebooks". But those familiar with the Army Manual on Interrogation have said that many of the techniques reported were not sanctioned or legal. (I realize this opens up an entire new can of worms about the definition of "legal torture" and if morally such a position can be staked out.) Therefore for some of my students, the question was "was this conduct legally permitted?" and their answer was "no." Second, yes, Treasure, they are only "opinions", but they are the opinions of people who think about this issue on a regular basis, have a stake in the outcome, and maybe -- just maybe -- have a bit more background in the issue than you do? We are all guided by opinions. We all reject some and embrace others. But to say "oh, that's just an opinion" is sophistry. Sure its an opinion. Is it well-founded? Is it useful? If so, what's wrong with accepting those that make sense? Further, Treasure, your point about everyone involved being a licensed professional doesn't make sense to me. Could you explain it? You seem to be saying "well if someone was a wrongdoer and they were licensed, then its ok." By that logic, NO professional could ever be disciplined. You seem to be saying "HEY, I'm a DOCTOR. Anything I do/say is acceptable!" I don't think you are that simple. And finally, to say "so what" in intellectual discussion (which is basically your current position) is to say either that you believe you are right no matter what, or that you are bored and no longer wish to defend your position. I would hope its the latter (and I understand how these discussions -- whether one perceives he is winning, or losing -- get tedious). And Owner59, you are welcome. I didn't post for you smile. But a sincere thank you is always nice. E.

TreasureKY -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 5:42:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 ... Second, yes, Treasure, they are only "opinions", but they are the opinions of people who think about this issue on a regular basis, have a stake in the outcome, and maybe -- just maybe -- have a bit more background in the issue than you do? We are all guided by opinions. We all reject some and embrace others. But to say "oh, that's just an opinion" is sophistry. Sure its an opinion. Is it well-founded? Is it useful? If so, what's wrong with accepting those that make sense? Emperor... the reason for my pointing out that what you gave were opinions wasn't to marginalize the opinions, but to emphasize that opinions aren't inherently right or wrong. ThatDamnedPanda seemed to think that someone would come along to tell you that you were wrong. How could you (or your students) be wrong? For that matter, how could you be right? Sure, we can discuss and debate the logic and reasoning behind why we hold the opinions that we do, but the opinions... in and of themselves... are not right or wrong. They just are. In the end, I always accept that others have opinions. I may not agree, but I certainly accept. quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 Further, Treasure, your point about everyone involved being a licensed professional doesn't make sense to me. Could you explain it? You seem to be saying "well if someone was a wrongdoer and they were licensed, then its ok." By that logic, NO professional could ever be disciplined. You seem to be saying "HEY, I'm a DOCTOR. Anything I do/say is acceptable!" I don't think you are that simple. You're correct that that is not the point I tried to make. I'll try again to be a little clearer... So many here like to point to this or that "expert testimony" to support and defend their personal opinion. We all do it to some degree or another... though some of the supporting information presented is more biased opinion than others. These "experts" are typically someone (or some organization) that has credentials specific to the topic at hand. What you did was to post information that presented a classroom of "experts" that all held a similar opinion. Some here would jump on the bandwagon to say, "Oh look! Here's a bunch of "experts" who validate my opinion... here is proof that I'm right!" The credentials you gave that made your classroom into "experts" was that they are all licensed professionals. I simply pointed out that the medical personnel who are the subject of this thread are also presumed to be licensed professionals. I would assume that they hold a different opinion than that of your classroom. So... we have equally credentialed experts with differing opinions. They essentially "cancel" each other out. Remember, we are talking about opinions here. You cannot automatically assume that an opinion must be correct because an individual is a "licensed professional"... because you have other "licensed professionals" who hold differing opinions. In other words, being a "licensed professional" doesn't automatically confer infallibility. Of course, per my discussion above, I don't believe opinions are inherently right or wrong to begin with. As I stated, individuals trying to use your provided "expert testimony" to prove the validity of their personal opinion are simply engaging in confirmation bias. I would be guilty of the same if I held up the "expert testimony" of the medical personnel in question as proof that my opinion is valid. quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 And finally, to say "so what" in intellectual discussion (which is basically your current position) is to say either that you believe you are right no matter what, or that you are bored and no longer wish to defend your position. I would hope its the latter (and I understand how these discussions -- whether one perceives he is winning, or losing -- get tedious). First, I don't believe that I'm right or that others are right or wrong. We are sharing opinions... discussing the logic and reasoning behind why we feel the way we do. At least some of us are. Ever play a game with someone who after every move loudly proclaimed "I won!" and tried to put the game away? That's what it feels like often times on these threads. Someone will carefully explain why they believe a certain way, back it up with their logic and reasoning, only to have a few come in and summarily declare, "You are wrong and I win!" I could elaborate on just why I believe that the AMA and some medical societies holding opinions and arguments doesn't invalidate any other opinions or arguments, but Firm is waiting on me right now to take me to dinner. I hope you'll forgive my haste to conclude this post. [;)]

Owner59 -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 6:28:04 PM)
Are you the dessert?[;)]

rulemylife -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What you are asking me to do is set aside logic and context, and answer from a purely emotional point of view. That isn't a rational foundation for an opinion. BTW, I have sat back and watched someone torture my wife. Enjoyed the hell out of it. So did she. [:D] Yeah ok. [:)] But in all seriousness, my point is when we condone these things we open the door for other countries to do the same. We can't condemn what we are participating in ourselves.

rulemylife -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Rule,if you don't mind might I take a shot at the question. Yes I think waterboarding would be torture if applied to my ex-wife,when would you be able to do it? I'll do yours if you do mine. Wait, wasn't this a movie?

barelynangel -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:09:15 PM)
Emperor, out of curiosity, did any of these people say unequivocally of they would be willing to stand up against these people as experts and testify that what these people did by definition was fail in their ethical responsibilities in this specific situation? I stated earlier everyone will have opinions, but its really hard to find doctors willing to stand against their peers as experts to analyze their ethical responsibility in a specific situation that they may never had to encounter. If a doctor believes they are wrong and should be punished who refused to stand against the medical profession in question if asked to be an expert that these people failed in their ethical responsibility and testify, would that doctor also be unethical for not standing against same? angel

slvemike4u -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:10:41 PM)
yup."Throw mama from the Train" leaps to mind. I would take you up on the offer Rule...but you fucked up when you broached the subject on a public forum...we would never get away with it now.

kittinSol -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:48:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Rule,if you don't mind might I take a shot at the question. Yes I think waterboarding would be torture if applied to my ex-wife,when would you be able to do it? I'll do yours if you do mine. Wait, wasn't this a movie? If you two get a room, I'll supervise.

TreasureKY -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:52:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Are you the dessert?[;)] Always. [:D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Should medics who helped torture be sanctioned by med.community? (4/11/2009 7:52:21 PM)
If you will "supervise"...I will get the room. You are the "hands on" sort of supervisor...aren't you?

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 11 [12]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875