I'm curious, when y'all on the left say things like "Keep the government out of my Dr's office.", do y'all mean all levels of government out of every interaction between licensed medical professionals and their patients?
I don't know that anyone has ever said that. Do you have a source?
IF anyone has said that, no doubt, what they mean is, "Keep the government out of my personal medical decisions..."
A point reasonable people and the majority of the US can agree to.
There is, however, the less reasonable portion/minority of the US who is fine with the government being in people's medical decisions and bedroom decisions. They're called "Trump Conservatives" (to distinguish them from actual conservatives who agree in personal liberties not being infringed upon by the gov't).
So you are saying that all levels of government should be kept out of all medical decisions? That there should be no government involvement in any personal medical decisions between a patient and the licensed medical professional of their choice? That you would extend this ban on government involvement to all physical and mental interactions?
So you are saying that all levels of government should be kept out of all medical decisions?
Yes. So long as they're legitimate medical decisions for myself and the family I'm responsible for, yes.
That there should be no government involvement in any personal medical decisions between a patient and the licensed medical professional of their choice?
I didn't say that, but by and large, so long as it's legal, yes. That is, if a doctor is engaging in unethical, unproven medical procedures, I'm fine with gov't regulations of medicines and medical procedures to try to guarantee safety (i.e., I'm fine with gov't having approval processes for which medicines are legitimately not likely to harm, for example). But intervening in personal medical decisions, no.
If I want to have no extreme medical procedures done to extend my life as I near the end, no, that's my personal medical decision, not the gov't's.
If a woman fears that her pregnancy may negatively affect her health, that's her personal call to make, not the gov't's.
That you would extend this ban on government involvement to all physical and mental interactions?
No, that's not what I said.
What I said is that what the person/case you're attempting to quote was getting at was NOT that there should be no gov't oversight of medicines and medical procedures/personnel... they were likely rightly saying that gov't doesn't get to make my private medical decisions for me.
When you say the “you” should be able to decide what’s “legitimate”, does “you” mean Dan or does it mean that each individual can decide that for themselves?
You seem to be limiting these decisions only to doctors, are you saying that you would exclude other licensed health professionals from decisions on treatments?
Given that I asked a direct, straightforward question, you sure did manage to insert enough caveats and qualifications to make me wonder what your answer is.
It seems like you’re saying that private medical decisions shouldn’t be infringed by any level of government, yet you’ve clearly tried to leave yourself some escape routes.
Yes means yes. Yes, I should be the one to make MY medical decisions, not the gov't. Not you nor some preacher.
My family should be the ones to make OUR medical decisions, not the gov't. Not you nor some preacher.
Yes, the INDIVIDUAL should be the one to make medical decisions and the gov't should keep out of it.
Is that difficult for you to understand? Would it help if I repeated it some more?
You seem to be limiting these decisions only to doctors, are you saying that you would exclude other licensed health professionals from decisions on treatments?
???
I'm limiting it to the INDIVIDUAL and their family, when appropriate, which is still THE INDIVIDUAL. THE INDIVIDUAL can seek guidance from doctors, psychiatrists, or other specialists, as needed and, armed with expert opinion of experts, then THE INDIVIDUAL can decide and gov't should not interfere.
It is gov't's role to verify that medical procedures/medicines are safe and won't cause harm. It is the experts' role to advise the individual based upon best known practices. It is the individual's role to take expert opinion under consideration and be able to make the decision for themselves.
It is NOT the gov't's role to tell the individual what to decide about medical advice.
A simplistic yes or no to multi-faceted questions is oft-times ridiculous when the answer is it can depend.
Given that I'm answering a question directly and clearly, I don't know that I can help you understand further.
Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to stand up individuals being able to choose, based on consultation with licensed medical practitioners, the treatments that they feel appropriate for themselves. Also for your assertion that no one, not even you, should make medical decisions for another.
7 comments:
I don't know that anyone has ever said that. Do you have a source?
IF anyone has said that, no doubt, what they mean is, "Keep the government out of my personal medical decisions..."
A point reasonable people and the majority of the US can agree to.
There is, however, the less reasonable portion/minority of the US who is fine with the government being in people's medical decisions and bedroom decisions. They're called "Trump Conservatives" (to distinguish them from actual conservatives who agree in personal liberties not being infringed upon by the gov't).
So you are saying that all levels of government should be kept out of all medical decisions? That there should be no government involvement in any personal medical decisions between a patient and the licensed medical professional of their choice? That you would extend this ban on government involvement to all physical and mental interactions?
To be clear, that was more of a paraphrase than an actual quote. There are different variations that I was trying to synthesize.
But, beyond that nitpicking your response was fine.
So you are saying that all levels of government should be kept out of all medical decisions?
Yes. So long as they're legitimate medical decisions for myself and the family I'm responsible for, yes.
That there should be no government involvement in any personal medical decisions between a patient and the licensed medical professional of their choice?
I didn't say that, but by and large, so long as it's legal, yes. That is, if a doctor is engaging in unethical, unproven medical procedures, I'm fine with gov't regulations of medicines and medical procedures to try to guarantee safety (i.e., I'm fine with gov't having approval processes for which medicines are legitimately not likely to harm, for example). But intervening in personal medical decisions, no.
If I want to have no extreme medical procedures done to extend my life as I near the end, no, that's my personal medical decision, not the gov't's.
If a woman fears that her pregnancy may negatively affect her health, that's her personal call to make, not the gov't's.
That you would extend this ban on government involvement to all physical and mental interactions?
No, that's not what I said.
What I said is that what the person/case you're attempting to quote was getting at was NOT that there should be no gov't oversight of medicines and medical procedures/personnel... they were likely rightly saying that gov't doesn't get to make my private medical decisions for me.
Yes, but... doesn’t really mean yes. Does it?
When you say the “you” should be able to decide what’s “legitimate”, does “you” mean Dan or does it mean that each individual can decide that for themselves?
You seem to be limiting these decisions only to doctors, are you saying that you would exclude other licensed health professionals from decisions on treatments?
Given that I asked a direct, straightforward question, you sure did manage to insert enough caveats and qualifications to make me wonder what your answer is.
It seems like you’re saying that private medical decisions shouldn’t be infringed by any level of government, yet you’ve clearly tried to leave yourself some escape routes.
How about a simple yes or no?
Yes means yes. Yes, I should be the one to make MY medical decisions, not the gov't. Not you nor some preacher.
My family should be the ones to make OUR medical decisions, not the gov't. Not you nor some preacher.
Yes, the INDIVIDUAL should be the one to make medical decisions and the gov't should keep out of it.
Is that difficult for you to understand? Would it help if I repeated it some more?
You seem to be limiting these decisions only to doctors, are you saying that you would exclude other licensed health professionals from decisions on treatments?
???
I'm limiting it to the INDIVIDUAL and their family, when appropriate, which is still THE INDIVIDUAL. THE INDIVIDUAL can seek guidance from doctors, psychiatrists, or other specialists, as needed and, armed with expert opinion of experts, then THE INDIVIDUAL can decide and gov't should not interfere.
It is gov't's role to verify that medical procedures/medicines are safe and won't cause harm.
It is the experts' role to advise the individual based upon best known practices.
It is the individual's role to take expert opinion under consideration and be able to make the decision for themselves.
It is NOT the gov't's role to tell the individual what to decide about medical advice.
A simplistic yes or no to multi-faceted questions is oft-times ridiculous when the answer is it can depend.
Given that I'm answering a question directly and clearly, I don't know that I can help you understand further.
That’s quite a long winded way of saying yes.
Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to stand up individuals being able to choose, based on consultation with licensed medical practitioners, the treatments that they feel appropriate for themselves. Also for your assertion that no one, not even you, should make medical decisions for another.
Post a Comment