Another example

[Little-Acorn]

A frend of mine is a doctor, and just sent me this note. It's probably about half an hour old.

Yes, you have to take my word for it that it's genuine. But it is.

----------------------------------------------------

Today I was covering our resident service this morning, and in the process of seeing their patients in the hospital on the maternity floor, and notice a slight problem. A few days prior I delivered a Thai/Burmese woman child and she did not speak a word of English. I am being generous when I say that she BARELY knew 20 words and just could not seem to communicate. She delivers a healthy female 6 pound infant with no complications. She is here illegally. Immigrations status unknown. No insurance of course. All of my time and effort is now donated.

Today I see her in the hospital and sign her discharge orders, and miraculously, she speaks around 2000 words of English rather well. She has no problems communicating with the nurses or to me today. Upon hearing of her discharge, she asks me about diapers for her baby? What diapers? You buy them at the store I tell her. No! This is what she tells me: "my baby born in America and can get WIC, right?" Direct quote. The maternity nurse tells her yes, she is eligible for WIC. In come the social workers and all the needed forms, and yes, she is getting free formula, diapers and now has free health care. I left, in extreme haste, BEFORE someone asked me to start signing all the Welfare forms. But not so fast, I was not out of that hospital more than 30 minutes before I was paged, and asked by the now "case worker" to sign the medical forms so they could get her enrolled (DRUM ROLL PLEASE) for home care and visits for the baby. Seems "because of her social situation" that they need to send a nurse three times a week to her home and check on the baby and mother. That along with delivering formula, food, etc.

My response to the "case worker?" Direct quote: "stop bothering me." And just as abruptly hung up the phone. I am sure that the social services representative is sitting there at this very moment wondering why I am so cranky, and has zero clue what she is doing to the rest of the tax payers who work hard in this country.

I refuse to deal with this any longer. My patience is shot, and if they do not like it, fire me and find some other sucker to sign away. This is akin to a bank just saying we are so worried about a hold up, that we are going to just set up a kiosk outside and start handing out money to everyone, especially to anyone that might look like a thief. Is the some HUGE label placed on the USA on some giant international map that says "FREE STUFF HERE!" I have a Thai woman who now speaks pretty good English and the first words she says is that her kids is American and can get WIC. Gaming the system, all at our expense.

[Little-Acorn]

Actually, I don't blame the Thai woman for this. If you have a problem (such as poverty while having a child) and see a solution that someone else is voluntarily offering, what's wrong with taking advantage of that solution?

The problem isn't with the Thai women, or others who are doing the same thing. It's with the people who are foolishly offering the solution, to the point where people (like this Thai woman) will expend more effort to get the "free" stuff, than they would expend to solve the problem in their own country in the first place.

In fact, it's even reasonable to expect that she will NOT care what we are doing to our own society by creating a constant drain on it that can only swell until it drains everything out. That's not her problem. Getting valuable, needed stuff for herself and her baby, is.

The problem is OURS.

[ConHog]

Too bad for that Dr. He's under a legal obligation to follow the law. The law sucks and I certainly advocate a constitutional amendment doing away with so called anchor babies. But as of now , the law is the law.

[Abbey Marie]

Too bad for that Dr. He's under a legal obligation to follow the law. The law sucks and I certainly advocate a constitutional amendment doing away with so called anchor babies. But as of now , the law is the law.

To quote from Oliver Twist, "The law is an ass..."

[Kathianne]

To quote from Oliver Twist, "The law is an ass..."

The 14th amendment should have come with an expiration date. Repeal it, the purpose it was meant for has been over for decades.

[logroller]

I read the 14th amendment, and I don't see how it explicitly allows for "anchor babies". Take Roe v, for example; if a child is afforded rights when viable, even before birth, independent of a citizen mother's rights-- then certainly the birthed child's interests can be considered independent of an alien parent's rights. The child (a citizen) is entitled to due process, but not the mother. As the child is unable to decide for itself, whether or not the mother feels the child's best interest would be better served by staying in the US is only a consideration during due process, rather the child can be removed from country by the mother or become a ward of the state. But I see no reasonable extension of the child's rights to the mother inherent within the 14th amendment.

[ConHog]

I read the 14th amendment, and I don't see how it explicitly allows for "anchor babies". Take Roe v, for example; if a child is afforded rights when viable, even before birth, independent of a citizen mother's rights-- then certainly the birthed child's interests can be considered independent of an alien parent's rights. The child (a citizen) is entitled to due process, but not the mother. As the child is unable to decide for itself, whether or not the mother feels the child's best interest would be better served by staying in the US is only a consideration during due process, rather the child can be removed from country by the mother or become a ward of the state. But I see no reasonable extension of the child's rights to the mother inherent within the 14th amendment.

You are correct, but unfortunately precedent has already been set. At this point, it WILL take an Amendment to the COTUS to correct it.

[logroller]

You are correct, but unfortunately precedent has already been set. At this point, it WILL take an Amendment to the COTUS to correct it.

Judicial precedence or administrative? Is there a supreme court ruling on this?

[ConHog]

Judicial precedence or administrative? Is there a supreme court ruling on this?

Not really, BUT there is a SCOTUS ruling in US vs Wong Kim Ark in which the court DID grant citizenship to the son of alien Chinese parents.

[revelarts]

Too bad for that Dr. He's under a legal obligation to follow the law. The law sucks and I certainly advocate a constitutional amendment doing away with so called anchor babies. But as of now , the law is the law.

ConHog you've said many times that you have line where you think the Gov't could go to far and that you will stand by the door of others who refuse to obey laws that you deem unconstitutional or wrong as well.
well the Dr has found his line in the sand. You can never seem to understand why others line might be a little (a lot) further inland than you care for.

i say more power to the Doc may his tribe increase.











(These Dr's are proving to be principled folks huh Go Dr PAUL)

[ConHog]

ConHog you've said many times that you have line where you think the Gov't could go to far and that you will stand by the door of others who refuse to obey laws that you deem unconstitutional or wrong as well.
well the Dr has found his line in the sand. You can never seem to understand why others line might be a little (a lot) further inland than you care for.

i say more power to the Doc may his tribe increase.









(These Dr's are proving to be principled folks huh Go Dr PAUL)

I do have a line. Denying medical care to a child because of an objection to current immigration laws is just cruel. And a Dr has taken an oath to see to the medical needs of any and all patients that come his/her way, and that should absolutely over ride ANY objections to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment

[Kathianne]

I read the 14th amendment, and I don't see how it explicitly allows for "anchor babies". Take Roe v, for example; if a child is afforded rights when viable, even before birth, independent of a citizen mother's rights-- then certainly the birthed child's interests can be considered independent of an alien parent's rights. The child (a citizen) is entitled to due process, but not the mother. As the child is unable to decide for itself, whether or not the mother feels the child's best interest would be better served by staying in the US is only a consideration during due process, rather the child can be removed from country by the mother or become a ward of the state. But I see no reasonable extension of the child's rights to the mother inherent within the 14th amendment.

Roe doesn't give 'viable feturs' rights before birth. Neither does the 14th, the citizenship passes on if born on US soil. The rights do NOT extend to the parents, but the INS rarely separates child from parents. Not saying there isn't threats to do so, just not done.

The 14th was a reconstruction amendment to ensure that the South couldn't invoke rules such as 'parents' had to be US citizens. The time for the need for that protection is long gone.

We should return to the traditional 'one parent must be US citizen', wherever born. Stop the nonsense we've seen over Obama's birthplace, as his mom was definitely US citizen. If both parents are here legally, with green cards, the child will be considered a citizen of the country of one of the parents, NOT a US citizen.

The above paragraph would not only help with election nonsense, but also give incentives to immigrants to get US citizenship when the time requirement is lapsed.

[ConHog]

Roe doesn't give 'viable feturs' rights before birth. Neither does the 14th, the citizenship passes on if born on US soil. The rights do NOT extend to the parents, but the INS rarely separates child from parents. Not saying there isn't threats to do so, just not done.

The 14th was a reconstruction amendment to ensure that the South couldn't invoke rules such as 'parents' had to be US citizens. The time for the need for that protection is long gone.

We should return to the traditional 'one parent must be US citizen', wherever born. Stop the nonsense we've seen over Obama's birthplace, as his mom was definitely US citizen. If both parents are here legally, with green cards, the child will be considered a citizen of the country of one of the parents, NOT a US citizen.

The above paragraph would not only help with election nonsense, but also give incentives to immigrants to get US citizenship when the time requirement is lapsed.

Excellent post. Especially the part about Obama, I just never understood how people weren't grocking that it didn't matter if he was born on the moon, his mom was/is a US citizen, so so is he.

And the one parent must be a US citizen would make things SOOOOOOOOOO much simpler.

[pegwinn]

Too bad for that Dr. He's under a legal obligation to follow the law. The law sucks and I certainly advocate a constitutional amendment doing away with so called anchor babies. But as of now , the law is the law.

I understand the sentiment. But, the child is a citizen. That part isn't really the issue. The issue is the welfare state we've created. Deport the mom, let the kid stay here with legal relatives or be repatriated when he/she is old enough to live on their own.

In the meantime, revert all welfare back to the community to administer as they see fit.

[SassyLady]

I do have a line. Denying medical care to a child because of an objection to current immigration laws is just cruel. And a Dr has taken an oath to see to the medical needs of any and all patients that come his/her way, and that should absolutely over ride ANY objections to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment

I didn't get that doc was denying medical care...just didn't want to make it easy for mom to take advantage of system after medical care was given.

[revelarts]

Too bad for that Dr. He's under a legal obligation to follow the law. The law sucks and I certainly advocate a constitutional amendment doing away with so called anchor babies. But as of now , the law is the law.


I do have a line. Denying medical care to a child because of an objection to current immigration laws is just cruel. And a Dr has taken an oath to see to the medical needs of any and all patients that come his/her way, and that should absolutely over ride ANY objections to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment


I didn't get that doc was denying medical care...just didn't want to make it easy for mom to take advantage of system after medical care was given.

Con Your 1st statement isn't about med care or oaths it's about "DA LAW". He broke "DA LAW!" even if "DA LAW" Sucks the dr should obey "DA LAW!" because "DA LAW is DA LAW!"

least that's the way it seemed to read to me.

[Nukeman]

I do have a line. Denying medical care to a child because of an objection to current immigration laws is just cruel. And a Dr has taken an oath to see to the medical needs of any and all patients that come his/her way, and that should absolutely over ride ANY objections to the current interpretation of the 14th AmendmentNo where did he "deny" medical care to the child, by the way he is a Obstetrician not a pediatrician. He is just not making it easy for the person to milk the system. How many people do YOU personally know receive home health care after the birth of their child?? Most sane people take their baby to the Dr.s office.. Not the other way around, I would think that if you are getting FREE CARE the least you can do is GO GET IT, not have it brought to you. YOU and your way of thinking is whats wrong here. "ohh but its for the children" that is the wrong way of looking at it and not saying "take responsibility for your own children"..

[ConHog]

No where did he "deny" medical care to the child, by the way he is a Obstetrician not a pediatrician. He is just not making it easy for the person to milk the system. How many people do YOU personally know receive home health care after the birth of their child?? Most sane people take their baby to the Dr.s office.. Not the other way around, I would think that if you are getting FREE CARE the least you can do is GO GET IT, not have it brought to you. YOU and your way of thinking is whats wrong here. "ohh but its for the children" that is the wrong way of looking at it and not saying "take responsibility for your own children"..

No, he made a political statement out of one of his patients. That is wrong PERIOD.

[SassyLady]

No, he made a political statement out of one of his patients. That is wrong PERIOD.

Correcting a corrupt system has to start somewhere and with someone. Evil will flourish where good people stand by and do/say nothing. This doctor has an opinion about a flawed system and has every right to express it.

[ConHog]

Correcting a corrupt system has to start somewhere and with someone. Evil will flourish where good people stand by and do/say nothing. This doctor has an opinion about a flawed system and has every right to express it.

Of course he has that right, vote, hold rallies, run for office, whatever.

BUT being a doctor is supposed to come before ANYTHING else. "do no harm" Now what if his refusal to sign the papers would have resulted in the child not receiving adequate medical care?

I'm certainly not saying that being a doctor means the guy should just shut up and be okay with the system. Certainly that is not the case. but there are appropriate ways to express displeasure and potentially keeping a patient from receiving medical care isn't one of them.

Let's go a step further. Suppose a Dr in an ER room decides that he is sick of illegal aliens using the ER. So in walks an illegal alien with chest pains. The dr refuses to treat him because he doesn't think he should have to. Now let's suppose that the illegal alien dies of a heart attack. now I don't like the illegals being here, you don't like it. I do NOT think they should have access to our social services. I'm sure you don't either. But there are ways to try to get that changed, and by God letting a man die out of nothing but stubbornness is not one of them.


Fundamentally I see this as no different.

[SassyLady]

Of course he has that right, vote, hold rallies, run for office, whatever.

BUT being a doctor is supposed to come before ANYTHING else. "do no harm" Now what if his refusal to sign the papers would have resulted in the child not receiving adequate medical care?

I'm certainly not saying that being a doctor means the guy should just shut up and be okay with the system. Certainly that is not the case. but there are appropriate ways to express displeasure and potentially keeping a patient from receiving medical care isn't one of them.

Let's go a step further. Suppose a Dr in an ER room decides that he is sick of illegal aliens using the ER. So in walks an illegal alien with chest pains. The dr refuses to treat him because he doesn't think he should have to. Now let's suppose that the illegal alien dies of a heart attack. now I don't like the illegals being here, you don't like it. I do NOT think they should have access to our social services. I'm sure you don't either. But there are ways to try to get that changed, and by God letting a man die out of nothing but stubbornness is not one of them.


Fundamentally I see this as no different.

Apples and Oranges.

Doctor did not deny medical care. Providing diapers and formula is not medical care.

You seriously cannot see the difference in the fact that the doctor did provide medical care but did not want to help perpetuate the corruption and abuse of an entitlement system.

[ConHog]

Apples and Oranges.

Doctor did not deny medical care. Providing diapers and formula is not medical care.

You seriously cannot see the difference in the fact that the doctor did provide medical care but did not want to help perpetuate the corruption and abuse of an entitlement system.


It's not apples and oranges. Let's suppose though that instead of the illegal alien showing up at the ER they had dialed 911 instead and the doctor told him " fuck you wetback, you want medical care, show up to the hospital. If not I'm not coming to you."

And what if not medical care would a Dr have to approve?

[SassyLady]

It's not apples and oranges. Let's suppose though that instead of the illegal alien showing up at the ER they had dialed 911 instead and the doctor told him " fuck you wetback, you want medical care, show up to the hospital. If not I'm not coming to you."

And what if not medical care would a Dr have to approve?

reread the OP

[fj1200]

And what if not medical care would a Dr have to approve?

Way to change the scenario to fit your view. But he's probably just an "ignorant F*."

[Nukeman]

No, he made a political statement out of one of his patients. That is wrong PERIOD.No!! No it wasn't and you know it. It was not a "political" Statement. It was a testament to the pervasiveness of a system run amok.. YOU are so blinded by the "ohh its for the children" you cant see that or refuse to see that.. Whichever is a failing on YOUR part not his..


Of course he has that right, vote, hold rallies, run for office, whatever.

BUT being a doctor is supposed to come before ANYTHING else. "do no harm" Now what if his refusal to sign the papers would have resulted in the child not receiving adequate medical care?

I'm certainly not saying that being a doctor means the guy should just shut up and be okay with the system. Certainly that is not the case. but there are appropriate ways to express displeasure and potentially keeping a patient from receiving medical care isn't one of them.

Let's go a step further. Suppose a Dr in an ER room decides that he is sick of illegal aliens using the ER. So in walks an illegal alien with chest pains. The dr refuses to treat him because he doesn't think he should have to. Now let's suppose that the illegal alien dies of a heart attack. now I don't like the illegals being here, you don't like it. I do NOT think they should have access to our social services. I'm sure you don't either. But there are ways to try to get that changed, and by God letting a man die out of nothing but stubbornness is not one of them.


Fundamentally I see this as no different.Talk about your apples and oranges.. IT IS ILLEGAL TO DENY EMERGENCY MEDICAL AID REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY... That is NOT what is being discussed here and you damn well know it. Someone milking the system for "free shit" is not denying care


It's not apples and oranges. Let's suppose though that instead of the illegal alien showing up at the ER they had dialed 911 instead and the doctor told him " fuck you wetback, you want medical care, show up to the hospital. If not I'm not coming to you."

And what if not medical care would a Dr have to approve?Last I checked it is EMT or paramedics that "show up" not the Dr. They are in the ER where they should be. Tell ya what if our border town ER's did say "go home wetback" and refused treatment on the basis of illegal status we could save 100's of millions of dollars.

I have worked in healthcare for over 20 years I can tell you first hand the morons milking the system know EXACTLY how to get the most for nothing, they waste money by using the ER as a Dr.'s office instead of a redi-med or other type organization that specialize in urgent not "emergent" care at a cheaper rate. NO they cant be bothered to do that, hell by YOUR standards they cant be bothered to GO to the Dr.'s office. We should provide home health care just because they had a freaking baby. Tell me how many families with insurance get home visits after the birth of their child.. DAMN FEW, if any, but these lowlifes get it for FREE and you are OK with that because "its for the children".. Learn about the topic you argue BEFORE you argue it....

[ConHog]

No!! No it wasn't and you know it. It was not a "political" Statement. It was a testament to the pervasiveness of a system run amok.. YOU are so blinded by the "ohh its for the children" you cant see that or refuse to see that.. Whichever is a failing on YOUR part not his..

Talk about your apples and oranges.. IT IS ILLEGAL TO DENY EMERGENCY MEDICAL AID REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY... That is NOT what is being discussed here and you damn well know it. Someone milking the system for "free shit" is not denying care

Last I checked it is EMT or paramedics that "show up" not the Dr. They are in the ER where they should be. Tell ya what if our border town ER's did say "go home wetback" and refused treatment on the basis of illegal status we could save 100's of millions of dollars.

I have worked in healthcare for over 20 years I can tell you first hand the morons milking the system know EXACTLY how to get the most for nothing, they waste money by using the ER as a Dr.'s office instead of a redi-med or other type organization that specialize in urgent not "emergent" care at a cheaper rate. NO they cant be bothered to do that, hell by YOUR standards they cant be bothered to GO to the Dr.'s office. We should provide home health care just because they had a freaking baby. Tell me how many families with insurance get home visits after the birth of their child.. DAMN FEW, if any, but these lowlifes get it for FREE and you are OK with that because "its for the children".. Learn about the topic you argue BEFORE you argue it....

Let me address all of this by simply stating that I am NOT okay with the way ANYONE milks our system, be they illegals or legal citizens. That has nothing to do with my opinion here. Just as it should have NOTHING to do with a Dr signing legal forms for a patient of his.

There are ways to get laws changed and not only does this Dr refusing to sign paperwork change nothing it is him making a political statement through his job. Which a Dr should NEVER do.

[SassyLady]

Let me address all of this by simply stating that I am NOT okay with the way ANYONE milks our system, be they illegals or legal citizens. That has nothing to do with my opinion here. Just as it should have NOTHING to do with a Dr signing legal forms for a patient of his.

There are ways to get laws changed and not only does this Dr refusing to sign paperwork change nothing it is him making a political statement through his job. Which a Dr should NEVER do.

I am ok with exactly what this doctor did...gave medical care and then refused to participate in a scam...not political statement...just an ethical line in the sand

[ConHog]

I am ok with exactly what this doctor did...gave medical care and then refused to participate in a scam...not political statement...just an ethical line in the sand

The point is , there was NO scam here Sassy. Does the law need to be changed? You bet, but that's a legal consideration, not one a doctor should be making when he decides who should get home health care and who shouldn't.

[SassyLady]

The point is , there was NO scam here Sassy. Does the law need to be changed? You bet, but that's a legal consideration, not one a doctor should be making when he decides who should get home health care and who shouldn't.

the only thing this doctor decided to do was to not put his signature on something he felt was morally wrong and sometimes that is all an individual can do in the moment to begin changing something.

Is there a law that specifically said he/she had to be the one signing the paperwork? I believe that patient got exactly what she came to America to get and that doc tor did not have to sign the papers in order for that to happen. I'm sure some other official made sure that "poor" woman got what she demanded as the mother of a U.S. citizen.

[ConHog]

the only thing this doctor decided to do was to not put his signature on something he felt was morally wrong and sometimes that is all an individual can do in the moment to begin changing something.

Is there a law that specifically said he/she had to be the one signing the paperwork? I believe that patient got exactly what she came to America to get and that doc tor did not have to sign the papers in order for that to happen. I'm sure some other official made sure that "poor" woman got what she demanded as the mother of a U.S. citizen.

Doesn't matter. It isn't that doctor's place or job to determine nope I don't like this so even though the law provides for it, I'm not signing for it. His/her job is to make sure his/her patients get everything they are legally entitled to when they come to a hospital. If that means signing up for welfare, so be it. Don't like it, petition to change the law.

This is no different than if a police officer pulled somebody over for doing 100 in a 65 and saying you know I 'don't think the speed limit should be so low, so I'm not going to sign the ticket.

No different than if the police brought my wife a case and she said "you know, I don't think that should be illegal, so no I won't press charges"

It's all the same principle.

[SassyLady]

Which is why I would never work in a position where my paycheck meant more to me than my morals.

[ConHog]

Which is why I would never work in a position where my paycheck meant more to me than my morals.

That's all fine and good sassy, but that doesn't change the fact that some people DO work those jobs and a person should absolutely have the trust that their doctor , in this instance, will do his job sans comment.

What if next week it is YOUR doctor who isn't happy with what the law requires of him. It's not just about this ONE incident, or even this ONE circumstance. It's about principle.

[Gaffer]

That's all fine and good sassy, but that doesn't change the fact that some people DO work those jobs and a person should absolutely have the trust that their doctor , in this instance, will do his job sans comment.

What if next week it is YOUR doctor who isn't happy with what the law requires of him. It's not just about this ONE incident, or even this ONE circumstance. It's about principle.

There's no law involved here. He did what was required in the ER and maternity room. Signing papers for after care is not required by law. Once the medical portion is done she is no longer his patient and he's not required to do any more for her.

Yes, this is about principle. The principle that an illegal alien is here in the states getting thousands in welfare benefits for her anchor baby. She and her baby should be put on a bus to Mexico. End of story. I fully support the doctors actions. It was about principle.

[ConHog]

There's no law involved here. He did what was required in the ER and maternity room. Signing papers for after care is not required by law. Once the medical portion is done she is no longer his patient and he's not required to do any more for her.

Yes, this is about principle. The principle that an illegal alien is here in the states getting thousands in welfare benefits for her anchor baby. She and her baby should be put on a bus to Mexico. End of story. I fully support the doctors actions. It was about principle.

putting them on a bus to Mexico wouldn't concern me in the least. A Dr discriminating as to which patients he will give what level of care to does. Anything that requires a doctor's signature is by nature medical. Why would the doctor need to sign it if it wasn't related to her medical case? Why not have just an admittance nurse sign the paperwork?

This Dr made a political statement with his actions. The fact that you agree with that political statement doesn't make it right Gaffey. What if the next Dr is some liberal loon who makes a political statement you DON'T agree with by refusing to sign some paperwork?

[Abbey Marie]

putting them on a bus to Mexico wouldn't concern me in the least. A Dr discriminating as to which patients he will give what level of care to does. Anything that requires a doctor's signature is by nature medical. Why would the doctor need to sign it if it wasn't related to her medical case? Why not have just an admittance nurse sign the paperwork?

This Dr made a political statement with his actions. The fact that you agree with that political statement doesn't make it right Gaffey. What if the next Dr is some liberal loon who makes a political statement you DON'T agree with by refusing to sign some paperwork?

For all we know, he may have had to sign it in much the same way a doctor signs a death warrant. Like "I was there on such and such date, here in the U.S. I delivered a healthy female, and Mrs. (insert Thai surname here) is the mom." Information that allows the government to legally pay out all the bennys, but decidedly not medical care.

[ConHog]

For all we know, he may have had to sign it in much the same way a doctor signs a death warrant. Like "I was there on such and such date, here in the U.S. I delivered a healthy female, and Mrs. (insert Thai surname here) is the mom." Information that allows the government to legally pay out all the bennys, but decidedly not medical care.

BUt decidedly related to healthcare. We all bitch about doctors playing God, and then some cheer when this doctor does exactly that. His job is to sign the freaking paperwork. PERIOD, not pass judgement on people who have came to him for care and sit on high and judge who should get his signature and who shouldn't. If he doesn't like the law, there is legal recourse to take.

It actually saddens me that so many put politics ahead of principles. A principle is a principle whether you like the outcome or not.

[Abbey Marie]

BUt decidedly related to healthcare. We all bitch about doctors playing God, and then some cheer when this doctor does exactly that. His job is to sign the freaking paperwork. PERIOD, not pass judgement on people who have came to him for care and sit on high and judge who should get his signature and who shouldn't. If he doesn't like the law, there is legal recourse to take.

It actually saddens me that so many put politics ahead of principles. A principle is a principle whether you like the outcome or not.

First, you said "medical care" not "related to healthcare". What isn't related to health care? That's about as broad a spectrum as can be.

Second, you relegate my and the doctor's beliefs to "politics", but yours and the case workers to "principles". Why do you assume that my feelings on this aren't based on my principles? So, I will say back to you, "A principle is a principle whether you like the outcome or not".

Finally, I wouldn't liken this doctor's refusal to sign papers playing God. I leave that term for doctors' behavior in true medical situations.

[ConHog]

First, you said "medical care" not "related to healthcare". What isn't related to health care? That's about as broad a spectrum as can be.

Second, you relegate my and the doctor's beliefs to "politics", but yours and the case workers to "principles". Why do you assume that my feelings on this aren't based on my principles? So, I will say back to you, "A principle is a principle whether you like the outcome or not".

Finally, I wouldn't liken this doctor's refusal to sign papers playing God. I leave that term for doctors' behavior in true medical situations.

When I say principle. I am talking about the principle of a doctor not putting political views into his job and semantics aside that is EXACTLY what this doctor did, you know it, I know it, the doctor knows it.

So I'm not saying that you can't say not wanting illegal aliens to receive benefits a principle. I'm saying that the principle of a doctor always doing the right thing should over ride his political "principles"

Let me put it another way. Suppose the police have arrested a man who has kidnapped a little girl. Suppose they know she only has so long to live and thus their time to find out where she is is limited. Now in principle I want that little girl saved. Does that mean I want the police to violate that man's civil rights and beat the location out of him? Well certainly if it was my little girl I'd take him apart myself, but that's another thread. Both are principles. Which one is more important?

The principle of a Dr or a police officer doing their ENTIRE job as fairly and humanely as possible trumps all others.

This Dr is no hero, he's an idiot. for one thing, what did he even accomplish? Sign the paperwork and then go start a petition to change the law.

[Gaffer]

First, you said "medical care" not "related to healthcare". What isn't related to health care? That's about as broad a spectrum as can be.

Second, you relegate my and the doctor's beliefs to "politics", but yours and the case workers to "principles". Why do you assume that my feelings on this aren't based on my principles? So, I will say back to you, "A principle is a principle whether you like the outcome or not".

Finally, I wouldn't liken this doctor's refusal to sign papers playing God. I leave that term for doctors' behavior in true medical situations.

What she said.

The doctor was acting on principle. It wasn't about politics.

[ConHog]

What she said.

The doctor was acting on principle. It wasn't about politics.

It was a principle based on politics. Semantics aside there is no other way to see it.

Ends justify the means?

[Gaffer]

It was a principle based on politics. Semantics aside there is no other way to see it.

Ends justify the means?

It had nothing to do with politics. The woman is scamming the govt. The doctor is obligated to deliver the baby and make sure the woman is healthy and fine. He's not obligated to do anything more than that, and after realizing she was scamming he said no to signing after care orders. They can get another doctor to do that if they want. This guy was taking a stand on principle.

[ConHog]

It had nothing to do with politics. The woman is scamming the govt. The doctor is obligated to deliver the baby and make sure the woman is healthy and fine. He's not obligated to do anything more than that, and after realizing she was scamming he said no to signing after care orders. They can get another doctor to do that if they want. This guy was taking a stand on principle.

Taking advantage of laws is NOT scamming anyone. I would support him refusing to particicpate in a scam. There was no scam here.

[Gaffer]

Taking advantage of laws is NOT scamming anyone. I would support him refusing to particicpate in a scam. There was no scam here.

Call it what you will, she's using the system for her own profit ie: free stuff. The doctor simply saw it as wrong and took a stand to not sign the papers. It was offensive to his principles. He had already done what the law required.

[ConHog]

Call it what you will, she's using the system for her own profit ie: free stuff. The doctor simply saw it as wrong and took a stand to not sign the papers. It was offensive to his principles. He had already done what the law required.

I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. Friends?

[Gaffer]

I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. Friends?

Still friends. We just disagree. :beer:

[ConHog]

Still friends. We just disagree. :beer:

Not a problem, I'm friends with a lot of people who are wrong. :laugh2: