Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

archive.cancerworld.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#291

Post by scotty79 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #287
scotty79 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people choose to engage in activity with a known risk of a certain outcome, is that outcome not their responsibility should it occur? Is a person legally responsible for the injury if he engages in skydiving but then gets injured because the pilot of his plane made a mistake or manufacturer technician of his plane didn't prepare it correctly? Is a person walking at night legally responsible for getting mugged, b…

> Is a person legally responsible for the injury if he engages in skydiving but then gets injured because the pilot of his plane made a mistake or manufacturer technician of his plane didn't prepare it correctly? I don't see how that tracks. You appear to be saying "if birth control fails", but birth control is known to be less than 100% effective the same way protective sports equipment is. Arguably you have a point…

> So the sperm and egg are committing a crime now? They are not conscious actors, they don't have responsibility.

I never claimed that. If anything, I am claiming that there's no responsibility that needs to be assigned to anyone because it's not a reprehensible act. And the only responsibility there is here, is the one that women voluntarily might or might not take upon herself.

> Taking an organ doesn't really accomplish anything though, because the purpose isn't to punish but to support the child and taking an organ does nothing for that.

You may always use that organ to help someone else in exchange for support for the child. Body of the woman is lawfully coerced to sustain harm and we don't do the same with man.

> I don't think the issue is quite as straight-forward as saying that the mother (or father for that matter, but obviously his situation is different) bears no responsibility towards the fetus.

Even if there's a responsibility. Even if we consider getting conceived the worst thing two humans can do to another it doesn't mean that is should be corporeally punished.

We shouldn't (and in almost all cases we don't) legally force people to risk their health and life to help someone else, even to save someone else's life. No matter how much responsibility the person is burdened with. We don't even take the kidneys of serial killers, even though the responsibility that they brought upon themselves is orders of magnitude larger than any other.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#292

Post by scotty79 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #288
scotty79 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are suggesting that if it's not a crime to take on a responsibility, you can't be punished for betraying it - that doesn't follow to me. I'm suggesting the exactly opposite. That by having sex and getting pregnant you don't enter any contract and you don't automatically agree to take any responsibility. You can be punished for violating terms of something you voluntarily agreed to. > why don't you assume the po…

> I'm suggesting the exactly opposite. That by having sex and getting pregnant you don't enter any contract and you don't automatically agree to take any responsibility. You can be punished for violating terms of something you voluntarily agreed to. I don't think this reasoning tracks. Let's say you're in a bar and get into a heated argument with another person and you decide to "take it outside", as it were. You don…

> Do either of you have any responsibility for that outcome?

Sure. But does that mean that as a punishment we should break your legs or take a kidney out of each of you?

If conceiving an unwanted child is harm, then just make mother and father pay a fine and give mother an abortion. Don't punish her with damage to her health.

And if conceiving an unwanted child is not a harm, them do the same just without any punishment.

> I think this is your strongest argument, because I honestly cannot think of a reason the state should be allowed to do that and the only counter argument I can muster is that there's currently no other way to bring a fetus to term, which I feel is a weak justification.

That's my main point, that I think is the strongest argument in existence for any right to choice of abortion, even limited. Since I got this point across I'm perfectly happy to end this thread at that. Thank you.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#293

Post by Thorrez »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #193
Thorrez wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a fertilized, un-implanted egg is not a human -- it's a potential human. Is there a scientific reason for that idea? I don't see how implantation can really be considered a transition from potential human to human. I think with enough scientific advances a human could be raised entirely outside the womb, and in that case there would be no implantation.

I think the way GP phrased it is a shorthand for "egg just after fertilization" - because today , fertilized eggs either get implanted early or rejected by the mother's body. When science and technology advances to the point of making it possible to gestate humans entirely outside of the womb, the way we talk about this will have to adjust to be more precise. (Implantation itself doesn't feel like the transition poin…

I don't see why we can't try to adjust to be more precise now.

It seems strange to say that our current definition is not the correct long-term definition, but we'll keep using the current one. To me that's basically saying our current definition of human is wrong, and I don't see why it's acceptable to use a wrong definition.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#294

Post by Thorrez »

emn13 wrote: post #189
Thorrez wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>those are almost universally due to health risks >But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1363/4521013 >“[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.” >“Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that ab…

For perspective, note that the studies you're referring to are studying a rare occurrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion refers to CDC statistics that 1% of abortions may be at 21+ weeks, but even that is with the caveat that what they're really looking at is medical procedures, and thus that "According to the CDC, due to data collection difficulties the data must be viewed as tentative and some fetal deaths…

>Additionally, 56% of women declined to participate in the study, and there will surely be some correlation between that choice and the cause for the termination.

I think you're misunderstanding how the sentence I quoted relates to the study. The study I linked to actually only studied women who had abortions unrelated to fetal anomalies or life endangerment. So none of the 56% who declined to participate in the study nor any of the 44% who accepted to participate in it had abortions related to fetal anomalies or life endangerment.

The quote I quoted was basically an offhand remark that the paper made to justify its relevance, not backed up by evidence in the paper, but instead backed up by a citation to a different paper that I found hard to understand in a quick skim.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#295

Post by Thorrez »

lostcolony wrote: post #237
emn13 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For perspective, note that the studies you're referring to are studying a rare occurrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion refers to CDC statistics that 1% of abortions may be at 21+ weeks, but even that is with the caveat that what they're really looking at is medical procedures, and thus that "According to the CDC, due to data collection difficulties the data must be viewed as tentative and some fetal deaths…

Not to mention the reply left out my original "possibly also a major change in financial status, relationship, etc", since my entire point was that late term abortions, while for a variety of reasons, are not simply people taking the most expensive, most traumatic, most controversial option as a form of contraceptive. It's for a variety of nuanced, complex reasons that aren't "for convenience", as the convenient path…

I did see that, but since it was in parentheses I interpreted it as you saying that was lower likelihood.

The general way I interpret the meaning of parentheses is that it's a part of the sentence that provides extra information, but the sentence would still be correct if it was removed.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#296

Post by marcus_holmes »

bserge wrote: post #261
marcus_holmes wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was depressed for a lot of the last ten years. I thought about ending it all a lot. Part of my calm acceptance now is because of facing it so much back then. If you're seriously contemplating it, because life is suffering, know that it's not always like that. This too shall pass. There are good times too. My life now is something I could not have imagined achieving back when I was depressed and couldn't see any fut…

Don't worry, other lives will end before mine.

that sounds more ominous than comforting ;)

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#298

Post by anthonypasq »

Chris2048 wrote: post #278
anthonypasq wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you decide to for example continually give blood to another person to keep them alive, you are allowed at any point to revoke your consent for this procedure even if it makes the other person die. it doesnt matter that the women entered the pregnancy knowing the consequences, she is allowed to revoke the babies privilege to use her body whenever she wants.

Jesus Christ "revoke the babies privilege" When did that baby consent to being conceived?

another human doesnt have a right to leech off your body.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#299

Post by amyjess »

lostapathy wrote: post #134
amyjess wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the cancer has a very high survival rate following chemo, if the only way to save my life involves losing my hair I will refuse treatment and let myself die.

Cancer survivor here. I did chemo. My oncologist says I had the worst go of this treatment she’s ever see . My hair grew back. After just a couple months I felt great again. It was worth it.

Whether or not it grows back is irrelevant. I will not stand to be without my hair for even a single millisecond.

The only way I would even remotely accept chemo is if I could get a 100% guarantee in writing—with an agreement to immediately kill me if I wake up early—that I will be put in an induced coma before chemo and not taken out of the coma until after my hair has completely grown back and surpassed its previous length, and I want the anaesthesiologists legally obliged to err on the side of me not waking up ever over the possibility of me waking up before my hair has fully grown back.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#300

Post by amyjess »

H8crilA wrote: post #106
amyjess wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the cancer has a very high survival rate following chemo, if the only way to save my life involves losing my hair I will refuse treatment and let myself die.

I mean, first - the loss of hair is temporary, second - not all cancers are that vicious. It might be worth it if the probability of survival after treatment is high. This article was about almost certainly incurable cases, treatment or not.

Whether or not it grows back is irrelevant. I will not stand to be without my hair for even a single millisecond.

The only way I would even remotely accept chemo is if I could get a 100% guarantee in writing—with an agreement to immediately kill me if I wake up early—that I will be put in an induced coma before chemo and not taken out of the coma until after my hair has completely grown back and surpassed its previous length, and I want the anaesthesiologists legally obliged to err on the side of me not waking up ever over the possibility of me waking up before my hair has fully grown back.

Post reply on HN