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

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

#241

Post by meepmorp » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #53

mertd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take it with a grain of salt just like any self reported study. Their preference may very well change when they become the patient.

“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” -Mike Tyson

My dad was a physician who always was very clear that he did not want to live in an incapacitated sate. When he had the stroke that killed him, he tried to keep my mom from calling 911 till after he was dead.

Some people are expecting to get punched in the face.

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

#242

Post by Amasuriel » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #145

This subverts the message a bit, but my grandmother was sent to a hospice to die as comfortably as possible. I was out of state during her treatment up until this point, but when she was being moved to hospice care, I was told to expect her passing very soon. In this case, her doctors really seemed to have run out of good options; she just hadn't responded to treatment. But, after she was moved to hospice care, she b…

I think this is a pervasive problem in hospitals today.

I was in the hospital 5 weeks at the end of 2020, and I was very aware of all the extra challenges that it brought to healing. Poor sleep due to lights/noise/interruptions, sleeping with a strange roommate who had their own sleep disruptions. Low quality food with few options, and very little fresh fruits and vegetables. On top of constant pain, boredom fear and isolation (despite all the people around).

I understand the hospitals are resource constrained, and have reasons for many of the things they do, but at the same time I feel like rest, nutrition and psychological elements are largely ignored when designing today’s hospital experiences.

For what it’s worth this was in Canada, so at least I didn’t have financial stresses in addition, but perhaps there are other countries more human in their approach to care.

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

#243

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #222

dragonwriter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 0.10% case of either saving a woman's life or in cases of rape and incest as turned into the justification ...for nothing. The right to abortion isn't premised on any of those, in general. The only one that is particularly relevant as a justification is protecting the life of the mother, and that mostly has to do with abortions later in pregnancy, Cobstitutionally. Otherwise, the justification of abortion is bo…

> the justification of abortion is bodily autonomy then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"

> then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"

Er, why not? The fact that it affects what is legally a non-person entity in whom the State has a legitimate interest is why abortion rights have different parameters later in pregnancy, so why wouldn't it be the consistent that vaccination having public health impacts that affect the life and health of other actual people is relevant?

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

#244

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #229

Chris2048 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's a little different - I'm not responsible for someone needing a kidney, but a person who becomes pregnant is (in most cases) responsible for that. That doesn't mean anyone should be "forced to carrying pregnancy to term", but it also doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for not doing so.

Being punished for not doing something is the same as being forced to do this. And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you. Unless pregnancy is a crime there should be no punishment at all. Let alone the corporal punisment.

> And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you.

Why not? Those are the stakes of sex and we all know it going in. I'm a man, but I know that if I accidentally get a woman pregnant one of the consequences will be being forced to monetarily support the resulting child. She knows going in that pregnancy is a potential consequence. Neither of us is "innocent" here, we both took a gamble and lost. The question is, if one believes that a fetus is a person with a right to life, do we not also believe that those who knowingly engaged in its creation have a responsibility towards it?

> Unless pregnancy is a crime there should be no punishment at all. Let alone the corporal punisment.

Having children is not a crime, yet we routinely force people to be responsible for their children. One could say that the crime is being irresponsible, but then one could just as easily say the same about terminating a pregnancy.

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

#245

Post by gorwell » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

liamwire wrote: post #232

Chris2048 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the justification of abortion is bodily autonomy then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"

> And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!" Preempting the flaw in your strawman doesn’t invalidate it. A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy has no bearing on anyone but her. In contrast, the anti-vaccine crowd both directly, and indirectly, contribute to the propagation of disease. Your right to bodily autonomy stops at society’s doorstep, which is broadly agreeing that the unvaccinated don’…

"has no bearing on anyone but her."

Isn't the baby also affected by that choice?

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

#246

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

gorwell wrote: post #245

liamwire wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!" Preempting the flaw in your strawman doesn’t invalidate it. A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy has no bearing on anyone but her. In contrast, the anti-vaccine crowd both directly, and indirectly, contribute to the propagation of disease. Your right to bodily autonomy stops at society’s doorstep, which is broadly agreeing that the unvaccinated don’…

"has no bearing on anyone but her." Isn't the baby also affected by that choice?

> Isn't the baby also affected by that choice?

Legally, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this) are not persons.

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

#247

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:47 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #243

Chris2048 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the justification of abortion is bodily autonomy then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"

> then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!" Er, why not? The fact that it affects what is legally a non-person entity in whom the State has a legitimate interest is why abortion rights have different parameters later in pregnancy, so why wouldn't it be the consistent that vaccination having public health impacts that affect the life and healt…

since we are arguing about what the law should be, some(thing/one) being "legally a non-person entity" would be circular.

At what point is a person a person? "at birth" seems arbitrary.

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

#248

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #247

dragonwriter wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!" Er, why not? The fact that it affects what is legally a non-person entity in whom the State has a legitimate interest is why abortion rights have different parameters later in pregnancy, so why wouldn't it be the consistent that vaccination having public health impacts that affect the life and healt…

since we are arguing about what the law should be, some(thing/one) being "legally a non-person entity" would be circular. At what point is a person a person? "at birth" seems arbitrary.

> At what point is a person a person? "at birth" seems arbitrary

All lines dividing up creation into named categories and entities are arbitrary.

That one is arbitrary is not an argument against it and in favor of a different (and equally arbitrary) one.

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

#249

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #246

gorwell wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"has no bearing on anyone but her." Isn't the baby also affected by that choice?

> Isn't the baby also affected by that choice? Legally, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this) are not persons.

Legally (currently). But...

A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are genetically fully human, and are distinct individuals from the mother. So saying "has no bearing on anyone but [the mother]" is... legally correct, but morally much more grey. And saying "it only affects one person" is also pre-empting the objection to the strawman.

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

#250

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #246

gorwell wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"has no bearing on anyone but her." Isn't the baby also affected by that choice?

> Isn't the baby also affected by that choice? Legally, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this) are not persons.

Can you clarify what you mean by:

> like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this

Do mean some fetuses are people aka babies, or all fetuses are distinct from babies and hence not persons.