Are they? It didn’t seem clear. I’ve had that happen only around 5 times
Not SA as a whole I don’t think but maybe throughout Gauteng yeah. I mean the positivity rate in Gauteng yesterday was like 35% or something so they’re obviously missing shedloads of cases. They also keep tabs on Covid found in wastewater and IIRC it’s over a week since they were finding it in equivalent amounts to at the height of the delta wave.
I guess any uptick in kids hitting the hospitals is worrying but yeah, that’s gotta be somewhat dependent on how they’re classifying cases.
Of course you’re talking about SA versus the US so they may not be counted the same way.
Hippocratic Oath is to first do no harm. I don’t think that doctor did any harm, do you?
ok victor
I don’t think that your point is completely invalid. What it comes down to is “Was it a trick?”
And what that comes down to is what the doctor was thinking. If he had anticipated her exact response to learning that she had been double vaxxed, then I think we can accuse him of acting somewhat unethically by not spelling out that implication even more clearly than he did.
I am going give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not predict that response from her. So then another question we could consider is whether he should have predicted it (which is more a question of his competence than a question of ethical behavior) . I think the answer to that is maybe. I can see him going through the process in real time and it not really occurring to him that she might respond exactly that way when he told her multiple times that she would be receiving the vaccine.
But I wasn’t there and I didn’t see the entire interaction go down. I don’t think there is a slam dunk answer to whether he should have predicted it and it’s hard for anyone else to judge with the benefit of hindsight. Maybe he should have. Maybe it was reasonable that he didn’t. It sounds like he wasn’t working there all that long and being perfectly aware of the bizarre thought processes of various antivax nutjobs doesn’t seem like it is a necessary requirement. He also did provide all the information any reasonable person with that set of preferences would need to make that decision.
So, I’d say this one is maybe does raise some concerns. But I think he is probably inside the lines.
I’d agree that if he pulls it off a second time then it would be unethical.
Good chance he saved that woman’s life.
It seems promising, but a lot of this could just be am artifact of a being at the start of a much steeper than previous exponential curve.
Fingers crossed tho.
Setting aside her mental and physical health, I’m sure that you, more than most, are perfectly aware that a doc could do something unethical and end up saving someone’s life. The fact that the life is saved often wouldn’t change whether the action was unethical or not.
Sure, but the comment I was responding to was about whether or not he caused the woman harm. On balance, I don’t think he did.
That is a reasonable viewpoint. Of course, as I’m sure you’re aware, evaluating the appropriateness of his actions require more than a summation of the benefits and detriments to her physical and mental well-being.
Indeed. Of course it also sounds like he explained to her exactly what he was going to do. If she had a reaction, he would have written an exemption from the booster. She accepted that, and agreed to the procedure. Looks like informed consent to me, and can’t help that she’s an idiot. Of course, this is all a stupid thought experiment anyway because this story absolutely did not happen.
1 Like
it absolutely can, but this is wholly off topic.
I think he is legally fine. As explained above he may not be ethically fine if (and pretty much only if) he had anticipated exactly how she would have responded had he explained things to her a bit differently. If he knew (and I don’t think he could have) that explaining everything a different way would have lead her to a different choice, then it would be unethical to do that. Even it would be virtually impossible for him to be held legally responsible for his actions.
Of course it can. That’s why the word “often” is in there. Try reading it again slowly.
1 Like
Your point is that whether or not a life is saved doesn’t change whether the action was unethical or not right?
No. So, I guess you didn’t read it again. Here it is once more:
I didn’t say that the the fact that the life was saved would never change the ethical calculation. If it often wouldn’t, then that implies that it sometimes might. Hope that helps.
1 Like
Your sentence is not clear, often could modify saved instead of wouldn’t. Being a dick about it is a choice.
Furthermore, your statement as clarified is still very likely wrong, although the strange assertion about frequency makes it impossible to say it’s 100% factually wrong. I’d rather cut into a 100 abscesses than try to go over this in detail though. Have fun.
2 Likes
LOL. These would be great words for you to remember.
Even if you read it differently than I intended the first time. After I responded saying it can and explaining the purpose of the “often”, it should have been obvious.
Yup. Exactly. I mean, it’s almost like I wrote it that way on purpose.
This ain’t my first rodeo, bro. But you’re welcome to keep trying.
2 Likes
What if Omicron is the zombie version and it takes 2 weeks to turn into one. Did anyone consider that? Prove me wrong.
5 Likes