Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The tyranny of egalitarianism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
So to be clear: in a situation where doctors are willingly performing a non-harmful procedure in response to the demand of a patient or their guardian, an authority figure threatening them with a fine unless they halt, for clearly-stated ideological reasons, is perfectly acceptable? Or is it only when the ideology in question is yours that it is acceptable? This is not about the Hippocratic Oath, that is something the doctor can judge case-by-case.



Quote:
As a purely practical matter, what benefit does performing this test have for Canadian doctors?


The same benefit he gets from performing an abortion: his pay. Should abortions be banned because they violate the Hippocratic Oath? Why do you suddenly care so much about that oath the moment it's ideologically pragmatic?

Leon, yes or no question: do parents have a right to know if their daughter is sexually active?


It appears that in Quebec they probably don't have the right to ask their doctor for this information without their daughters consent.

"The requirement for professional secrecy is established with particular reference to physicians in Québec’s Medical Act, which provides: “[N]o physician may be compelled to declare what has been revealed to him in his professional character.”38

Québec’s Code of Ethics of Physicians sets out six particular elements of the physician’s obligation to maintain patient confidentiality:39

An obligation to keep information obtained in the practice of the physician’s profession confidential.
An obligation not to reveal the identity of patients who have consulted the physician, and not to participate in indiscrete conversations about a patient.
An obligation to take reasonable means to maintain professional secrecy among those with whom the physician works.
An obligation not to use confidential information to the patient’s detriment.
An obligation of nondisclosure, save for where divulgation is permitted by the patient or law, or where it would be justified on the grounds of the patient’s or others’ health and safety.
An obligation not to reveal a fatal or serious prognosis to the patient’s family if the patient so requests.
A breach of any of these obligations amounts to a fault that will trigger liability if it causes the patient a loss or injury. The injury most likely to ensue from a wrongful disclosure of confidential information is moral (i.e., to the patient’s sense of dignity or privacy), but might also be material, such as where the divulgation causes the patient to lose income or employment."


"Importantly, the HCCA details the elements required for valid consent. In short, consent must relate to the particular treatment (i.e., it must be specific), be informed and voluntary, and be free of misrepresentation or fraud."


http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/resources/bioethics/primers/legal_regulation_of_the_physician_patient_relationship

You keep bringing up feminism, but I see a clear professional reason why this makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am asking you, Leon, not the Quebec government. Interesting that you chose to deliberately misinterpret that question. Telling.

I'll ask again with greater clarity: in your estimation, should parents have a right to know if their daughter is sexually active? It's a simple question, do not dodge or muddy it.

Leon wrote:
You keep bringing up feminism, but I see a clear professional reason why this makes sense.


Person Who Heads The Organization Which Banned The Procedure wrote:
The practise is outrageous, repugnant, irrelevant and unacceptable, he said.
... And it’s degrading to women.


How could the ideology at work here be more obvious?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
I am asking you, Leon, not the Quebec government. Interesting that you chose to deliberately misinterpret that question. Telling.

I'll ask again with greater clarity: in your estimation, should parents have a right to know if their daughter is sexually active? It's a simple question, do not dodge or muddy it.

Leon wrote:
You keep bringing up feminism, but I see a clear professional reason why this makes sense.


Person Who Heads The Organization Which Banned The Procedure wrote:
The practise is outrageous, repugnant, irrelevant and unacceptable, he said.
... And it’s degrading to women.


How could the ideology at work here be more obvious?


Patient-doctor confidentiality is a cornerstone of western medical practice, so no it's not like it is something unique to Quebec or the body that prohibited the practice in question. If by ideology you mean medical ethics then you might have a point, but it would only make sense for the medical profession to try and protect their traditional set of ethics, no?

My personal feelings are not important here, and in general I am not interested in discussing them. Personal feelings can lead people to making false conclusions, and generally are only valuable or interesting to the people that hold them. I'm not interested in your personal feelings on this matter, but I am interested in how a person I see as generally reasonable has come to this conclusion.

What do you think my "deliberate" misinterpretation of the question means? Interesting that you describe it as telling, do you think that it is a reiteration of that one poster implying you're racist but not being willing to come out and say it, or is it something else. I am curious about what insight you have gained about me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part of the problem of being a practitioner of a defective ideology is that one often cannot speak openly and sincerely. I suppose it's not my problem though, is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Part of the problem of being a practitioner of a defective ideology is that one often cannot speak openly and sincerely. I suppose it's not my problem though, is it?


Yes, I thought it would be this. I'm using legalism and false comparisons and complexity as a shield to protect myself from speaking openly about my defective ideology while Fox is a brave truth teller. Should I be explicit and prove the courage of my convictions?

I dislike almost all ideology, I don't like mincing liberals running around worried about hurting peoples feelings trying to change everything into gendernuetral terms like police person, I don't like whiny traditionalists who call criticism of their unpopular views tyranny. I don't like people accusing me of having ideologies I don't claim in order to avoid proving their own statements. I don't like people stretching words like tyranny till they lose power and meaning.

If you want to make a normative statement and say I think this is tyranny then we could plausibly discuss feelings and opinions, but I wouldn't be interested in it. Instead you made a positive statement, so I replied challenging it in that manner, do you see how that is two different conversations?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/racist-la-police-dogs-only-bite-latinos-and-africanamericans-8874913.html
Quote:
'Racist' LA police dogs only bite Latinos and African-Americans


The Independent is owned by one of the oligarchs chased out of Russia by Putin.

Los Angeles police dogs are racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
I don't like whiny traditionalists who call criticism of their unpopular views tyranny.


I don't know if this is directed at me, but I have not labeled any criticism tyrannical here. I have labeled a coercive fine levied upon doctors who dare to "demean women" by helping parents ascertain whether their young daughters are sexually active or not as tyranny. That's not mere criticism.

Leon wrote:
I don't like people accusing me of having ideologies. I don't claim in order to avoid proving their own statements. I don't like people stretching words like tyranny till they lose power and meaning.


If unelected figures using their authority to further their personally-held ideologies (I've provided adequate evidential quotes in this regard, do not deny it) by restricting legitimate citizen behavior (parents knowing whether their daughter is sexually active or not is not merely legitimate, it is responsible and wise) is "not tyranny," then I don't know what tyranny is. You can say it's a minor tyranny, you can say it's a form of tyranny which doesn't particularly bother you, but to simply declare it non-tyrannical is vapid (and you've pushed back as hard as you can against that notion in this exchange). I have been careful about misusing the term tyranny in this thread in my previous posts; I am not simply throwing it around left and right.

I asked you your opinion on parental rights for a very specific, relevant reason: to illustrate that your own ideology has rendered the possibility of me "proving" this is tyrannical to you impossible. You know it; you sensed the rhetorical trap and responded defensively. Bringing up Egypt, disingenuously referencing the Hippocratic Oath, bizarrely asking, "What benefit does performing this test have for Canadian doctors?" closing your eyes to clear ideological declarations which are inconvenient for your case, why go through all of this just to pretend you're looking at this from some impartial, curious perspective instead of a decidedly interested one?

Canada, where you can kill your child in the womb, but you can't confirm your child isn't sexually active, because it "demeans women." Not ideological at all, says Leon, it's all about ethics, and besides, Egypt is worse! Anyway, it's complex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
I don't like whiny traditionalists who call criticism of their unpopular views tyranny.


I don't know if this is directed at me, but I have not labeled any criticism tyrannical here. I have labeled a coercive fine levied upon doctors who dare to "demean women" by helping parents ascertain whether their young daughters are sexually active or not as tyranny. That's not mere criticism.


It's aimed at whoever it fits, more of a general statement, if it fits you it is aimed at you, if it doesn't it isn't. Now we are getting somewhere though. Question, why is the value of the parents knowing whether their daughters are sexually active or not a higher value than patient doctor confidentiality, which as previously mentioned is a longstanding western medical tradition. Also, you say young daughter, at what age, if any, do the parents, in your estimation, lose this right to ask this to a doctor, and does the fact that this test is known to be unreliable affect your reasoning at all? I want to see how well you are able to defend your position, and how far it goes.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
I don't like people accusing me of having ideologies. I don't claim in order to avoid proving their own statements. I don't like people stretching words like tyranny till they lose power and meaning.


If unelected figures using their authority to further their personally-held ideologies (I've provided adequate evidential quotes in this regard, do not deny it) by restricting legitimate citizen behavior (parents knowing whether their daughter is sexually active or not is not merely legitimate, it is responsible and wise) is "not tyranny," then I don't know what tyranny is.


It seems to me that you are completely caught up on what the guy said his reasons were. I find his actual quote completely insignificant, although knowing your ideology I understand why you are caught up in it. I think that regardless of the guy's opinion, artlessly expressed or not, all he would have to say is that it is medically not necessary and prevents a problem in regards to the longstanding legal norm of doctor patient confidentiality, along with potential problems of voluntary consent, and that would be significant enough to warrant the action. If you want to make a case against these long established medical norms, then go ahead and make that case, but acting to preserve these norms is what that type of body is intended to do.

Fox wrote:
You can say it's a minor tyranny, you can say it's a form of tyranny which doesn't particularly bother you, but to simply declare it non-tyrannical is vapid (and you've pushed back as hard as you can against that notion in this exchange). I have been careful about misusing the term tyranny in this thread in my previous posts; I am not simply throwing it around left and right.


Please add the link where they mention the fine, I've been debating in the dark without knowing more about it, how it is applied, how much, etc. I will refrain from continuing to argue whether it is or not until I have that information. I will say that if the people that it applies to don't consider it to be tyrannical than I would side with them, because it is possible this rule might actually benefit them, which is what I was trying to get at before. If the article you linked, one doctor was described as not being comfortable doing it, but being harassed by the parents into doing it. It could benefit a doctor in that case to be able to point to a specific rule not allowing it. So unless there is a doctor that actually wanted to perform the tests that will now be discouraged from doing so by this ban, I find it hard to consider it tyranny at all.

Fox wrote:
I asked you your opinion on parental rights for a very specific, relevant reason: to illustrate that your own ideology has rendered the possibility of me "proving" this is tyrannical to you impossible. You know it; you sensed the rhetorical trap and responded defensively. Bringing up Egypt, disingenuously referencing the Hippocratic Oath, bizarrely asking, "What benefit does performing this test have for Canadian doctors?" closing your eyes to clear ideological declarations which are inconvenient for your case, why go through all of this just to pretend you're looking at this from some impartial, curious perspective instead of a decidedly interested one?


I'm not pretending. If you persist on stating and restating that, then you will be calling me a liar and a moral coward, which is ok, I'm disinterested in your opinion on that matter as well. I told you how you could prove it, show somehow that there is a doctor in Quebec who wants to perform this test on a girl who wants it to be done who isn't being coerced by anyone and then I will call it tyranny. I am curious about your age limit for parents having the right to request this test, plausibly forcing a girl to get this test done against her will is more tyrannical than the fine itself, if we are using the term tyranny correctly. I find it interesting how personal this seems to be to you, and how you keep talking about me and my motives, telling.

Rhetorical trap, it must have been subtle indeed, because I feel quite unrestrained by it. You read too much into the Egypt thing, I honestly just brought that up because I was already on the wikipedia page and I saw that and the bit about Indonesia and found it interesting, and I wanted to share it, not make a point, but that was probably poorly done, not defensive as much as playing show and tell. (Turns out the mandatory virginity testing was turned down in Indonesia, I've since learned, so I was incorrect, that wasn't tyranny.) I brought up the hippocratic oath because I actually thought that it was relevant, although if there is a doctor and they can explain why it wouldn't be I could be persuaded. I brought up self interest, because I think this could be a clever way of having doctors avoid being pressured into doing something they were uncomfortable with, and as previously stated, find the reasons given by the spokesman almost completely irrelevant to the underlying legitimacy or illegitimacy of the act.


Fox wrote:
Canada, where you can kill your child in the womb, but you can't confirm your child isn't sexually active, because it "demeans women." Not ideological at all, says Leon, it's all about ethics, and besides, Egypt is worse! Anyway, it's complex.


You're starting to catch on, I'm glad I was able to convince you. But seriously, you have a problem with me bringing up Egypt, yet you bring in abortion to this, which is a completely different subject, that was artlessly done. You're coming closer to making a good case, but the key to this thing is that in this conversation Leon is an abstraction as is Fox, and what Leon or what Fox actually think doesn't answer the question of whether this is tyranny or not. If you don't want to play by my made up rules, please feel free to tell me not to respond to any more of your posts like you've told other posters, you'd probably save me some time, and I would understand, I'm being somewhat purposely difficult. I am bothering with this because I think you potentially are able to articulate interesting reasons that I wouldn't have thought of, but one thing I like about about this sort of site is that I can have this sort of conversation with people I don't know so all the personal aspects can get left out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

Question, why is the value of the parents knowing whether their daughters are sexually active or not a higher value than patient doctor confidentiality, which as previously mentioned is a longstanding western medical tradition. Also, you say young daughter, at what age, if any, do the parents, in your estimation, lose this right to ask this to a doctor, and does the fact that this test is known to be unreliable affect your reasoning at all?


Doctor-patient confidentiality within the context of a parent-child relationship is pure absurdity; as a child's guardians, parents need information to act properly and responsibly. A doctor treating parents as outside of a doctor-patient confidence relationship rather than as a natural part of it can only lead to trouble on a broader scale (and I do not believe doctors withholding information from parents is a "longstanding medical norm"). Imagine if your child had cancer and he asked his doctor not to tell you. Would you want the doctor to comply? Imagine if he had AIDS and he asked the doctor not to tell you. It would be irresponsible and dangerous for the doctor to keep that secret.

You seem to realize all this, and accordingly, ask me to weigh the value of virginity confirmation vs the value of a doctor keeping secrets from parents, but why ought I personally to make such an evaluation? Isn't it the parties involved that are the best judges? You say later in your response, "I will say that if the people that it applies to don't consider it to be tyrannical than I would side with them," yet if the parents involved consider virginity confirmation to be of greater value than their daughter keeping secrets, why would you not side with them? Why are you so keen on dismissing their opinion out of hand? Why are those actually responsible for raising the child the ones whose thoughts and feelings matter least here? You ask me when their right to information should terminate, and I say it should terminate at the same time as their legal responsibilities. You ask me if the fallibility of such tests impacts my opinion, but that's just more information which should be included in any relevant results.

Leon wrote:
It seems to me that you are completely caught up on what the guy said his reasons were.


Motives are important in matters such as this. The same act undertaken with two different motives in mind can be seen very differently, because the character of the act is genuinely different, which in turn impacts whether the act is just or unjust. This man was open and sincere about his reasoning, and you cannot simply dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your case.

Leon wrote:
Please add the link where they mention the fine ...


Here's one.

Leon wrote:
It could benefit a doctor ...


I am not interested in "benefiting" doctors in the way of which you speak. If doctors do not have the emotional fortitude to be able to make ethical judgments absent the threat of fines, those doctors are not ethically trustworthy in the first place.

Leon wrote:
So unless there is a doctor that actually wanted to perform the tests that will now be discouraged from doing so by this ban, I find it hard to consider it tyranny at all.


Citizens being cut off from this procedure is the tyranny, not doctors. Did you seriously think my concern in posting this was for the poor doctors who wouldn't have the joy of performing virginity tests any longer? The victim of the tyranny is the parent who is denied access, by authoritarian decree, to important information about their child's sexual activity, not the doctor. The fact that the doctor is the target of the fine is just the mechanism.

Leon wrote:
But seriously, you have a problem with me bringing up Egypt, yet you bring in abortion to this, which is a completely different subject, that was artlessly done.


These are not comparable. Your reference of Egypt was meant to diminish the validity of my complaint by comparison, while my mention of abortion was meant to highlight your hypocrisy. You obviously don't believe the whole Hippocratic Oath argument, as evinced by your position on abortion, so what are you doing bringing it up here? I don't like sophistry, and I don't like insincerity. That said, even if you feel that's too personal for your tastes and doesn't fit the rules by which you'd like to play, it can just as easily be generalized and applied to our topic: Canadians allow abortion, therefore Canadians clearly don't take the Hippocratic Oath seriously, therefore it cannot be used by Canadians to justify their position here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

Question, why is the value of the parents knowing whether their daughters are sexually active or not a higher value than patient doctor confidentiality, which as previously mentioned is a longstanding western medical tradition. Also, you say young daughter, at what age, if any, do the parents, in your estimation, lose this right to ask this to a doctor, and does the fact that this test is known to be unreliable affect your reasoning at all?


Doctor-patient confidentiality within the context of a parent-child relationship is pure absurdity; as a child's guardians, parents need information to act properly and responsibly. A doctor treating parents as outside of a doctor-patient confidence relationship rather than as a natural part of it can only lead to trouble on a broader scale (and I do not believe doctors withholding information from parents is a "longstanding medical norm"). Imagine if your child had cancer and he asked his doctor not to tell you. Would you want the doctor to comply? Imagine if he had AIDS and he asked the doctor not to tell you. It would be irresponsible and dangerous for the doctor to keep that secret.

You seem to realize all this, and accordingly, ask me to weigh the value of virginity confirmation vs the value of a doctor keeping secrets from parents, but why ought I personally to make such an evaluation? Isn't it the parties involved that are the best judges? You say later in your response, "I will say that if the people that it applies to don't consider it to be tyrannical than I would side with them," yet if the parents involved consider virginity confirmation to be of greater value than their daughter keeping secrets, why would you not side with them? Why are you so keen on dismissing their opinion out of hand? Why are those actually responsible for raising the child the ones whose thoughts and feelings matter least here? You ask me when their right to information should terminate, and I say it should terminate at the same time as their legal responsibilities. You ask me if the fallibility of such tests impacts my opinion, but that's just more information which should be included in any relevant results.


I asked about age for a reason. Obviously when children are young doctors need to tell the parents everything, but I wouldn't imagine parents testing children like this when they are very young. I tried to find an age in the laws in Qubec, but wasn't able to, but as far as I can tell the legal standard is able to give informed consent. I would say that a teenager would probably be able to give informed consent. As to the cancer and aids bit, it did say that it was unlawful, in Quebec, for the doctor to share information about a serious disease with the family if the patient wished, but again couldn't find an age limit. Lets not get into that separate issue though.

There is a clear precedent of doctors and psychologists not divulging this type of information to parents. I think there are many sound reasons for this, so if it is overturned it should be done so very carefully, to say the least. All the information I've seen says that doctor-patient confidentiality applies to minors able to give informed consent, but I'm not an expert so if you can show authoritative sources that say otherwise, please do.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
It seems to me that you are completely caught up on what the guy said his reasons were.


Motives are important in matters such as this. The same act undertaken with two different motives in mind can be seen very differently, because the character of the act is genuinely different, which in turn impacts whether the act is just or unjust. This man was open and sincere about his reasoning, and you cannot simply dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your case.


I'm looking at the act itself, not the reasoning given for it. I suppose there is a case to be made from a moralist perspective where intent does matter, but if anything I guess I'm considering utility and norms more than some random doctor's quote. Perhaps we are talking past each other here. I mean if motives are important, then quit ascribing my actions incorrect motives, I dismiss them because I find them irrelevant. (You said my ideology made it impossible to convince me that this is tyranny, yet I'm finding it impossible to convince you that I actually mean what I say)

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Please add the link where they mention the fine ...


Here's one.

Leon wrote:
It could benefit a doctor ...


I am not interested in "benefiting" doctors in the way of which you speak. If doctors do not have the emotional fortitude to be able to make ethical judgments absent the threat of fines, those doctors are not ethically trustworthy in the first place.


You misunderstood what I meant I think, I got the sense that these doctors were not sure where the ethical line is and were looking for guidance, that's how this case got started when the question was reviewed to this body by a nurse asked to carry this out who was unsure if it was allowed or not. This way, they will know in the future, and if they are pressured into it by parents or whoever they will be able to point to the law. I don't expect everyone to be paragons of ethics, some people need some help.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
So unless there is a doctor that actually wanted to perform the tests that will now be discouraged from doing so by this ban, I find it hard to consider it tyranny at all.


Citizens being cut off from this procedure is the tyranny, not doctors. Did you seriously think my concern in posting this was for the poor doctors who wouldn't have the joy of performing virginity tests any longer? The victim of the tyranny is the parent who is denied access, by authoritarian decree, to important information about their child's sexual activity, not the doctor. The fact that the doctor is the target of the fine is just the mechanism.


Teenagers have no agency? Should a profession required to do things that go against their long standing professional norms? Is it possible that this issue is more complex than you are allowing? Is Leon using the word complex to avoid dealing with his defective ideology? Is Fox pretending things are simple because its convenient to his ideology? So many interesting questions.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
But seriously, you have a problem with me bringing up Egypt, yet you bring in abortion to this, which is a completely different subject, that was artlessly done.


These are not comparable. Your reference of Egypt was meant to diminish the validity of my complaint by comparison, while my mention of abortion was meant to highlight your hypocrisy. You obviously don't believe the whole Hippocratic Oath argument, as evinced by your position on abortion, so what are you doing bringing it up here? I don't like sophistry, and I don't like insincerity. That said, even if you feel that's too personal for your tastes and doesn't fit the rules by which you'd like to play, it can just as easily be generalized and applied to our topic: Canadians allow abortion, therefore Canadians clearly don't take the Hippocratic Oath seriously, therefore it cannot be used by Canadians to justify their position here.


I don't believe I've stated a position on abortion here. I am conflicted when it comes to abortion, I think it's horrible and the idea of a woman carrying my hypothetical child having an abortion would be devastating to me. I find it grating when people say men can't have an opinion on it, like what happened in that one off topic thread, yet I believe that outlawing it will lead to worse outcomes. I am being sincere here, and that is as personal as I wish to get on this subject and ask that we drop the matter of abortion, not because it's somehow inconvenient to my other points, but because it is something where I am not disinterested and I do truly dislike talking about things that actually morally bother me in this format.

As to the generalized argument, you could make that case, but it isn't a strong one. On it's face it seems to be saying that if they are potentially hypocritical about one norm, do abortion doctors go through the same licensing body as the one's in question I wonder, then they should abandon all other norms. That seems absurd to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

I asked about age for a reason. Obviously when children are young doctors need to tell the parents everything, but I wouldn't imagine parents testing children like this when they are very young. I tried to find an age in the laws in Qubec, but wasn't able to, but as far as I can tell the legal standard is able to give informed consent. I would say that a teenager would probably be able to give informed consent.

...

Teenagers have no agency?


Consider the following three matters:

1) At what age is one allowed to vote?
2) At what age is one allowed to drink alcohol?
3) At what age is one allowed to smoke cigarettes?

In Quebec, the voting age is 18, the drinking age is 18, and the smoking age is 18. I don't think there is any illusion here about how responsible teenagers are or how much "agency" they possess. A 17 year old is responsible enough to decide whether she should be able to hide her sexual activity from her parents, but not responsible enough to buy herself a drink?

Leon wrote:
There is a clear precedent of doctors and psychologists not divulging this type of information to parents.

...

Should a profession required to do things that go against their long standing professional norms?


You're trying to make this "doctors lying to parents on the child's orders" phenomenon into some sort of ancient tradition, but let's be frank: to the extent that there's a precedent here, it's based on decades of modern dysfunction, not centuries of ancient tradition, and the rules in question are decided by authority figures like the very man I am criticizing. Modern medical ethics are completely screwy and highly political in character, you can't possibly expect me to endorse them or find them compelling. This very case is a perfect example: an authority figure finds virginity tests demeaning, so he deems then unethical and threatens a fine, creating a new norm in the process, which will a decade or so from now no doubt become "ancient tradition." Why you would even expect me to be compelled by this line of argumentation is beyond me in any case; lying to parents could be a tradition with a two thousand year pedigree for all it matters to me, I still wouldn't be impressed by it, just as I'm not impressed by a variety of other long-standing traditions which are against the broader interests of society and the families which compose it.

Leon wrote:
I think there are many sound reasons for this...


I thought personal opinions weren't admissible in the court of Leon? That you just weren't interested in them? So much for that; the moment it benefits your case you start throwing them out. I'm sure suddenly they'll become verboten again the second I ask you an inconvenient question though, right? If there are good reasons -- not reasons you think are good, but obviously and incontrovertibly good reasons -- then by your "rules" you should simply have stated them, instead of providing a purely subjective opinion in their place. If you want to convince me that doctors deliberately keeping important information from parents is a good thing, then you'll have to do better than phantasmal unstated reasons you think are good.

Leon wrote:
I'm looking at the act itself, not the reasoning given for it.


There is no such divide, motive is an intrinsic element of action; to strike a man to dislodge a food object from his throat and to strike him to do him harm are not the same action, despite being the same physical motion. Moreover, we are discussing tyranny here. Tyranny is unjust, and a consideration of justice benefits from a consideration of motive. One cannot properly address this topic without considering motive. Further, you yourself have been constantly considering motive in attempt to excuse this authority figure's behavior, yet you do while simultaneously brushing aside his own declarations of intent. "Oh, it doesn't matter what he said his reasons were," Leon assures me, "It just matters how I, a completely irrelevant third party, can rationalize his actions." Unreasonable.

You want to talk utility and norms? Plenty of bad behavior can be justified in the name of utility and norms; tyranny thrives on utility and norms. You made it clear you are attacking the notion that this act is tyranny however, and that requires going beyond utility and norms and into something deeper.

Leon wrote:
You misunderstood what I meant I think, I got the sense that these doctors were not sure where the ethical line is and were looking for guidance ...


Then can be provided guidance without fines and threats. Moreover, they should be provided guidance without fines and threats. If this authority figured had instead simply declared that no physician is ever required to perform such a test, and encouraged them to think carefully about any potential harm that could result from their actions, then that would be plenty of clarification. Instead, it's a threat: don't do it or you'll be fined. Blanket coercion to completely cut off citizen access to a particular service the authority figure's clearly-stated ideology opposes. Tyrannical.

Leon wrote:

As to the generalized argument, you could make that case, but it isn't a strong one. On it's face it seems to be saying that if they are potentially hypocritical about one norm, do abortion doctors go through the same licensing body as the one's in question I wonder, then they should abandon all other norms. That seems absurd to me.


My point is that if the medical profession can reconcile abortion to the Hippocratic Oath, it's ridiculous to suggest that it cannot reconcile a virginity test to it, so given the circumstances the Oath simply cannot be used as the basis of such an argument. I didn't say anything about casting aside all norms, I made a point about an obvious lack of sincerity and honesty. The Hippocratic Oath is not at the source of this issue, and pretending otherwise is not valid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

I asked about age for a reason. Obviously when children are young doctors need to tell the parents everything, but I wouldn't imagine parents testing children like this when they are very young. I tried to find an age in the laws in Qubec, but wasn't able to, but as far as I can tell the legal standard is able to give informed consent. I would say that a teenager would probably be able to give informed consent.

...

Teenagers have no agency?


Consider the following three matters:

1) At what age is one allowed to vote?
2) At what age is one allowed to drink alcohol?
3) At what age is one allowed to smoke cigarettes?

In Quebec, the voting age is 18, the drinking age is 18, and the smoking age is 18. I don't think there is any illusion here about how responsible teenagers are or how much "agency" they possess. A 17 year old is responsible enough to decide whether she should be able to hide her sexual activity from her parents, but not responsible enough to buy herself a drink?


Age of consent in Canada is 16, seems a more relevant baseline than voting age or drinking age.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
There is a clear precedent of doctors and psychologists not divulging this type of information to parents.

...

Should a profession required to do things that go against their long standing professional norms?


You're trying to make this "doctors lying to parents on the child's orders" phenomenon into some sort of ancient tradition, but let's be frank: to the extent that there's a precedent here, it's based on decades of modern dysfunction, not centuries of ancient tradition, and the rules in question are decided by authority figures like the very man I am criticizing. Modern medical ethics are completely screwy and highly political in character, you can't possibly expect me to endorse them or find them compelling. This very case is a perfect example: an authority figure finds virginity tests demeaning, so he deems then unethical and threatens a fine, creating a new norm in the process, which will a decade or so from now no doubt become "ancient tradition." Why you would even expect me to be compelled by this line of argumentation is beyond me in any case; lying to parents could be a tradition with a two thousand year pedigree for all it matters to me, I still wouldn't be impressed by it, just as I'm not impressed by a variety of other long-standing traditions which are against the broader interests of society and the families which compose it.


Who said lie? It's easy, and what I think is standard procedure for adult patients as well as potentially adolescent patients past a certain age, to just say I can not share this information with anyone but the patient.

Whether Fox finds them compelling is less important than the doctors or patients finding it worthwhile, which they clearly do. To say that he created a new norm about virginity testing isn't true, he applied an already existing norm/norms to a new, at least in Canada, practice that a member of the profession had asked for a guideline for. The reasons for this norm are that it creates trust between patient and doctor, and because doctors were allowed to share information with parents or employers or anyone else it would result in less people seeking medical help. Again, why should Fox's values and opinions, or these parents values and opinions, be placed higher than the value and opinions of the doctors who would actually carry out these tests?
My university has a rather strict set of guidelines for conducting research using human subjects. Some of the restrictions are, in my opinion, silly and arbitrary, yet if I break them I can suffer from a variety of different outcomes including expulsion. Very few people would consider that tyranny, would you? I see the situation as being basically similar, and I'm curious how far this tyranny goes into our society, I'm I suffering from tyranny?


Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
I think there are many sound reasons for this...


I thought personal opinions weren't admissible in the court of Leon? That you just weren't interested in them? So much for that; the moment it benefits your case you start throwing them out. I'm sure suddenly they'll become verboten again the second I ask you an inconvenient question though, right? If there are good reasons -- not reasons you think are good, but obviously and incontrovertibly good reasons -- then by your "rules" you should simply have stated them, instead of providing a purely subjective opinion in their place. If you want to convince me that doctors deliberately keeping important information from parents is a good thing, then you'll have to do better than phantasmal unstated reasons you think are good.


I might have overstated my case on that a bit earlier. I was trying to accommodate you, because you were so clearly interested in what I actually thought. Do I have to convince you that I'm not trying to convince you again? I already told you in another thread that I didn't think it was truly possible to convince anyone of anything in this format. I'm not trying to win this argument, so I'm not looking for benefits in that regard. You're right, I should have provided the reasons instead of an opinion, finding that flaw in my writing and reasoning is a benefit an I have now provided one of the reasons doctors give for having the policy above.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
I'm looking at the act itself, not the reasoning given for it.


There is no such divide, motive is an intrinsic element of action; to strike a man to dislodge a food object from his throat and to strike him to do him harm are not the same action, despite being the same physical motion.


I thought you didn't like sophistry. What you are describing here are two different contexts. The man receiving this particular blow is unlikely to care about why the other person delivers it, but obviously would care about the outcome.

Fox wrote:
Moreover, we are discussing tyranny here. Tyranny is unjust, and a consideration of justice benefits from a consideration of motive. One cannot properly address this topic without considering motive. Further, you yourself have been constantly considering motive in attempt to excuse this authority figure's behavior, yet you do while simultaneously brushing aside his own declarations of intent. "Oh, it doesn't matter what he said his reasons were," Leon assures me, "It just matters how I, a completely irrelevant third party, can rationalize his actions." Unreasonable.


Many actual tyrants are able to give noble sounding reasons, oh they want living space, a strong motherland/fatherland, their own country, equality, etc. etc. To use an intelligence term, it's all noise. You are against drone policy and intervention, yet these two policies have entirely reasonable motives. From a personal morality viewpoint, for that doctor he is responsible for his reasons, but that is as far as that responsibility goes. This confusion might be a part of institutional basis, you studied philosophy so it would be reasonable to think in these terms, I am studying international relations where it is considered a faux pas to think in terms of something as murky as intentions. If someone makes the right decision for wrong reasons is it any less right outside that one person, if someone makes the wrong decision for the right reasons does that make it anymore right?

Fox wrote:
You want to talk utility and norms? Plenty of bad behavior can be justified in the name of utility and norms; tyranny thrives on utility and norms. You made it clear you are attacking the notion that this act is tyranny however, and that requires going beyond utility and norms and into something deeper.


Bad behaviour can be justified by norms, true, and often is. Utility, well anything can be attempted to be justified, but that doesn't mean that it actually is. Utility and norms doesn't fit every situation, in this one it fits the framework I'm establishing. There is a lot to be said about jus cogens (peremptory norms- sorry, I don't get to use what I learn in law class often) Does it require going into metaphysics? What higher power are we appealing to here.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
You misunderstood what I meant I think, I got the sense that these doctors were not sure where the ethical line is and were looking for guidance ...


Then can be provided guidance without fines and threats. Moreover, they should be provided guidance without fines and threats. If this authority figured had instead simply declared that no physician is ever required to perform such a test, and encouraged them to think carefully about any potential harm that could result from their actions, then that would be plenty of clarification. Instead, it's a threat: don't do it or you'll be fined. Blanket coercion to completely cut off citizen access to a particular service the authority figure's clearly-stated ideology opposes. Tyrannical.


This is the clearest statement yet of your viewpoint, you're getting closer. Would your opinion of this whole thing changed if the spokesperson had given a different reason for this action? What if you found out this person was just giving a personal opinion and didn't have the power to create this new regulation by themselves. I am almost able to accept that you have valid reasons for your viewpoint that this is tyranny. I think it's possible for two people to disagree, yet to see the other person's views as being reached in a reasonable manner. You are right, you can not convince me that this is tyranny, but you are just a few steps away from convincing me that you had a principled and logical basis for reaching the conclusions that you did.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

As to the generalized argument, you could make that case, but it isn't a strong one. On it's face it seems to be saying that if they are potentially hypocritical about one norm, do abortion doctors go through the same licensing body as the one's in question I wonder, then they should abandon all other norms. That seems absurd to me.


My point is that if the medical profession can reconcile abortion to the Hippocratic Oath, it's ridiculous to suggest that it cannot reconcile a virginity test to it, so given the circumstances the Oath simply cannot be used as the basis of such an argument. I didn't say anything about casting aside all norms, I made a point about an obvious lack of sincerity and honesty. The Hippocratic Oath is not at the source of this issue, and pretending otherwise is not valid.


The question is why should they reconcile it. The more principled argument you could have made is that allowing abortion is an aberration and should be stopped, or on the other hand you could have argued that all medical ethics are a facade because of their hypocrisy, but to argue that because one supposed norm isn't followed others should be ignored as fits your ideology isn't internally coherent. I should have not used the Hippocratic oath, though, I should have just said modern medical ethics, I think using the oath's name causes confusion. If we must persist in mentioning the spokesperson's words the first reason given for the action is the breach of medical ethics. so by your framework they have to be considered as part of the reason for this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

Age of consent in Canada is 16, seems a more relevant baseline than voting age or drinking age.


The age of consent in Canada is technically 16, but it's a qualified 16:

Quote:
Criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her, or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers, and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative", s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.
The "position of trust under 18" anti-exploitation rules were expanded in 2005 by Bill C-2 where a judge may choose to term a situation to be sexual exploitation based on the age of the younger party, age difference, evolution of the relationship (how it developed, e.g.: quickly and secretly over the Internet), the control or influence over the young person (degree of control or influence the other person had over the young person). This passed before the 2008 amendments, and they were not repealed so they are still in effect and can apply towards adults in these situations with young persons over the age of consent and under 18 (16-17).


No 16 year old can provide the absolute, unqualified sexual consent an 18 year old can; the current state of the law seems to revolve more around avoiding the criminalization of children who fool around together than solidly endorsing the ability of the young to make such decisions. Thus, even in this you can see that the people of Canada do not really trust the judgment of teenagers until the age of 18. This need to explain at length is precisely why I left age of consent off of that list incidentally; that figure of "16" is superficially deceiving, and I hoped to avoid having to write out an entire extra paragraph in a series of already lengthy posts to explain it.

Leon wrote:
Who said lie? It's easy, and what I think is standard procedure for adult patients as well as potentially adolescent patients past a certain age, to just say I can not share this information with anyone but the patient.


Except a young woman already knows if she's a virgin or not. Blanketly refusing to share the results of a virginity test with anyone but the patient is the equivalent of not doing the test. Now, under my previously suggested ethical standards there is hypothetically room for a doctor to say that he will not release the results of the test without the daughter's consent due to his ethical concerns, but that's not the same as the status quo, in which doing the test results in a fine, which means no test, whether the daughter wants it or not. Thus, even the most generous allowance for your ethical case, in which the daughter has the right to withhold the release of the results from her parents if she chooses, still does not accord with the recent declaration. Even if she's actually a virgin and simply wants to prove it to her parents through the test, the tyrannical declaration under discussion here will not allow it by threat of fine, because it "demeans women."

I'm not saying that a child should have the right to withhold such information from her parents, mind you. I'm just saying even if we accept such a notion, this ruling still isn't acceptable or reasonable.

Leon wrote:
My university has a rather strict set of guidelines for conducting research using human subjects. Some of the restrictions are, in my opinion, silly and arbitrary, yet if I break them I can suffer from a variety of different outcomes including expulsion. Very few people would consider that tyranny, would you? I see the situation as being basically similar, and I'm curious how far this tyranny goes into our society, I'm I suffering from tyranny?


Well, tyranny is predicated upon unjust rule. Does your university rule you? Arguably no (you could walk away any time you liked), arguably yes (to the extent that a teacher "rules" a student, a father "rules" his young son, an employer "rules" his employee, and so forth). In the absolutely most strict sense of the word it's probably not technically tyranny -- unlike the case we're describing here, you could escape the regulations in question without having to move to a different polity -- but it could sufficiently share a spirit with political tyranny that we could profitably call it tyranny. I don't know enough of the specifics to make a fair judgment. Do you perhaps have any quotes where an ideologue in authority openly admits his nefarious motives for inflicting the regulations upon you?

Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
I'm looking at the act itself, not the reasoning given for it.


There is no such divide, motive is an intrinsic element of action; to strike a man to dislodge a food object from his throat and to strike him to do him harm are not the same action, despite being the same physical motion.


I thought you didn't like sophistry. What you are describing here are two different contexts.


I don't like sophistry, and the above aren't merely contextually different, they are essentially different.

Leon wrote:
Many actual tyrants are able to give noble sounding reasons ...


That's true, but those reasons are not necessarily true, which is why they are, as you call it, "noise." By contrast, when one frankly admits the true, less-than-admirable reasons for their actions, we should listen.

Leon wrote:
If someone makes the right decision for wrong reasons is it any less right outside that one person, if someone makes the wrong decision for the right reasons does that make it anymore right?


Yes and yes. In fact, I'd go as far as to say there is no such thing as "the right thing for the wrong reasons," or it's inverse, but explaining would require a massive amount of writing I'm not prepared to engage in just now.

Leon wrote:
Bad behaviour can be justified by norms, true, and often is. Utility, well anything can be attempted to be justified, but that doesn't mean that it actually is. Utility and norms doesn't fit every situation, in this one it fits the framework I'm establishing. There is a lot to be said about jus cogens (peremptory norms- sorry, I don't get to use what I learn in law class often) Does it require going into metaphysics? What higher power are we appealing to here.


You'd be hard pressed to find someone less taken by international "law" than I am (I'm sure Kuros would love to chat about such matters if you really want to discuss it), and I don't think delving into metaphysical propositions is going to result in progress here.


Leon wrote:
Would your opinion of this whole thing changed if the spokesperson had given a different reason for this action?


First of all, this wasn't a spokesperson, it was the president of the Collège des médecins himself. That said, if he hadn't been so frank and open about his reasoning, it would just result in doubt: is he being tyrannical, or just a bumbling but well-intentioned fool? It would be harder to say, and I probably wouldn't have bothered to post about it.

Leon wrote:
What if you found out this person was just giving a personal opinion and didn't have the power to create this new regulation by themselves.


You mean some totally unrelated party simply saying, "Hey, virginity tests are demeaning to women and have to stop," and that's all? Having an opinion obviously isn't tyrannical in itself, so I don't understand what you're asking here. One who does not rule cannot engage in tyranny.

Leon wrote:
The question is why should they reconcile it. The more principled argument you could have made is that allowing abortion is an aberration and should be stopped ...


That would be more principled, but it's obviously not the reality. Were I a doctor, I would not be performing abortions, I assure you, but that's a counterfactual. What matters here is identifying the general trend in how the relevant medical practitioners interpret their Hippocratic Oath (and their interpretation is clearly liberal rather than strict), and then comparing your argument about how this specific case should be viewed to that general standard. That said, even a strict interpretation doesn't require a universal, fine-backed ban, because such a test obviously won't always result in harm (in fact, it probably very rarely will). Nothing so far, in this conversation, can justify a blanket fine-backed ban, and that's what matters.

Leon wrote:
If we must persist in mentioning the spokesperson's words the first reason given for the action is the breach of medical ethics. so by your framework they have to be considered as part of the reason for this.


As I've already mentioned, though, even strict interpretations of such modern ethics do not justify the extremity of this policy. Using a patient's ostensible right to confidentiality to try to justify the outright prevention of a doctor from doing the test and issuing the results, even with the patient's consent, is nonsense. Only the inclusion of the ideological dimension resolves that incoherency.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

Age of consent in Canada is 16, seems a more relevant baseline than voting age or drinking age.


The age of consent in Canada is technically 16, but it's a qualified 16:

Quote:
Criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her, or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers, and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative", s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.
The "position of trust under 18" anti-exploitation rules were expanded in 2005 by Bill C-2 where a judge may choose to term a situation to be sexual exploitation based on the age of the younger party, age difference, evolution of the relationship (how it developed, e.g.: quickly and secretly over the Internet), the control or influence over the young person (degree of control or influence the other person had over the young person). This passed before the 2008 amendments, and they were not repealed so they are still in effect and can apply towards adults in these situations with young persons over the age of consent and under 18 (16-17).


No 16 year old can provide the absolute, unqualified sexual consent an 18 year old can; the current state of the law seems to revolve more around avoiding the criminalization of children who fool around together than solidly endorsing the ability of the young to make such decisions. Thus, even in this you can see that the people of Canada do not really trust the judgment of teenagers until the age of 18. This need to explain at length is precisely why I left age of consent off of that list incidentally; that figure of "16" is superficially deceiving, and I hoped to avoid having to write out an entire extra paragraph in a series of already lengthy posts to explain it.


Fair enough, these post are becoming rather lengthy.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Who said lie? It's easy, and what I think is standard procedure for adult patients as well as potentially adolescent patients past a certain age, to just say I can not share this information with anyone but the patient.


Except a young woman already knows if she's a virgin or not.

Not necessarily. Even leaving aside cases of blacking out from alcohol and not remembering having sex, there are several ways for false positives to occur, such as horse riding, sports, and even in some cases women are born without a hymen.

Fox wrote:
Blanketly refusing to share the results of a virginity test with anyone but the patient is the equivalent of not doing the test. Now, under my previously suggested ethical standards there is hypothetically room for a doctor to say that he will not release the results of the test without the daughter's consent due to his ethical concerns, but that's not the same as the status quo, in which doing the test results in a fine, which means no test, whether the daughter wants it or not. Thus, even the most generous allowance for your ethical case, in which the daughter has the right to withhold the release of the results from her parents if she chooses, still does not accord with the recent declaration. Even if she's actually a virgin and simply wants to prove it to her parents through the test, the tyrannical declaration under discussion here will not allow it by threat of fine, because it "demeans women."

I'm not saying that a child should have the right to withhold such information from her parents, mind you. I'm just saying even if we accept such a notion, this ruling still isn't acceptable or reasonable.

Leon wrote:
My university has a rather strict set of guidelines for conducting research using human subjects. Some of the restrictions are, in my opinion, silly and arbitrary, yet if I break them I can suffer from a variety of different outcomes including expulsion. Very few people would consider that tyranny, would you? I see the situation as being basically similar, and I'm curious how far this tyranny goes into our society, I'm I suffering from tyranny?


Well, tyranny is predicated upon unjust rule. Does your university rule you? Arguably no (you could walk away any time you liked), arguably yes (to the extent that a teacher "rules" a student, a father "rules" his young son, an employer "rules" his employee, and so forth). In the absolutely most strict sense of the word it's probably not technically tyranny -- unlike the case we're describing here, you could escape the regulations in question without having to move to a different polity -- but it could sufficiently share a spirit with political tyranny that we could profitably call it tyranny. I don't know enough of the specifics to make a fair judgment. Do you perhaps have any quotes where an ideologue in authority openly admits his nefarious motives for inflicting the regulations upon you?


Doctors take their job in a voluntary manner, refusing to give non-medically necessary service to patients or share information with parents is not tyranny, because it would be tyranny to force doctors to perform this service. If doctors don't like this ruling they are free to quit their job, just like if I don't like my schools policy I am free to drop out. I couldn't escape the rule by moving to a different polity because these standards and the punishments are practically uniform across universities across most of the world. Are you still making the case that this is tyranny for the parents, because I do not see any justification for it.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
I'm looking at the act itself, not the reasoning given for it.


There is no such divide, motive is an intrinsic element of action; to strike a man to dislodge a food object from his throat and to strike him to do him harm are not the same action, despite being the same physical motion.


I thought you didn't like sophistry. What you are describing here are two different contexts.


I don't like sophistry, and the above aren't merely contextually different, they are essentially different.


For whom, the person receiving the blow, or the person giving it?

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Many actual tyrants are able to give noble sounding reasons ...


That's true, but those reasons are not necessarily true, which is why they are, as you call it, "noise." By contrast, when one frankly admits the true, less-than-admirable reasons for their actions, we should listen.


You can not go into someone elses head, you can be reasonably sure of their motives, but not entirely, so it's best practice as a general rule to not focus too much on motives.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
If someone makes the right decision for wrong reasons is it any less right outside that one person, if someone makes the wrong decision for the right reasons does that make it anymore right?


Yes and yes. In fact, I'd go as far as to say there is no such thing as "the right thing for the wrong reasons," or it's inverse, but explaining would require a massive amount of writing I'm not prepared to engage in just now.


Please don't. If I do something for poor reasons it can still have good outcomes, and the inverse is especially true. We are unable to truly know other peoples motivations, but we can measure outcomes.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Bad behaviour can be justified by norms, true, and often is. Utility, well anything can be attempted to be justified, but that doesn't mean that it actually is. Utility and norms doesn't fit every situation, in this one it fits the framework I'm establishing. There is a lot to be said about jus cogens (peremptory norms- sorry, I don't get to use what I learn in law class often) Does it require going into metaphysics? What higher power are we appealing to here.


You'd be hard pressed to find someone less taken by international "law" than I am (I'm sure Kuros would love to chat about such matters if you really want to discuss it), and I don't think delving into metaphysical propositions is going to result in progress here.


I'm not very taken by it myself, I was joking, but it was an inside joke to myself, which is stupid I realize. It's not just international law, but law itself that has this concept of jus cogens. Anyways I was being a little bit sarcastic when you said that it required going deeper than utility and norms.


Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Would your opinion of this whole thing changed if the spokesperson had given a different reason for this action?


First of all, this wasn't a spokesperson, it was the president of the Collège des médecins himself. That said, if he hadn't been so frank and open about his reasoning, it would just result in doubt: is he being tyrannical, or just a bumbling but well-intentioned fool? It would be harder to say, and I probably wouldn't have bothered to post about it.


A president can be a spokesperson. The president also said this, although I believe it is a paraphrase.

"Gynecological exams for virginity certificates contravene the profession’s code of ethics on several grounds, including breaching patient confidentiality, said Charles Bernard, president of the Collège des médecins, in an interview."
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/12/degrading-virginity-tests-on-women-must-stop-quebec-doctors-group-urges/

It's this person's job to rule on ethics, so they did. They then gave their personal opinion, but they don't state that they made the ruling that they did due to that opinion, in fact the demeaning to women part is the last part of the quote and is qualified with an 'and'. You were starting to make a stronger case, but this fixation on intent is the weakest part.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
What if you found out this person was just giving a personal opinion and didn't have the power to create this new regulation by themselves.


You mean some totally unrelated party simply saying, "Hey, virginity tests are demeaning to women and have to stop," and that's all? Having an opinion obviously isn't tyrannical in itself, so I don't understand what you're asking here. One who does not rule cannot engage in tyranny.

It's not clear from the article whether this one man can unilaterally create this policy or not. I suspect that several other people had to be involved, so what I'm getting at here is that if other people had, in your opinion, more reasonable motives and were a part of this ruling would that also weaken the tyranny?

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
The question is why should they reconcile it. The more principled argument you could have made is that allowing abortion is an aberration and should be stopped ...


That would be more principled, but it's obviously not the reality. Were I a doctor, I would not be performing abortions, I assure you, but that's a counterfactual. What matters here is identifying the general trend in how the relevant medical practitioners interpret their Hippocratic Oath (and their interpretation is clearly liberal rather than strict), and then comparing your argument about how this specific case should be viewed to that general standard. That said, even a strict interpretation doesn't require a universal, fine-backed ban, because such a test obviously won't always result in harm (in fact, it probably very rarely will). Nothing so far, in this conversation, can justify a blanket fine-backed ban, and that's what matters.

Leon wrote:
If we must persist in mentioning the spokesperson's words the first reason given for the action is the breach of medical ethics. so by your framework they have to be considered as part of the reason for this.


As I've already mentioned, though, even strict interpretations of such modern ethics do not justify the extremity of this policy. Using a patient's ostensible right to confidentiality to try to justify the outright prevention of a doctor from doing the test and issuing the results, even with the patient's consent, is nonsense. Only the inclusion of the ideological dimension resolves that incoherency.


Your case was getting weaker from all this talk of intentions, but you ended on a strong note. If a doctor exists that wants to perform this test on a girl/women who isn't being coerced, and the test doesn't produce a false negative, and the doctor is actually fined, then this might be a mild form of tyranny, except that as previously mentioned being a doctor, like being a student, is voluntary and as you stated for it to be tyranny it has to be unjust rule, so it is a very qualified and hypothetical stretched version of tyranny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

Doctors take their job in a voluntary manner ...


I've said several times that it is not the doctors who are the targets of the tyranny here, but those desiring the tests.

Leon wrote:
For whom, the person receiving the blow, or the person giving it?


Both.

Leon wrote:
You can not go into someone elses head, you can be reasonably sure of their motives, but not entirely, so it's best practice as a general rule to not focus too much on motives.


"Best practice as a general rule." You almost make it sound like you think of me as some petty bureaucrat or accountant. I know very well how much certitude I can place on any given assumption, I don't need your "best practices" to trap me into some sort of arbitrary framework.

Leon wrote:
Please don't. If I do something for poor reasons it can still have good outcomes, and the inverse is especially true. We are unable to truly know other peoples motivations, but we can measure outcomes.


This sentiment is one I have a lot of harsh things to say about, but there would be little point in stating them here, so that's that I suppose. Even Mill seemed to realize on some vague and instinctive level how degenerate utilitarianism ultimately was if you read him carefully, but you seem totally enthralled with it.

Leon wrote:
It's not clear from the article whether this one man can unilaterally create this policy or not. I suspect that several other people had to be involved, so what I'm getting at here is that if other people had, in your opinion, more reasonable motives and were a part of this ruling would that also weaken the tyranny?


I don't have sufficient information about either the process or motives you're stipulating here. On the one hand, you chide me with your "best practices," and on the other you push me to speculate on the vaguest of premises. In either case you're running to dangerous

Leon wrote:
If a doctor exists that wants to perform this test on a girl/women who isn't being coerced, and the test doesn't produce a false negative, and the doctor is actually fined, then this might be a mild form of tyranny ...


Well that's the policy stipulated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 17 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International