Philosophy 115Board

Telgan wrote:

What my point was, and this directly replies to this Himgrad chap

Hrimgard, not "Himgrad".

Telgan wrote:

before I stated medical professionals, not purely MDs, what about nurses who have a similar role? Are we really saying that doctors are held in higher regard? Personally, I hold them on a similar keel. Both could not operate in healthcare or otherwise without the other.

Doctors are held in a higher regard, but I would argue that nurses operate in accordance with a similar social norm and have similar standards. Psychology is not profession in the same way that being a physician or a nurse is a profession.

Telgan wrote:

The example of doctors not carrying a gun where their psychological peers do, is a rather pointless exercise to add to the argument. It was written by an American doctor and is a footnote to culture; not to the overall argument the author presents. If a prison psychologist here was handed a gun, they'd either quit or fight it quickly within their union and outlaw such a practise as unethical within the profession.

It's not pointless at all and was hardly a footnote, it's a very concrete example of those social norms, which is why it was in the second paragraph of the article. There's no evidence for your claim that prison psychologists would quit if handed a gun, because it's quite clear from the article that current policy at prisons is that psychologists will be handed guns under certain circumstances. Physicians will not be handed guns under any circumstances.

Telgan wrote:

If we want to add more footnotes to argument, then how many doctors were involved in the unethical trials in the U.S. for past treatments for say syphilis?

I assume you're referring to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. If so, then you should be aware of the huge aftershocks this sent through the medical and research communities and the legal steps that were taken as a result. The Tuskegee experiments and their aftermath are part of what has shaped present ethical standards for physicians, so this is actually an example that works in favor of the author's argument. This is the Tuskegee of psychology, and it's clear that they are in need of an overhaul of both professional ethics and legal oversight.

Telgan wrote:

Creating such a dividing line is pointless bs takes away from the real causes of this happened.

The dividing line is real, it already exists. The author is not creating it, just acknowledging it. It's not "pointless BS", no matter how many times you try to dismiss it.

Telgan wrote:

The real building block and something which the author did not come forth with - which itself is an injustice and deserving of carticture is that the APA attempted to cover it up, because and here is the important part - the ethics which psychologists sign up condem harm

The point is not that psychologists don't have some statement of ethics. The point is that their statement of ethics is unsupported by professional culture and social norms in the way that physicians are.

Telgan wrote:

In actuality, psychologist know their professional limits far more than doctors

Evidentially not, as this crisis demonstrates.

Telgan wrote:

who, in their process of treatment will likely cause an element of harm so the patient recovers. A quick look at say cancer treatments is one example of this. This is not to say this is wrong or unethical - that would be an incorrect summary here.

This is sophistry and besides the point, as Discoveria points out.

Telgan wrote:

to argue that doctors are more... What? Professional due to their training than psychologists? Are set apart due to social norms that society lays out? I think this is too simple. Although, as I said I agree with some of what you said, on general, there a lot subtle and interactions going on and my departure of analysis is takes a few more detours.

What are these "subtle interactions"? Without elaborating what these are, this is just handwaving around the fact that -in addition to not presenting a convincing or coherent case as to why the article's argument is wrong - you have no argument of your own as to what went wrong.

Telgan wrote:

What I did end with last time, somewhat tongue and cheek, but also quite sincerely, was the point that medical doctors do not have much hope in hell to lay out the ground work as to why such violations occurred. That is surely left to the psychologists.

The author qua author is not the author qua medical doctor, so this point is irrelevant.

It doesn't take a Ph.D in psychology to see a broken profession with substandard ethics and to compare this to a related profession that operates very differently, in such a way that members of the related profession would never be put in a situation to cause that kind of harm.

Techno-titania wrote:

Doctors in US are not required to take the Hippocratic oath.

"required", no. To plagiarize shamelessly from wikipedia:

In a 1989 survey of 126 US medical schools, only three reported use of the original oath, while thirty-three used the Declaration of Geneva, sixty-seven used a modified Hippocratic Oath, four used the Oath of Maimonides, one used a covenant, eight used another oath, one used an unknown oath, and two did not use any kind of oath. Seven medical schools did not reply to the survey.

In a 2000 survey of US medical schools, all of the then extent medical schools administered some type of profession oath. Among schools of modern medicine, sixty-two of 122 used the Hippocratic Oath, or a modified version of it. The other sixty schools used the original or modified Declaration of Geneva, Oath of Maimonides, or an oath authored by students and or faculty. All nineteen osteopathic schools used the Osteopathic Oath.

In the United States, the majority of osteopathic medical schools use the Osteopathic Oath in place of or in addition to the Hippocratic Oath. The Osteopathic Oath was first used in 1938, and the current version has been in use since 1954.

Hrimgard wrote:

Hrimgard, not "Himgrad".

Doctors are held in a higher regard, but I would argue that nurses operate in accordance with a similar social norm and have similar standards. Psychology is not profession in the same way that being a physician or a nurse is a profession.

It's not pointless at all and was hardly a footnote, it's a very concrete example of those social norms, which is why it was in the second paragraph of the article. There's no evidence for your claim that prison psychologists would quit if handed a gun, because it's quite clear from the article that current policy at prisons is that psychologists will be handed guns under certain circumstances. Physicians will not be handed guns under any circumstances.

I assume you're referring to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. If so, then you should be aware of the huge aftershocks this sent through the medical and research communities and the legal steps that were taken as a result. The Tuskegee experiments and their aftermath are part of what has shaped present ethical standards for physicians, so this is actually an example that works in favor of the author's argument. This is the Tuskegee of psychology, and it's clear that they are in need of an overhaul of both professional ethics and legal oversight.

The dividing line is real, it already exists. The author is not creating it, just acknowledging it. It's not "pointless BS", no matter how many times you try to dismiss it.

The point is not that psychologists don't have some statement of ethics. The point is that their statement of ethics is unsupported by professional culture and social norms in the way that physicians are.

Evidentially not, as this crisis demonstrates.

This is sophistry and besides the point, as Discoveria points out.

What are these "subtle interactions"? Without elaborating what these are, this is just handwaving around the fact that -in addition to not presenting a convincing or coherent case as to why the article's argument is wrong - you have no argument of your own as to what went wrong.

The author qua author is not the author qua medical doctor, so this point is irrelevant.

It doesn't take a Ph.D in psychology to see a broken profession with substandard ethics and to compare this to a related profession that operates very differently, in such a way that members of the related profession would never be put in a situation to cause that kind of harm.

You have, once again, missed the point on everything I have written. Or just having fun, either way, I'm cool with that :)

How are we voting on the Security Council resolution to liberate "The Black Riders" region??

Telgan wrote:

You have, once again, missed the point on everything I have written. Or just having fun, either way, I'm cool with that :)

Whatever, you're a sophist and clearly incapable of good faith debate

Central Kadigan wrote:

How are we voting on the Security Council resolution to liberate "The Black Riders" region??

I'm against it for a number of reasons. I seem to have a lot of company in NS. ;)

Dr george wrote:

Since we just had Longest Average Lifespan, I won't repeat the ranking.

OMG! IRL, I saved a man's life tonight. We were eating in the IndoThai-Sushi restaurant when a man at the next table started choking and within a couple of seconds was totally blocked off and falling unconscious. I knew the man was going to die if I didn't do something, so I popped out of my seat and went over and performed the Heimlich maneuver on him. After 2-3 pushes, the food popped out and he was breathing again. I didn't have time to be nervous or scared--the adrenaline rush came afterwards (and gave me a migraine). His wife and friends sincerely thanked me, but I don't know his name and he doesn't know mine; a good deed like that is its own reward. I was just a friendly stranger who knew what to do in the right place at the right time. It was the first time I'd ever done it for real. Thank goodness for all the Red Cross training and certifications!

Good on you, doc! :)

Is becoming or has became?

Midland county libertatem diplomat wrote:

Hello, all.

Hello

Pointe-aux-Coques wrote:

The WA is becoming a farce, passing legislation one week and repealing it the next.

I have to agree with this. I feel that some sort of "grace period" should be introduced. You have to give a resolution at least a couple of months before you attempt to repeal it. Maybe I'm just being idealistic.

I just ran across a new (to me anyway) form of government: holacracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy

This will require some further reading on my part...

Central Kadigan wrote:

I just ran across a new (to me anyway) form of government: holacracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy

This will require some further reading on my part...

Sounds more like a principal of organization, rather than "government", per se. But very fascinating. I've been a fan of sociocracy, which was apparently a big influence on the development of holacracy.