Doctors should be allowed to deny treating patients on moral grounds if patients don’t follow public health guidelines. Doctors have an obligation to keep themselves, their staff and other patients safe. There are choices to be made.
Patients have the right to direct, with their doctor, the course of their own care. Doctors treat individuals who have rights. The construct of “Public health” is a sociopath-political construct, when best used, can benefit the collective. When misused, it can be a cudgel that attempts to deny the individual his rights
Desantis should post a list of Doctors who support his idiocy, so that parents can take their unvaccinated sick children to those doctors rather than infect the others whom DeSantis has made vulnerable. Of course, this is only if DeSantis can find any Doctors who support his policy.
Otherwise, I suggest parents just send their sick kids to DeSantis’s office. Sorry, but I’m getting tired of the worst of us setting policy for the majority of us!
Regarding Florida doctors and possibly denying care to unvaccinated patients.
When you distill it all, it comes down to the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective.
Modern “Public health” is all about maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and acts to advance the rights and interests of the collective. “Public Health” derives mission and legitimacy from the new twenty-first-century utilitarian trend in bioethics. Pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Today’s “Public Health” logic and morality are built on a utilitarian foundation.
In contrast, traditional medical practice is focused on the rights and interests of the individual patient. Codified in the Hippocratic oath, Nuremberg Code, Helsinki agreement, and the Belmont report.
From this, you can appreciate why those who are in politically left are all in on the rights of “Public Health” to impose mandates, and those that support personal liberty are aligned with the medical rights of the individual and the importance of informed consent.
“Public health” in USA believes that the rights of the collective are more important than the rights of the individual. The US Constitution and associated founding documents disagree and emphasize the rights of the individual. Collectivism vs individual rights. That is really what this is all about.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations to the Director of the CDC, whose recommendations (theoretically) prioritize collective health. Yet, their recommendations, if and when adopted by the CDC Director, functionally become guidance for physicians who — by oath and ethics — must treat the patient in front of them (a focus on the individual and their rights).
It’s a conflict of interest and an ethical lapse in judgment for medical doctors to prioritize public health (the rights and interests of the collective) over the rights of individual patients, yet that’s where ACIP guidance originates.
The fundamental question about ACIP is whether (or not) this advisory group is creating de facto guidance for physicians, in which case they should only weigh the risks and benefits on an individual patient basis. Or is the ACIP practicing “public health”? If the answer is “public health,” then the ACIP guidance recommendations must be separated by law from the physician’s standard of care.
To illustrate the point, the recommendations for the Hepatitis B birth dose and the Chickenpox vaccine timing were made on purely public health grounds.
ACIP cannot simultaneously serve both as advisors regarding public health and guides for individualized medical practice standard of care.
Public health and individual health are fundamentally in conflict because the first is based on the logic and morality of utilitarianism, and the latter is based on the logic and morality of individual sovereignty and liberty.
This tension is at the center of what is the most important philosophical and public policy conflict of our time. The tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective to force policies (and medical procedures) on those individuals who dissent. It is not really a question of left versus right - that is both too superficial and too derivative. It is the tension of whether the rights of the collective shall predominate over the rights of the individual.
Yes. During the height of Covid unvaccinated Americans clogged uup the ER's. Vaccinations for children & Adults are a responsibility for all Americans.
Doctors should be allowed to deny treating patients on moral grounds if patients don’t follow public health guidelines. Doctors have an obligation to keep themselves, their staff and other patients safe.
Doctors should be allowed to deny treating patients on moral grounds if patients don’t follow public health guidelines. Doctors have an obligation to keep themselves, their staff and other patients safe. There are choices to be made.
The problem is the public health guidelines.
Patients have the right to direct, with their doctor, the course of their own care. Doctors treat individuals who have rights. The construct of “Public health” is a sociopath-political construct, when best used, can benefit the collective. When misused, it can be a cudgel that attempts to deny the individual his rights
Desantis should post a list of Doctors who support his idiocy, so that parents can take their unvaccinated sick children to those doctors rather than infect the others whom DeSantis has made vulnerable. Of course, this is only if DeSantis can find any Doctors who support his policy.
Otherwise, I suggest parents just send their sick kids to DeSantis’s office. Sorry, but I’m getting tired of the worst of us setting policy for the majority of us!
If the children are vaccinated, shouldn’t they, then , be protected from the contagion? That is, of course, if the vaccine is effective.
My kids are grown, but if I had young kid I would not want to let my kids sit in a room with other unvacinated kids even if my kids were vaxxed.
Regarding Florida doctors and possibly denying care to unvaccinated patients.
When you distill it all, it comes down to the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective.
Modern “Public health” is all about maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and acts to advance the rights and interests of the collective. “Public Health” derives mission and legitimacy from the new twenty-first-century utilitarian trend in bioethics. Pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Today’s “Public Health” logic and morality are built on a utilitarian foundation.
In contrast, traditional medical practice is focused on the rights and interests of the individual patient. Codified in the Hippocratic oath, Nuremberg Code, Helsinki agreement, and the Belmont report.
From this, you can appreciate why those who are in politically left are all in on the rights of “Public Health” to impose mandates, and those that support personal liberty are aligned with the medical rights of the individual and the importance of informed consent.
“Public health” in USA believes that the rights of the collective are more important than the rights of the individual. The US Constitution and associated founding documents disagree and emphasize the rights of the individual. Collectivism vs individual rights. That is really what this is all about.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations to the Director of the CDC, whose recommendations (theoretically) prioritize collective health. Yet, their recommendations, if and when adopted by the CDC Director, functionally become guidance for physicians who — by oath and ethics — must treat the patient in front of them (a focus on the individual and their rights).
It’s a conflict of interest and an ethical lapse in judgment for medical doctors to prioritize public health (the rights and interests of the collective) over the rights of individual patients, yet that’s where ACIP guidance originates.
The fundamental question about ACIP is whether (or not) this advisory group is creating de facto guidance for physicians, in which case they should only weigh the risks and benefits on an individual patient basis. Or is the ACIP practicing “public health”? If the answer is “public health,” then the ACIP guidance recommendations must be separated by law from the physician’s standard of care.
To illustrate the point, the recommendations for the Hepatitis B birth dose and the Chickenpox vaccine timing were made on purely public health grounds.
ACIP cannot simultaneously serve both as advisors regarding public health and guides for individualized medical practice standard of care.
Public health and individual health are fundamentally in conflict because the first is based on the logic and morality of utilitarianism, and the latter is based on the logic and morality of individual sovereignty and liberty.
This tension is at the center of what is the most important philosophical and public policy conflict of our time. The tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective to force policies (and medical procedures) on those individuals who dissent. It is not really a question of left versus right - that is both too superficial and too derivative. It is the tension of whether the rights of the collective shall predominate over the rights of the individual.
What’s DeSantis going to do in life when he can’t bully people?
Does the Surgeon General have a license to practice medicine?
Yes. During the height of Covid unvaccinated Americans clogged uup the ER's. Vaccinations for children & Adults are a responsibility for all Americans.
Doctors should be allowed to deny treating patients on moral grounds if patients don’t follow public health guidelines. Doctors have an obligation to keep themselves, their staff and other patients safe.
"vimmunization"?