Mother has 13 children in care and is pregnant with 14th

[BroomJockey]

If that's actually what happened then that doctor should lose their license.

To argue the point, one could say the doctor should get a damned medal for preventing a serial attempted murder from creating more victims.

[DesignFox]

Yikes! I hope you aren't really advocating aggravated bodily injury.

No, I'm not advocating assault.

well I've known of a girl who had 3 kids she tried to starve to death because "they reminded her of their fathers that didn't marry her" when she went in to deliver the fourth there was some "horrible complication" that required an immediate hysterectomy-the "horrible complication" was the doctor didn't want her trying to starve any more children*. So yeah she gets the "right" doctor that knows the history something may "go wrong".

<snip>

But at the same time, I can't say I have a problem with this...

Tell the patient they have a horrible life threatening problem, and take out the waterworks.

*sigh* I know how horribly wrong that is, but I can't help but think it's justified.

[BlaqueKatt]

*sigh* I know how horribly wrong that is, but I can't help but think it's justified.

yeah-it's a moral grey area-considering the only thing she was concerned about afterwords was "how was she going to find someone to marry her if she wasn't pregnant"-yes she fully believed you got someone to marry you by getting pregnant-mainly because "that's what happens on soap operas". She was pretty much a sociopath.

She ended up in jail for check fraud-the kids were all adopted by one family-they couldn't really afford the last one-but didn't want to "split up the set" as it were.

[anriana]

To argue the point, one could say the doctor should get a damned medal for preventing a serial attempted murder from creating more victims.

One could say that, but I bet they wouldn't be a medical board.

[BroomJockey]

One could say that, but I bet they wouldn't be a medical board.

At the same time, I doubt a medical board would revoke his licence, either.

[Flyndaran]

At the same time, I doubt a medical board would revoke his licence, either.

If he really did a medically unnecessary organ removal, then he darn well better get his license revoked.

[tabbyblack13]

I'd compare her to this mother,

Talon, it is a good thing I don't drink around my computer.

She had 13 other children and thinks that Child services will let her keep the 14th one. As much as I don't believe that you should sterilize people unwilling, I am willing to reconsider my point of view on this one. She is also on disabilities because of an accident. Now she has a hard time walking, how can she take care of an active child?

[Flyndaran]

...Now she has a hard time walking, how can she take care of an active child?

What, you don't think people in wheelchairs should be allowed to keep their children?

[anriana]

If he really did a medically unnecessary organ removal, then he darn well better get his license revoked.

Thank you.


Doctors aren't there to practice vigilante medicine, no matter how beneficial they deem it to be.

[BroomJockey]

Doctors aren't there to practice vigilante medicine, no matter how beneficial they deem it to be.

You're right, but in a case like that the important things to keep in mind are these:

1. Doctors are still people.

2. Doctors licences are revoked by other doctors.

3. It takes 2 doctors in most places to be able to sue another doctor for malpractice.

4. Doctors don't like to rat on other doctors. It makes them easier targets as well.

5. In a case like this, a doctor might let his agreement with the morality of stopping an abuser/repeated attempted killer/etc override the specific ethics of the profession.

So, should it be this way? No. Is it this way? Probably at least part of the time.

[Flyndaran]

You're right, but in a case like that the important things to keep in mind are these:

1. Doctors are still people.

2. Doctors licences are revoked by other doctors.

3. It takes 2 doctors in most places to be able to sue another doctor for malpractice.

4. Doctors don't like to rat on other doctors. It makes them easier targets as well.

5. In a case like this, a doctor might let his agreement with the morality of stopping an abuser/repeated attempted killer/etc override the specific ethics of the profession.

So, should it be this way? No. Is it this way? Probably at least part of the time.

1. No one is arguing against that.

2-3. Not if they are found guilty of a violent criminal act. No sane person would let them keep their licenses.

4. Covering up a crime is criminal itself. I bet a ballsy prosecutor could make them roll.

5. A doctor could do a lot of things incluiding outright murder. That doesn't make them any better than common criminals.

[Nyoibo]

One could say that, but I bet they wouldn't be a medical board.

Officially no, but I bet that he wouldn't be buying rounds at the bar that night.

[Lace Neil Singer]

What, you don't think people in wheelchairs should be allowed to keep their children?

Strawman. This woman has been proved, time and time again, by social services to be unfit to take care of her children. Not cuz she's disabled, but cuz she's an unfit mother. Comparing her to a disabled, but loving mother, is monstrous.

[Talon]

Talon, it is a good thing I don't drink around my computer.

Ooh my first rule#1 violation-inducing post? *Giggles like a schoolgirl*

[BroomJockey]

4. Covering up a crime is criminal itself. I bet a ballsy prosecutor could make them roll.

Right. And the lawyer went to med school... when? If you're prosecuting a doctor for doing something medically unnecessary, you still need a doctor on the stand to actually say that it was. Otherwise, there's no proof, unless you have the doctor on tape saying "I must stop this woman. I'm going to remove her uterus, and make it look necessary!"