Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Sit Back and Relax, Non-Bass Related Chat
User avatar
petersemple
Posts: 1008
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 08:51

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by petersemple » 07 Jul 2018, 15:12

packrat wrote:
07 Jul 2018, 14:44
Oh look, google found it. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher ... e65b13526b
It is behind a paywall so I can't read it. The headline doesn't say anything about contraception for unmarried women. It seems to be about abortion and IVF. There is no mention in the headline about whether or not this is about training of doctors, or which university (and I would not expect those details in the headline, I am just trying to work out as much as I can without being able to read the article, which is not very much). I would also wonder about the AMA's stance on doctors practicing in this way. I suspect they may take a dim view.
Basses: Wasburn Status 4, Fretless 4 made from parts, Fretted through neck 5 made by me
Amp: Eminar bass 400 into home made cab with JBL 15"

packrat
Posts: 540
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 07 Jul 2018, 15:17

Notre dame in Sydney and WA. You can find other unpaywalled articles around the same time. And they have a medical degree program (who are the only ones providing such services). The AMA isn't thrilled but we have these amazing protection of religion laws that make this complex.

I've explained what has been happening as a result of this, and pointed you at articles documenting closely aligned practices. I'm not interested in fixing your continued denials and minimisation.

B>

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 07 Jul 2018, 15:56

Looking at logically:
Doctors should have a right to refuse killing such as euthanasia and abortion.
These do go against the concept of Hippocratic oath.
Indeed, so far in the world, euthanasia and abortion tend to become specialist, even areas sequestered from other medicine - it is not the same as life-giving medical practice.
As such, a university should have the right to avoid such things as practice, whilst still training on all the specialist areas of pregnancy and palliative care.
The contraceptive subject is usually confined to just Catholic institutions, and further discussion of that crosses over into sex education including STDs etc.
Of course, the whole thing becomes a conflicted issue, because the push to promote more abortion and euthanasia is greater than ever.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 07 Jul 2018, 16:14

we have these amazing protection of religion laws
Well, certainly not as much as some countries.
For the Commonwealth, it is just Section 116 of the Constitution, and thats it!:
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
But don't worry - the 'free exercise of any religion' (so far) is taken in a traditionalist rather than literal sense (as I take it that Constitutional Law can be interpreted as a case arises).
Jehovah Witnesses refused to be enlisted during WW2, and were declared a subversive organisation as a result - and s116 didn't come into it.
Good overview here: https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/20 ... australia/
If anything, religious freedoms are very much in the balance with the rising power of State-based anti-discrimination legislation, of which it may take a silk's breakfast to resolve.
I see..............basses!

packrat
Posts: 540
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 07 Jul 2018, 16:16

If the AMA is afraid to require doctors to practice actual medicine because of religion, the protection of religion is too strong. In particular, the carve-outs in the various employment protection pieces are far more damaging.

B>

packrat
Posts: 540
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 07 Jul 2018, 16:26

noplanb wrote:
07 Jul 2018, 15:56
Looking at logically:
Doctors should have a right to refuse killing such as euthanasia and abortion.
These do go against the concept of Hippocratic oath.
The overwhelming majority of schools in the US haven't cleaved to the strongly religious form of the oath (modified away fron the pantheon) for many decades. In Australia, the Geneva Declaration is used. Even from the Hippocratic form, your black-and-white painting of this as killing isn't consistently represented.

So, no.

B>

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 07 Jul 2018, 17:56

Perhaps we should use the term 'medical oath'.
There is a difference between form and function here - a medical oath is about the essence of the preservation of life, not blind obedience to whatever some authority wanted to write in it. Eg, military doctors in major historical wars have not carried arms. So its about life - not law. The oath is a result and summary of a medical person's ethos and commitment, not the cause of it. You have your argument back-to-front.
I see..............basses!

packrat
Posts: 540
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 07 Jul 2018, 18:29

No, the medical oath is about respect for life, not preservation at all costs. That's the religious sidebar. That said, people refusing medical prescriptions because of what someone in a hat said is in gross violation no matter how you slice it.

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 07 Jul 2018, 20:18

Respect for life, I would've defined as the same - it's not preservation of life at all costs.
But that's different to State-sanctioned calculated termination, based on some qualification that can be argued and stretched. The dangers are rather to be quantified in tendencies.

Euthanasia is a large subject.
"For" Is all about 'individual rights', and 'ending suffering'. These statements tend to assume that medical care is about "preserving life at all costs", but the reality is - it doesn't happen that way. Terminal conditions are already shortened by other means, and palliative care is the best it has ever been. And since when has death been the answer to any psychological condition?

A list of points to pause to consider:
1. It would not only be for people who are really "terminally ill"
2. It can become a means of health care cost containment
3. The 'voluntary' part can be stretched either intentially or unintentionally, and the result is fatal.
4. It leads to increased rates of suicide - after all, it's still suicide whether assisted or not.
5. It relaxes community attitudes to death - 'I was just helping someone die' is the extreme.
6. History has never shown that nations never adopt codes of euthanasia (killing and bloodshed yes, and thas different, but just as bad)
Safeguards are either patently ineffective, or have proven to be the case where euthanasia has been legalised.
I see..............basses!

packrat
Posts: 540
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 07 Jul 2018, 21:04

noplanb wrote:
07 Jul 2018, 20:18
Respect for life, I would've defined as the same - it's not preservation of life at all costs.
But that's different to State-sanctioned calculated termination, based on some qualification that can be argued and stretched. The dangers are rather to be quantified in tendencies.

Euthanasia is a large subject.
"For" Is all about 'individual rights', and 'ending suffering'. These statements tend to assume that medical care is about "preserving life at all costs", but the reality is - it doesn't happen that way. Terminal conditions are already shortened by other means, and palliative care is the best it has ever been. And since when has death been the answer to any psychological condition?

A list of points to pause to consider:
1. It would not only be for people who are really "terminally ill"
Correct, people would not be forced to live a miserable indefinite existence because of the demands of some religious zealot. That's self-determinism in a nutshell. Why should someone else be forced to live in agony for the sake of your feelings?
2. It can become a means of health care cost containment
The theocracy of the US already does health cost containment. Very religion. Much unnecessary death. This is a non-argument.
3. The 'voluntary' part can be stretched either intentially or unintentionally, and the result is fatal.
People are murdered now. This won't change that. Irrelevant.
4. It leads to increased rates of suicide - after all, it's still suicide whether assisted or not.
It would be bad because it's bad. Seriously?
5. It relaxes community attitudes to death - 'I was just helping someone die' is the extreme.
Many societies (especially those without your religion) have a far more peaceful and less terrified attitude towards death. Your assumption that they are wrong is just that, a baseless assumption.
6. History has never shown that nations never adopt codes of euthanasia (killing and bloodshed yes, and thas different, but just as bad)
Safeguards are either patently ineffective, or have proven to be the case where euthanasia has been legalised.
Where has euthanisia been legalised, it's very modern and the is no meaningful data (outside hysterical polemics by certain churches who also opposed birth control) that there's a problem, or that evolving controls could never work. History has never shown that nations adopting codes of space travel or antibiotics etc either. Why? Because we are now in a space that History hasn't explored.

I encourage the medievalists who fetishise history to opt out of modern medicine, provided they do it where there isn't splash damage to innocents who have not made that choice.

B>

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 07 Jul 2018, 22:16

Your responses could be inclusive of the following:
1. If a person 'convinces' a medical authority, or say, a relative does, that their mental quality of life is not worth living, and should assisted-suicide, but otherwise they are completely healthy. That is psychological treatment by death. Sure, some doctors would see through some, but a lot would still go through. Why should people die just for the sake of their own feelings? Ie, their feelings determine whether they live or die. What an evil concept. Religion doesn't come into it.

2. US is not a theocracy. There is much unnecessary death in a lot of countries due to poor health care. We cannot legislate there. But we can legislate in AU as an example. So what about medical staff being leaned on to 'free up beds' - 'reduce specialist costs' - no doubt that happens now, but with euthanasia there are less lines to cross to 'the final solution'.

3. Murder is not justification for anything!

4. You seem to say increased suicide rates is not a problem? Medical funds get diverted from counselling to Mickey Finns instead?

5. You miss the point that folk will feel freer to undertake 'amateur assisted suicide', or pretend that was the case..... a scary world indeed....

6. Lets be really progressive and kill each other? We all really have a death-wish anyway?

My answers may seem flippant, but I may not understand your thought processes behind your responses.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 07 Jul 2018, 23:27

Example of screwy euthanasia situations:
"Female Dutch doctor drugged a patient's coffee then asked her family to hold her down as she fought not to be killed - but did not break the country's euthanasia laws"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... offee.html

Andrews Government hadn’t properly funded palliative care in this state, leaving thousands of Victorians without palliative care....Victorian Government is rushing the development of a drug through a university compounding pharmacy unit to sidestep the federal Therapeutic Goods Administration.
https://www.acl.org.au/is_victoria_read ... languishes

Virtually every guideline set up by the Dutch to regulate euthanasia has been modified or violated with impunity. Despite their best efforts, the Dutch have been able to get only 60 percent of their doctors to report their euthanasia cases
http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/about ... hanasia11/

Dr Laureys's new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed. .....
3,000 to 5,000 people a year remain trapped in an intermediate stage - they go on living......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... along.html

On and on it goes - it opens a pandoras box of death culture.
I see..............basses!

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 09 Jul 2018, 13:46

Here's an example of media under-reporting. We don't hear much about about genocide of Christians.
It makes sense that AU should be preferencing Christian-culture refugees here first - more compatible with our culture.
International Community Ignores Genocide of Christians in Nigeria
"This brings the death toll of Christians to more than 6,000 since the start of 2018"
The statement adds that the majority of those 6,000 Christians massacred this year were "mostly children, women and the aged... What is happening in ... Nigeria is pure genocide and must be stopped immediately."
The details of the murder of these thousands, though seldom reported, are often grisly; many were either ..... and women are .... before being slaughtered.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1264 ... de-nigeria
http://canng.org/news-and-events/news/1 ... government
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/98 ... ty-nigeria
I see..............basses!

packrat
Posts: 540
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 02:17
Location: Sydney

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by packrat » 09 Jul 2018, 14:16

Under reporting? Few people haven’t heard of Boko Haram at his point, but to claim the violence is purely targeted at Christians and then continue to assert they are the one true faith who should be allowed here is contemptible.

B>

User avatar
noplanb
Posts: 1285
Joined: 04 Dec 2012, 22:00
Location: Adelaide

Re: Political Coverage By the Media in Our Country - PART TWO

Post by noplanb » 09 Jul 2018, 15:53

Boko Haram
Yes, and 'herdsman' is the other term used, but that's not the focus - it is the fact that is the Christians (cultural group) that are specifically targetted, and that is under-reported. That part seems pretty clear.
assert they are the one true faith
Where are you getting that from? Who said that?
should be allowed here is contemptible
No, the word is 'compatible', not 'contemptible'. Like it or not, all of the West, US/Canada, South Africa, much of South America, is largely called "of Christian culture" origin. It doesn't make them Christian, far from it (because that only happens on a personal level). Ask, say, any middle-eastern person, and they will call AU 'Christian'.
So a Christian-cultural group from Africa, is more probable to fit in here long-term, than any other group from there.
I see..............basses!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests