Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Yeah their response was good.

Well, that lasted less than a day

They got a phone call from the people in charge.

Gearing up the distributed private sector minitrue to unperson someone in 2024.

"We have the best interests of our patients at heart"

First video is pretty creepy. I'm fine with message in the second one. That tweet pulls "consequences" out of context to make it scary.

She's telling doctors to put their patients' needs over their own magical thinking. I support that point of view.

B wrote:First video is pretty creepy. I'm fine with message in the second one. That tweet pulls "consequences" out of context to make it scary.

She's telling doctors to put their patients' needs over their own magical thinking. I support that point of view.

I think this is where it breaks down for many people. How does a doctor determine if gender-affirming surgery is a "need" in a teenager?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:First video is pretty creepy. I'm fine with message in the second one. That tweet pulls "consequences" out of context to make it scary.

She's telling doctors to put their patients' needs over their own magical thinking. I support that point of view.

I think this is where it breaks down for many people. How does a doctor determine if gender-affirming surgery is a "need" in a teenager?

Through discussion with the parent and the teen. Most likely with input from a therapist.

She's talking about religious opposition in that video. There's not mention of people who are in opposition due to it being the wrong thing for the teen or because parents aren't in agreement.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:First video is pretty creepy. I'm fine with message in the second one. That tweet pulls "consequences" out of context to make it scary.

She's telling doctors to put their patients' needs over their own magical thinking. I support that point of view.

I think this is where it breaks down for many people. How does a doctor determine if gender-affirming surgery is a "need" in a teenager?

Through discussion with the parent and the teen. Most likely with input from a therapist.

She's talking about religious opposition in that video. There's not mention of people who are in opposition due to it being the wrong thing for the teen or because parents aren't in agreement.

B, there are suicide doctors who help elderly and mortally ill. What if a depressed teenager walked into their office? Help me find where the line should be drawn. Just for the sake of conversation on a loosely PJ themed internet message board.

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:First video is pretty creepy. I'm fine with message in the second one. That tweet pulls "consequences" out of context to make it scary.

She's telling doctors to put their patients' needs over their own magical thinking. I support that point of view.

I think this is where it breaks down for many people. How does a doctor determine if gender-affirming surgery is a "need" in a teenager?

Through discussion with the parent and the teen. Most likely with input from a therapist.

She's talking about religious opposition in that video. There's not mention of people who are in opposition due to it being the wrong thing for the teen or because parents aren't in agreement.

B, there are suicide doctors who help elderly and mortally ill. What if a depressed teenager walked into their office? Help me find where the line should be drawn. Just for the sake of conversation on a loosely PJ themed internet message board.

A person opposing surgery because they're whistle blowing abuse by a doctor is an important thing that should be give the fullest attention and should result in pausing intervention and investigation.

That video is about religious conscientious exemption to supporting trans individuals.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:First video is pretty creepy. I'm fine with message in the second one. That tweet pulls "consequences" out of context to make it scary.

She's telling doctors to put their patients' needs over their own magical thinking. I support that point of view.

I think this is where it breaks down for many people. How does a doctor determine if gender-affirming surgery is a "need" in a teenager?

Through discussion with the parent and the teen. Most likely with input from a therapist.

She's talking about religious opposition in that video. There's not mention of people who are in opposition due to it being the wrong thing for the teen or because parents aren't in agreement.

B, there are suicide doctors who help elderly and mortally ill. What if a depressed teenager walked into their office? Help me find where the line should be drawn. Just for the sake of conversation on a loosely PJ themed internet message board.

A person opposing surgery because they're whistle blowing abuse by a doctor is an important thing that should be give the fullest attention and should result in pausing intervention and investigation.

That video is about religious conscientious exemption to supporting trans individuals.

If I’m a doctor can I not specialize in knee surgery and refuse to operate on ankles? If I’m a plastic surgeon can I not specialize in nose jobs and refuse to give boys breast implants?

By the way this is me posting without being fully informed and I should probably just exit the thread now.

Bammer wrote:By the way this is me posting without being fully informed and I should probably just exit the thread now.

You examples, Bammer. We're talking about people working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery.

If your knee surgeon works at an ankle clinic, he should quit and find a better job.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:By the way this is me posting without being fully informed and I should probably just exit the thread now.

You examples, Bammer. We're talking about people working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery.

If your knee surgeon works at an ankle clinic, he should quit and find a better job.

Admitting ignorance, but isn't this much ado about nothing? The odds of a surgeon who opposes gender affirming surgeries on religious grounds while working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery would seem to be vanishingly small.

4/5 wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:By the way this is me posting without being fully informed and I should probably just exit the thread now.

You examples, Bammer. We're talking about people working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery.

If your knee surgeon works at an ankle clinic, he should quit and find a better job.

Admitting ignorance, but isn't this much ado about nothing? The odds of a surgeon who opposes gender affirming surgeries on religious grounds while working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery would seem to be vanishingly small.

One would think, but apparently the clinic was concerned about it.

4/5 wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:By the way this is me posting without being fully informed and I should probably just exit the thread now.

You examples, Bammer. We're talking about people working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery.

If your knee surgeon works at an ankle clinic, he should quit and find a better job.

Admitting ignorance, but isn't this much ado about nothing? The odds of a surgeon who opposes gender affirming surgeries on religious grounds while working at a clinic specializing in trans supportive surgery would seem to be vanishingly small.

Given the context (which I am absolutely not going to research any further), can we assume that there were doctors on staff at Vanderbilt prior to the establishment of this clinic? It's a big university hospital system.

More broadly, I don't think there should be any grounds for religious exceptions for medical and pharmacist staff (comes up a lot more frequently with abortion, obviously). If you're not okay with all parts of the job, get a different one.

Yeah we should totally have fewer doctors because of idiotic political reasons.

Oh ok

If your doctor won't doctor they're not a doctor anyhow.

B wrote:If your doctor won't doctor they're not a doctor anyhow.

If a doctor will do 99.9% of things doctors do and we desperately need more doctors, then forbidding them from working because they won't do one minor thing that almost no one needs is one of the most epically moronic ideas I can think of.

But it's also completely in keeping with the current zeitgeist.

Hmm yeah if only there was a way to increase the supply of doctors in the country while also not permitting religious zealots to opt out of providing essential services at the same time, too bad there's no way to do that.