The Right to kill

[TW Scott]

There is one right to kill, and that is in defence of killing to save yourself from another genuine attack. But that should be the only condition.

Incorrect. You could be saving a loved one from attack. You could be in desperate fear for your life or the lives of your loved ones. You could be defending a stranger. There are many, many, many reasons to kill.
It's just that you should not plot the death of someone for your or other peoples personal gain.

 

[S.A.M.]

Tell me the logic of nuking a city with an atom bomb. I've always wondered how those guys lived with themselves.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Well, that is tricky. An Iraqi who sees his family killed in effort to save iraq obviously has insurgents as family members. The insurgents are doing their best to kill other Iraqi's in order to destabilize the area. So your question is kind of twisted.

Yes, that is the entire point of resistance, right, to kill fellow countrymen?

There is a vast difference between sectarian and tribal criminals and justified resistance fighters who target only foreign or puppet gorvernment troops.

For example, to the British, George Washington was just as bad as those Colonists who killed any British man they saw. To them all the resistance were terrorists, don't make the same mistake as the British did by comparing America's justified resistance to some Colonists' terrorist attacks against British civilians.

 

[Zephyr]

Tell me the logic of nuking a city with an atom bomb. I've always wondered how those guys lived with themselves.

Numbers. The predicted number of deaths without the bomb were higher.

Which doesn't make it an easy decision. There are numerous examples of ethical questions like this: if you pull the lever the train goes down one track and kills one person, if you don't it goes down the other and kills two people etc. But most people are lucky enough not to face these questions in real life.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

What makes a man sign up to kill other people?

How does a person point a weapon at another person they do not even know, kill them and go home to a "normal" life?

How do they justify taking away someone's right to life?

Money.........!! Everyone needs to make a living.

 

[Steve100]

It's only the same as squashing an ant when you think about it.
Or swatting a fly.
Or exterminating rats.

 

[Lightening_bolt]

Killing person for no good reason is always bad. Killing someone can't be justified no matter what!! If only the killer has been threatened that if he doesnt kill, his whole family will be killed, etc, then thats ok. But otherwise killing cant be justified.

 

[John99]

A university in India and then received further surgical training in the US. Why?

Should be obvious why i am asking. How does someone like that pass tests? It would not surprise me if many of these schools are no harder than high school.

Reminds me of a while ago when i spoke to someone in medical school overseas, i asked what they did and she said 'smoke alot of weed'.....

I am sorry but something just dont smell right.

 

[Bells]

Should be obvious why i am asking. How does someone like that pass tests? It would not surprise me if many of these schools are no harder than high school.

I think you'd find with Dr Patel it was not so much the lack of intelligence in regards to his passing the tests.. after all, he was good enough to obtain his masters in surgery as well as pass all of his further studies at the university in the US. His issue is that he simply did not care about his patient's welfare if his actions were anything to go by.

Patel first began to raise alarm bells in 1984 at a hospital in the city of Buffalo where New York health officials cited Patel for failing to examine patients before surgery. Patel was fined US$5,000 and was placed on three years' clinical probation. In 1989, Patel moved to Oregon and began working for Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Portland. Medical staff alleged that he would often turn up, even on his days off, and perform surgery on patients that were not even his responsibility. In some cases, surgery was not even required, and caused serious injuries or death to the patient.

-----------------------------------------------------------

His unprofessional behaviour continued, with his surgical work being described as "antiquated" and "sloppy", and some nurses even claimed that they hid their patients from him when they knew that he was in the hospital. He was referred to as "Dr. E. coli".[1]

Patel is also alleged to have shown a poor regard for hygiene with claims that he responded to a nurse's concern over his unwashed hands with "doctors don't have germs". Overall, Patel is linked to at least 87 deaths out of the 1,202 patients he treated between 2003 to early 2005, 30 of whom died while under his care in Bundaberg. Hospital staff have also accused Patel of altering medical records to hide mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayant_Patel

There are some terrific doctors who have studied in India and other Asian countries like Pakistan. The obstetrician I had for my first child was a Pakistani and the man was absolutely brilliant. I had a difficult pregnancy and the man did everything he could to make sure I was able to deliver at term. He went above and beyond what most other doctors would have done. He even made house calls when I was too sick or unable to leave my bed (period of strict bed rest) for check-ups and went so far as to bring a nurse with him each time because he sometimes had to do internal exams and such. I have recommended him to other women and they too have nothing but high praise for him. Sadly, he was on holidays when I was meant to have my second child and I was recommended by his practice to another doctor who was Australian and nearly killed my second child and myself.

Dr Patel would have had to have been good enough to be able to practice in the US and he was deemed thus. His further training was completed in the US. It's not so much the medical school but the individuals themselves.

The same goes for Graeme Stephen Reeves, also known as the "Butcher of Bega". It's not so much the tests. After all, if they studied enough, they'd be able to pass them. It is the individuals themselves who are the problem. They simply don't care about their patients. The bigger problem stems from hospitals and health departments who failed to check up on prospective employees.

 

[Asguard]

bells did you ever wonder if Patel wasnt just another sociopath?

yes he doesnt just go out and murder people like say the guy who comited the snow town murders but he still apears to lack an sence of empathy with is the basis for a sociopath.

 

[Bells]

bells did you ever wonder if Patel wasnt just another sociopath?

yes he doesnt just go out and murder people like say the guy who comited the snow town murders but he still apears to lack an sence of empathy with is the basis for a sociopath.

I think he was probably over confident and simply did not care. He thought he could get away with it. The same goes for Graeme Stephen Reeves. Are they sociopaths? I'm not sure. I think their problem stemmed more from the fact that they were surgeons and there is that whole hospital politics thing where other medical staff rarely or are too scared to question what the 'good surgeon' is doing. And then of course there are the hospital boards and health care systems that are so desperate for doctors that they seem to be happy to look away. They could well be sociopaths. Reeves at least showed an even greater lack of care for his patients. I mean refusing to give a patient antibiotics, resulting in the patient dying of septicemia? I still remember reading in the papers about how he performed a hysterectomy after a routine and complication free c-section and failed to tell the patient he had removed her uterus. She only found out when several years later she and her husband tried to have a second child and when unable to conceive, went to see another doctor who did ultrasounds and other tests and told her that she had no uterus. You're right, he at least, could very well have been a sociopath, as could Patel.

 

[Asguard]

bells did you ever hear about a case in NZ (i probably mentioned it somewhere else) in one of there biggest womens health hospitals where the head of gynocology ran an experiment because he belived that an abnormal papsmear didnt lead to cervical cancer?

The details of that case are even more horific than what patel did. This guy watched his pts get cancer and didnt even tell them simply because it didnt fit with what HE wanted to prove in his "experiment". He never even told the women they were part of a study. The actions of the other doctors and the nurses was even worse because they all knew what was happerning and not one person brought it to the atention of the health department

 

[Bells]

bells did you ever hear about a case in NZ (i probably mentioned it somewhere else) in one of there biggest womens health hospitals where the head of gynocology ran an experiment because he belived that an abnormal papsmear didnt lead to cervical cancer?

The details of that case are even more horific than what patel did. This guy watched his pts get cancer and didnt even tell them simply because it didnt fit with what HE wanted to prove in his "experiment". He never even told the women they were part of a study. The actions of the other doctors and the nurses was even worse because they all knew what was happerning and not one person brought it to the atention of the health department

No, I never heard of that.

It was the same thing with Reeves. Many did report him but the majority were either too scared to or they simply did not care. Some even supported him.

 

[Asguard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Green

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartwright_Inquiry

It was a sickning case and it came just after unethical practices were uncovered in a mental health hospital here (i think it was in WA but im not sure)

 

[Asguard]

seems i was wrong about it being in WA, it was in NSW.

This is an ethics essay describing both cases (i find it strange that the wikipedia articals are so short on this matter when its such a huge case)

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Jones.html

 

[(Q)]

What makes a man sign up to kill other people?

Possibly, after those people might fly a couple of commercial airliners into a couple of skyscrapers?

How does a person point a weapon at another person they do not even know, kill them and go home to a "normal" life?

Their "normal lives" have been disrupted by insane religious fundies who crash commercial airliners into skyscrapers.

How do they justify taking away someone's right to life?

Those who kill their fellow man in the name of their gods do not deserve the right to a life, as they pray for the afterlife with their gods, one is simply doing them a favor and bringing them closer to their gods.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

Yeah, because they are going to try and reverse the process, not hasten it. But doctors suffer over every lost patient and also have high suicide rates.

So do combat veterans.

This...

How does a person point a weapon at another person they do not even know, kill them and go home to a "normal" life?

...is bullshit. The duties implicit in soldiering include doing some really awful things, which anyone with a shred of humanity will feel possess a certain inherent immorality, regardless of how justifiable they are. This is the reason why combat veterans tend to keep their stories to themselves or their peers. How do you explain the terrible things that have been done to you, or the terrible things you have done to other people? How can you make someone who has never lived through a similar experience appreciate its impact? It is very difficult to do any of the three. Recounting a story requires that you relive something terrible. The same thing applies to anyone else who has gone through a very stressful or traumatic experience.

In my view, there are circumstances where it is perfectly justifiable and/or necessary to take the life of another, but the act itself is never better than a necessary evil. Everyone is affected by it differently, but you will never hear anyone who has seen serious action speak fondly of it.

 

[joepistole]

So when you have a job of killing people, you just do it. You take a weapon, aim it at people and after they are dead, go home and relax in front of the TV with a beer. The people who died, with families and dependents or perhaps as in the case of bombers, the civilians and children who died, are "just a job"?

Sam there is something called post traumatic stress which is a comnon afliction of American troops. War is hell, and it is not easy to go back into a normal social roll for some individuals. Many years ago, the US Army discovered that when placed on the front lines, many soldiers refused to fire their weapons. It was only a small minority firing weapons. To that end they adjusted their training.

People sign up for military service for many reasons. But the underlying principal is that they are defending their people.

 

[S.A.M.]

Possibly, after those people might fly a couple of commercial airliners into a couple of skyscrapers?



Their "normal lives" have been disrupted by insane religious fundies who crash commercial airliners into skyscrapers.



Those who kill their fellow man in the name of their gods do not deserve the right to a life, as they pray for the afterlife with their gods, one is simply doing them a favor and bringing them closer to their gods.

So, according to you, a person who flies a couple of planes into a couple of skyscrapers acquires a taste for it? hmm, interesting.

Sam there is something called post traumatic stress which is a comnon afliction of American troops. War is hell, and it is not easy to go back into a normal social roll for some individuals. Many years ago, the US Army discovered that when placed on the front lines, many soldiers refused to fire their weapons. It was only a small minority firing weapons. To that end they adjusted their training.

People sign up for military service for many reasons. But the underlying principal is that they are defending their people.

Thats consequence, and unforseen. What I'm asking about is the initial initiative. I am going to an army recruitment center to sign up. I know at some point this will involve me with gun ot trigger button in hand and dead person at another. I choose to do this. Why?

 

[spidergoat]

Why not? It can be personally rewarding to be in a position of power, to feel you are doing something important that most people wouldn't want to do. Being a warrior is part of human (male) nature, those without it didn't survive as much to breed, it's an evolved trait.