Do you think the doctor is guilty too ?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
so now I talk about A, you're just going to sing the direct opposite tune right ? .... this is getting cute ... but it shows how juvenile you are ... trying to do this out of spite, eh ? ...
if you know how to read at all ... i did mention that transplants requires approval from an ethics committee .... so the ethics commitee would simply take the declarations of a chinese tycoon in singapore and an indonesian peasant farmer that they are relatives by blood or marriage and just rubber stamp things ? ... a doctor is not a vehicle mechanic, they are professionals who are required to uphold a higher set of ethics and standards .... in any case, the mechanic example is quite frankly, stupid, for you to compare buying a car, taking it to the mechanics, and to try and blame the mechanics after finding out it's stolen is like blaming the doctor who delivers your wife's baby after finding out that you're not the child's father .... a child would know to go and blame the fellow whom you've brought it from, no ? ..... but then again ....since it came from you, a fellow who blames the goverment for falling tree trunks and pricey ipods ... no wonder you'd go barking up the wrong tree ...
btw ... you know, if you knowingly handle stolen goods, or a bank knowingly launders dirty money, it's a crime too ....
Nobody is opposing you just for the sake of opposing, it's just that your logic is so warped, I can't help it, I like to rebut illogical.
So the doctor knows about the illegal transaction?
Your proof? Or is this all circumstantial again.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
So the doctor knows about the illegal transaction?
Your proof? Or is this all circumstantial again.
I wonder if i should give you a few minutes more for you to collect your thoughts ... i notices two things ... that you have a habit of editing your posts, to add a whole bunch of things afterwards ... I suppose you were pounding your keyboard in rage, so you just had to spit something out first ? ... another is that you like to play the gentlemen and the victim when you're at a loss for words, when the whole world can see you trying hard to give as good as you got ...
okie .. so now we have gotten the first part out of the way ... you now know that blaming the mechanic who services your car when you found out that the car you brought was stolen, was frankly, quite quite stupid ..... remember yah, in life, it's very important to bark up the right tree ...
next ... as i have mentioned ... surgeons transplanting organs is not like banks accepting a million dollars into a numbered account ... knowingly laundering dirty money is still a crime, and facilitating organ transplants would be a serious breech.
but of course ... there are statutory declarations that saved the doc's, the ass of the ethics committee ... and burnt the collective asses of the buyer, the seller, and the middle man .... but the fact is that, as we have seen .... organ trading DID take place, that's why we had these court cases in the first place .... and the operation would have taken place as scheduled if the case was not blown open, so the question here is this, is it within reason that the doctor and the ethics committee in this case, and in so many other cases, simply failed to notice anything out of the ordinary at all ... were the truly hoodwinked ... or they chose to close one eye ? ....
as for you, small boy, i'm surprised that you didn't try link this all the way to the goverment and the ruling party on this one ... i know you're really saying B just because i said A, but it's a refreshing change, really ...
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Nobody is opposing you just for the sake of opposing, it's just that your logic is so warped, I can't help it, I like to rebut illogical.
oh really ? ... i'm sorry, but it's only because i'm still so amused over your example, i have to bring it up again ....
i suppose you're the only one in the world who would blame the mechanic who services your car after you've found out your car's stolen ....
this is a real classic ... illogical ?... who, really ? ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
I wonder if i should give you a few minutes more for you to collect your thoughts ... i notices two things ... that you have a habit of editing your posts, to add a whole bunch of things afterwards ... I suppose you were pounding your keyboard in rage, so you just had to spit something out first ? ... another is that you like to play the gentlemen and the victim when you're at a loss for words, when the whole world can see you trying hard to give as good as you got ...
okie .. so now we have gotten the first part out of the way ... you now know that blaming the mechanic who services your car when you found out that the car you brought was stolen, was frankly, quite quite stupid ..... remember yah, in life, it's very important to bark up the right tree ...
next ... as i have mentioned ... surgeons transplanting organs is not like banks accepting a million dollars into a numbered account ... knowingly laundering dirty money is still a crime, and facilitating organ transplants would be a serious breech.
but of course ... there are statutory declarations that saved the doc's, the ass of the ethics committee ... and burnt the collective asses of the buyer, the seller, and the middle man .... but the fact is that, as we have seen .... organ trading DID take place, that's why we had these court cases in the first place .... and the operation would have taken place as scheduled if the case was not blown open, so the question here is this, is it within reason that the doctor and the ethics committee in this case, and in so many other cases, simply failed to notice anything out of the ordinary at all ... were the truly hoodwinked ... or they chose to close one eye ? ....
as for you, small boy, i'm surprised that you didn't try link this all the way to the goverment and the ruling party on this one ... i know you're really saying B just because i said A, but it's a refreshing change, really ...
I haven't a doubt that money laundering is a crime, I am not disputing that. A bank has the legal liability to find out the source of the funds if it looks dubious. But do doctors have a legal liability to do investigative work on patients? Please cite.
In case you don't know, criminal conspiracy and abetment are also crimes.
So where is your proof that the doctor is guilty or you suspect that he is guilty? If you have proof to it, suggest you do your part as a citizen and submit your evidence to the AG. Else, don't go around groping in the dark making nonsensical claims.
So doctors has to do investigative work as private investigator?
Is it part of the work of a doctor to do investigative work?
If you had read and understood the case, there was a transplant ethics committee doing the review to assess the legality.
Surgeons do what they are good at doing, that is performing surgery, imagine if a surgeon has to scrutinize every single case, to do investigative work. Maybe you are suggesting that surgeons employ private investigators to perform investigative work on the case?
If you want to accuse someone of something, have some evidence to support your claim, else you end up looking like CSJ yelling at GCK.
If you really don't have any proof, suggest you stop making wild accusations against doctors. If you have proof, please show it.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
oh really ? ... i'm sorry, but it's only because i'm still so amused over your example, i have to bring it up again ....
i suppose you're the only one in the world who would blame the mechanic who services your car after you've found out your car's stolen ....
this is a real classic ... illogical ?... who, really ? ...
You must have severe comprehension issues. Guess I have to hit the nail directly on the head, sarcasm exerts a certain amount of intellect from the subject. FYI, I was mocking your case about the doctor, like the mechanic in my case, ended up being responsible for something beyond his scope. Glad you find this analogy illogical, now apply it to your case.
My original post:
"Somebody buys a car, takes it to the mechanic for servicing, finally found out the car was stolen. Then mechanic liable?
" -
Originally posted by maurizio13: I haven't a doubt that money laundering is a crime, I am not disputing that. A bank has the legal liability to find out the source of the funds if it looks dubious. But do doctors have a legal liability to do investigative work on patients? Please cite.
In case you don't know, criminal conspiracy and abetment are also crimes.
So where is your proof that the doctor is guilty or you suspect that he is guilty? If you have proof to it, suggest you do your part as a citizen and submit your evidence to the AG. Else, don't go around groping in the dark making nonsensical claims.
So doctors has to do investigative work as private investigator?
Is it part of the work of a doctor to do investigative work?
If you had read and understood the case, there was a transplant ethics committee doing the review to assess the legality.
Surgeons do what they are good at doing, that is performing surgery, imagine if a surgeon has to scrutinize every single case, to do investigative work. Maybe you are suggesting that surgeons employ private investigators to perform investigative work on the case?
If you want to accuse someone of something, have some evidence to support your claim, else you end up looking like CSJ yelling at GCK.
If you really don't have any proof, suggest you stop making wild accusations against doctors. If you have proof, please show it.
else you end up looking like CSJ yelling at GCK. ....
wow ... do I see a tiger changing his stripes ? .... from someone who blames the goverment for all sorts of nonsensical things before ? ... who's been precisely doing the same thing over falling tree trunks and what not ? ...
okie ... this is very simple, really .... listen carefully now ...
like I said previously, the only thing that saved the asses of the doc, and the ethics committee ... are the declarations made by the buyer and the seller ...
but, as we have seen, organ trading DID take place, that's why all these court cases, no ? ....
now, we have someone found guilty of organ trading, and we have seen that there appears to be a veritable organ trading industry centered around singapore doctors in our neighbouring country .... obviously, the ethics committee has failed to catch all of these, regardless of whether the committee or the doctor was hoodwinked, or not ... and THAT, is what we should be looking into ....
a doctor is no mere technician, a doctor deals in human lives, by your logic, or rather, in your little universe, a doctor need not care who he's removing the organs from, so long as his ass is covered by that little piece of legal print and signatures that covers his ass from legal reprecussions, in this case, the donor was paid ... but HOTA and the ban on organ transplant was designed precisely to prevent exploitation of the poor and underprivileged, you read of those cases in india and bangladesh were people are kidnapped and drugged and wake up with a "U" shaped scar down one side of their torsos ? ... what if the donor was being blackmailed into donating his kidney, what if the donor was forced to donate under duress ? ... what if he was tricked ? .... but of course, in marizio's world, it doesn't matter ... the doctor's got his ass covered with the declaration, the ethics committee got his ass covered with the declaration, so fark the donors, who cares, they can't be blamed ....
in that case, I think the docs, and the people on the ethics committee, have not only failed in their profession, they have also failed as human beings in my books.
And for you to say that everything is fine and dandy, that there is nothing wrong, cos everything is "legal" (read: everyone's asses is legally covered) .... then, in addition to your outlook in life ... i have found one more thing to wonder about you ..... your personal code of morals and ethics ...
go chew over that slowly ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
else you end up looking like CSJ yelling at GCK. ....
wow ... do I see a tiger changing his stripes ? .... from someone who blames the goverment for all sorts of nonsensical things before ? ... who's been precisely doing the same thing over falling tree trunks and what not ? ...
okie ... this is very simple, really .... listen carefully now ...
like I said previously, the only thing that saved the asses of the doc, and the ethics committee ... are the declarations made by the buyer and the seller ...
but, as we have seen, organ trading DID take place, that's why all these court cases, no ? ....
now, we have someone found guilty of organ trading, and we have seen that there appears to be a veritable organ trading industry centered around singapore doctors in our neighbouring country .... obviously, the ethics committee has failed to catch all of these, regardless of whether the committee or the doctor was hoodwinked, or not ... and THAT, is what we should be looking into ....
a doctor is no mere technician, a doctor deals in human lives, by your logic, or rather, in your little universe, a doctor need not care who he's removing the organs from, so long as his ass is covered by that little piece of legal print and signatures that covers his ass from legal reprecussions, in this case, the donor was paid ... but HOTA and the ban on organ transplant was designed precisely to prevent exploitation of the poor and underprivileged, you read of those cases in india and bangladesh were people are kidnapped and drugged and wake up with a "U" shaped scar down one side of their torsos ? ... what if the donor was being blackmailed into donating his kidney, what if the donor was forced to donate under duress ? ... what if he was tricked ? .... but of course, in marizio's world, it doesn't matter ... the doctor's got his ass covered with the declaration, the ethics committee got his ass covered with the declaration, so fark the donors, who cares, they can't be blamed ....
in that case, I think the docs, and the people on the ethics committee, have not only failed in their profession, they have also failed as human beings in my books.
And for you to say that everything is fine and dandy, that there is nothing wrong, cos everything is "legal" (read: everyone's asses is legally covered) .... then, in addition to your outlook in life ... i have found one more thing to wonder about you ..... your personal code of morals and ethics ...
go chew over that slowly ...
Sighs. Your persistence is a result of your ego, which was based on a false premise and understanding.Go read all my posts for the answers. You can also re-read the newspaper articles again.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You must have severe comprehension issues. Guess I have to hit the nail directly on the
head, sarcasm exerts a certain amount of intellect from the
subject. FYI, I was mocking your case about the doctor, like the mechanic in my case, ended up being responsible for something beyond his scope. Glad you find this analogy illogical, now apply it to your case.
My original post:
"Somebody buys a car, takes it to the mechanic for servicing, finally found out the car was stolen. Then mechanic liable?
"your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
it's not the same as you, illegally buying an organ, and asking a doc to transplant it for you ... it's a bit subtle for you maybe ... but if you think hard, and slowly ... maybe you may even understand it ..
i enjoy seeing your shooting yourself in the foot ...
go on ... slap yourself somemore ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
it's not the same as you, illegally buying an organ, and asking a doc to transplant it for you ... it's a bit subtle for you maybe ... but if you think hard, and slowly ... maybe you may even understand it ..
i enjoy seeing your shooting yourself in the foot ...
go on ... slap yourself somemore ...
So you say the doctor knows that the organ was illegal. Assumptions assumptions.Proof? If you are a responsible citizen please write to the ST and AG to make the doctor pay for it.
-
Fatum,
So Fatum, what do you think should be done about these doctors?
I would like to hear your suggestions.
What should the process be if a patient and a donor decides to undergo an operation?
-
1) Did the doctor know that it was it was a "private" transaction to buy organs?
If he was, if there was evidence, then he would still be held accountable under the law.
2) Are doctors suppose to do private investigative work on patients?
I thought I already told you many times, there was an transplant ethics committee reviewing the case.
Sidetrack, sidetrack, sidetrack all my points.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Sighs. Your persistence is a result of your ego, which was based on a false premise and understanding.Go read all my posts for the answers. You can also re-read the newspaper articles again.
oh, really ? ... who really has the inflated ego here ? ... when you, still smarting from that other thread where you tried to blame the goverment for falling trees and pricey ipods, tried to be a spiteful little boy in this thread ? ...
at a loss for words now ? ... cos you were spitting out Bs just cos I was saying A ? ....
I was right about you ... you do like to play the victim when you are speechless ....
but I stand by what I said .....
I ask you again .... so to you, it's all about legalities and proofs ? ...
is this the kind of acceptable medical ethics standard to you ? ... that as long as everything is legal and in black and white, that the doc's ass, and the ethics committee's ass is legally covered, everything is fine ? ....
touch your heart and ask yourself, according to your PERSONAL moral and ethical code, would be it right ? .... or it really only matters to you that things are "legally right " ? ...
what's the use of that ethics committee then, pray tell ? ...
again, I shall say it ... I really wonder about your personal code of morals and ethics ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
oh, really ? ... who really has the inflated ego here ? ... when you, still smarting from that other thread where you tried to blame the goverment for falling trees and pricey ipods, tried to be a spiteful little boy in this thread ? ...
at a loss for words now ? ... cos you were spitting out Bs just cos I was saying A ? ....
I was right about you ... you do like to play the victim when you are speechless ....
but I stand by what I said .....
I ask you again .... so to you, it's all about legalities and proofs ? ...
is this the kind of acceptable medical ethics standard to you ? ... that as long as everything is legal and in black and white, that the doc's ass, and the ethics committee's ass is legally covered, everything is fine ? ....
touch your heart and ask yourself, according to your PERSONAL moral and ethical code, would be it right ? .... or it really only matters to you that things are "legally right " ? ...
what's the use of that ethics committee then, pray tell ? ...
again, I shall say it ... I really wonder about your personal code of morals and ethics ....
OK.
I forgot, you don't need proof in this country to prosecute any commoner. You stand convicted of the crime till proven innocent.
If you feel so strong about it, suggest you write in to the ST Forums and ask that the surgeon be prosecuted too.
So your solution to the problem is?
-
Wow, now i see the real power of money. Money dont just make to world go round...it even do more...
-
Originally posted by Chunseah:
Wow, now i see the real power of money. Money dont just make to world go round...it even do more...
有钱能使鬼推墨 -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
OK.
So your solution to the problem is?
that the doctors involved, and the role and actions of the ethics committee, should be reviewed again of course .... duh .....
I think it's a sad sad world we live in if we become a society that adheres to your moral and ethical standards .... that everything is "okie" as long as it's legally covered in black and white ? ... morals and ethics be dammed ? ...
seriously ... do you really believe in that ? ... do you want to live in such a society ? .... or you came to that position really because you were just being a sore, spiteful and petulant kid ? ...
or maybe it's hard for you to understand, since you implied in that other thread that you were quite rich, and stated that you need not work for several lifetimes ...
有钱能使鬼推墨 indeed, did that come from your arrogance or what ? ....
well ... mr "rich boy" ... as we have seen in this case, it doesn't always work out that way ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
that the doctors involved, and the role and actions of the ethics committee, should be reviewed again of course .... duh .....
I think it's a sad sad world we live in if we become a society that adheres to your moral and ethical standards .... that everything is "okie" as long as it's legally covered in black and white ? ... morals and ethics be dammed ? ...
seriously ... do you really believe in that ? ... do you want to live in such a society ? .... or you came to that position really because you were just being a sore, spiteful and petulant kid ? ...
or maybe it's hard for you to understand, since you implied in that other thread that you were quite rich, and stated that you need not work for several lifetimes ...
有钱能使鬼推墨 indeed, did that come from your arrogance or what ? ....
well ... mr "rich boy" ... as we have seen in this case, it doesn't always work out that way ....
So.....what's your solution; or have you caught the complain bug with no proof and no solution.
Please continue complaining and making unsubstantiated insults.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
So.....what's your solution; or have you caught the complain bug with no proof and no solution.
Please continue complaining and making unsubstantiated insults.
the third thing I noticed about you is that you have comprehension problems .... refer to paragraph one of my post, that the doctor involved should be questioned again, and the actions and roles of the ethics committee should be subjected to review .....
the person who really complains and bitch and whine really, is you ... I still can't get over your double classic, and I get tickled whenever I think about it ... the time when you tried to blame the goverment for the price of ipods and tree branches falling on trees .....
and in addition to your outlook in life ... I also found out that your set of morals and ethical standards stops short at the legalities of any matters .....
rich boy petulance perhaps ? ... maybe that's why you fail to find it disturbing that doctors could have performed many organ transplants on donors who were really sellers, and that the ethics committee cleared so many such cases for transplant, until this case blew over .... and you think that it matters not a hoot at all, cos everything was covered by black and white ? ....
do you really meant to say that you failed to see that the ethics committee has failed in it's job ..... or that in your book of morals and ethics, it doesn't really matter ? ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
the third thing I noticed about you is that you have comprehension problems .... refer to paragraph one of my post, that the doctor involved should be questioned again, and the actions and roles of the ethics committee should be subjected to review .....
the person who really complains and bitch and whine really, is you ... I still can't get over your double classic, and I get tickled whenever I think about it ... the time when you tried to blame the goverment for the price of ipods and tree branches falling on trees .....
and in addition to your outlook in life ... I also found out that your set of morals and ethical standards stops short at the legalities of any matters .....
rich boy petulance perhaps ? ... maybe that's why you fail to find it disturbing that doctors could have performed many organ transplants on donors who were really sellers, and that the ethics committee cleared so many such cases for transplant, until this case blew over .... and you think that it matters not a hoot at all, cos everything was covered by black and white ? ....
do you really meant to say that you failed to see that the ethics committee has failed in it's job ..... or that in your book of morals and ethics, it doesn't really matter ? ....
Maybe you should write in to them?I can't help it if you can't understand the law of tort. Suggest you consult a lawyer. I can't teach you anything with your limited comprehension ability.
9. The expanding duty of care. When establishing liability for damage caused by trees, ownership is a starting point but not the end of the inquiry. Other potentially responsible parties include those who possess the land on which the trees grow or exercise control over the trees. For example, maintaining trees, even if they are not yours, may be sufficient to give rise to a duty of care to others.
The landmark case of Husovsky v U.S. (DDC 1978) 590 F2d 944 involved a motorist who was badly hurt when a tree limb, weighing nearly ten tons, fell onto his car. The tree was located on embassy land in Washington, D.C., owned by the government of India, and subject to an agreement that amounted to an easement for the benefit of the United States. The land was controlled and maintained by the federal government, and was indistinguishable from the contiguous national park. The road through the park was jointly maintained by the District of Columbia and the National Park Service. The court found that the United States, whose duty it was to maintain and service the park, owed a duty of reasonable care to avert hazards that could be dangerous to passing motorists.
http://www.asca-consultants.org/news_ascanews_03.html
NB: Since when I said "tree branches falling on trees"? Was that an error or you begining to morph into Gazelle?
Till now you still failed to grasp my idea of ipod price with inflation. You have missed the forest for the trees.
If it makes you any happier, I don't own an ipod and I have no desire to own one.So, me by defending the doctor based on your conjectures is immoral? Seriously, if you feel so moral and just, write in to ST Forums or the AG chambers and get them to question the doctor. What good be a moral man if he does not put his ideals to task?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Maybe you should write in to them?I can't help it if you can't understand the law of tort. Suggest you consult a lawyer. I can't teach you anything with your limited comprehension ability.
9. The expanding duty of care. When establishing liability for damage caused by trees, ownership is a starting point but not the end of the inquiry. Other potentially responsible parties include those who possess the land on which the trees grow or exercise control over the trees. For example, maintaining trees, even if they are not yours, may be sufficient to give rise to a duty of care to others.
The landmark case of Husovsky v U.S. (DDC 1978) 590 F2d 944 involved a motorist who was badly hurt when a tree limb, weighing nearly ten tons, fell onto his car. The tree was located on embassy land in Washington, D.C., owned by the government of India, and subject to an agreement that amounted to an easement for the benefit of the United States. The land was controlled and maintained by the federal government, and was indistinguishable from the contiguous national park. The road through the park was jointly maintained by the District of Columbia and the National Park Service. The court found that the United States, whose duty it was to maintain and service the park, owed a duty of reasonable care to avert hazards that could be dangerous to passing motorists.
and yet again, you show to the world just what your moral and ethical standards lie .... or perhaps you are naive enough to think that all laws, or rather judgements, are correct and certainly not stupid ? ....
it reminds me of the case where the burglar successfully sued a home owner when the house he was robbing had rotten beams in the ceiling, and he fell and hurt himself as a result ..... sure, a good lawyer got the burglar a tidy sum of compensation, but I would certainly wonder what kind of a man are you if you think that this is the right judgement .....
thank god we are not those countries ....
but of course ... perhaps you think hiding behind stupid judgements absolves you of the onus of thinking critically for yourself ? .....
or, yet again, you were choosing to hide behind legal black and white to suit your purposes ... in the trees case, blaming the goverment yet again, and in this case, because you just had to say B because i said A ? ....
let's come back to this case again, the same question, yet again, do you not see or feel anything wrong, that doctors have been transplanting organs from poor, third world sellers to rich buyers in singapore, and that the ethics committee has happily cleared all of them .... with no noise at all, till this case blew up ? ....
can you seriously say that you still feel nothing is wrong, that the ethics committee has not failed in it's job, because everything is "legally covered" ? ...
same statement again, I question your personal set of morals and ethics ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
and yet again, you show to the world just what your moral and ethical standards lie .... or perhaps you are naive enough to think that all laws, or rather judgements, are correct and certainly stupid ? ....
it reminds me of the case where the burglar successfully sued a home owner when the house he was robbing had rotten beams in the ceiling, and he fell and hurt himself as a result ..... sure, a good lawyer got the burglar a tidy sum of compensation, but I would certainly wonder what kind of a man are you if you think that this is the right judgement .....
thank god we are not those countries ....
but of course ... perhaps you think hiding behind stupid judgements absolves you of the onus of thinking critically for yourself ? .....
or, yet again, you were choosing to hide behind legal black and white to suit your purposes ... in the trees case, blaming the goverment yet again, and in this case, because you just had to say B because i said A ? ....
let's come back to this case again, the same question, yet again, do you not see or feel anything wrong, that doctors have been transplanting organs from poor, third world sellers to rich buyers in singapore, and that the ethics committee has happily cleared all of them .... with no noise at all, till this case blew up ? ....
can you seriously say that you still feel nothing is wrong, that the ethics committee has not failed in it's job, because everything is "legally covered" ? ...
same statement again, I question your personal set of morals and ethics ...
Maybe you should be on the chair of the transplant ethics committee.
Please quote.
What is it that I said that made me immoral and unethical?
You building all your case on conjectures?
Maybe the doctor was wrong in not employing a private investigator to check on his patients.
Maybe the patient told the surgeon that he was illegally buying organs from a third world country. But if no such evidence exist, I don't see why anybody should based his accusation on hypotheticals, then persist in concluding that the doctor is just as guilty.
Like I said, if you bought a car from a thief, bring it for servicing by a mechanic. If it was later found out the car was stolen. How can the mechanic be guilty of the crime? The mechanic was not privy to the illegal contract made between you and the thief, he was merely doing his job in servicing the car.
You are delusional to think that the ethics committee if they persist in questioning the doctor, they will miraculously find evidence to incriminate him. The doctor will self incriminate himself.
-
Fatum,
So who are you blaming now? The transplant ethics committee or the government?
I like to quote what was propounded by hypocrites in earlier post, not that I was sore.
Words of wisdom from Fatum:
"I think it really boils down to your attitude ... stop blaming others and circumstances, and strive more for yourself, you'd be a happier person ...."
"back to the same advice for you boy ... don't blame your surroundings for your circumstances, including the goverment, you try to blame them for expensive ipods today, you'd blame them for rain tomorrow, or you not being able to find a girlfriend a few years down the line ? ... trying to prove the link won't make you any more cleverer, not with google and wiki around, but it does reflects a lot on your attitude towards life ....
you want something, a better life for yourself, you work for it, don't ack too much about how the grass is greener on the other side and how your path could have been paved better for you ...."
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
it's not the same as you, illegally buying an organ, and asking a doc to transplant it for you ... it's a bit subtle for you maybe ... but if you think hard, and slowly ... maybe you may even understand it ..
i enjoy seeing your shooting yourself in the foot ...
go on ... slap yourself somemore ...
So the final question here is still.Do you have evidence that the doctor knows the organ was illegally obtained?
It he doesn't know it is still the same situation as the car mechanic servicing a car brought in by customer. If the mechanic knows it was a stolen car, it could be criminal conspiracy or abetment.
Using illegitimate child as an example is poor understanding of issues. An illegitimate child is not a criminal offence punishable under Singapore laws, stealing a car is a criminal offence. So, don't mix up the two issues in your puny head.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Maybe you should be on the chair of the transplant ethics committee.
Please quote.
What is it that I said that made me immoral and unethical?
You building all your case on conjectures?
Maybe the doctor was wrong in not employing a private investigator to check on his patients.
Maybe the patient told the surgeon that he was illegally buying organs from a third world country. But if no such evidence exist, I don't see why anybody should based his accusation on hypotheticals, then persist in concluding that the doctor is just as guilty.
Like I said, if you bought a car from a thief, bring it for servicing by a mechanic. If it was later found out the car was stolen. How can the mechanic be guilty of the crime? The mechanic was not privy to the illegal contract made between you and the thief, he was merely doing his job in servicing the car.
You are delusional to think that the ethics committee if they persist in questioning the doctor, they will miraculously find evidence to incriminate him. The doctor will self incriminate himself.
the basis of law is the moral and ethical values of a society ... it is designed to preserve and protect these values in a society ... in this case, organ trading is banned to prevent exploitation of the poor, and the underprivileged for their organs (perhaps it's something you, a self-professed wealthy boy, would have trouble understanding ? ) ....
like the scenario I listed out to you ... what if the "donor" was forced to donate under duress ? ... what if he was blackmailed to donate ? ... what if he's selling his organs for a pittance while the doc and the middlemen reaps the big bucks from the buyer ? ... the ethics committee was set up to make sure that this organ trading ban was not flouted ..... and, as we have seen, it has been repeatedly flouted till these recent cases blew everything out into the open ....
so what has the ethics committee been doing ? ... obviously, they have been failing in their jobs, no ? ...
now the doctor next ... I cannot help if you cannot see the stupidity of your mechanic analogy ... so I shall reproduce wholesale what I've written previously ... hopefully, you do better with route learning
your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
I feel sad for you if you can't see the difference ... but anyhow ... to paraphrase gasband ... sure, the doc's got a piece of legal black and white declaring that the "donor" and the "buyer" are related, even if one man's a yellow skinned rich singaporean chinese and the other's a brown skinned indonesian peasant with a name like sulaiman .... his ass is covered .....
of course, you're right in that the doctor need not go out of the way to make sure everything is ship shaped .... but look at the description above ... can the doctor plead innocence in such circumstances ? ....
touch your head and tell me, if it's wilfully turning a blind eye to a blatant breech of the law or not ? ...
of course ... legally, the doc's done nothing wrong ....
and you're not wrong, per se, to say that the doc's, and the ethics committee, have done anything illegal ....
but, here's where i question your values and ethics .... for it appears to me, that the only standard of proof, to you, is that little piece of legal black and white signed by the buyer and seller that they are related, nothing else is required ....
do you not care that some poor, wretched third world peasant may be exploited by the middle men, with the connivance of certain doctors, and the medical ethics committee that's supposed to catch all of this has been failing all this while till these recent cases blew wide open ? ....
so to you, nothing is wrong, nothing needs fixing ... because everything is "alright", "legally" .... aren't you not twisting the words of the law and hiding behind it for your convenience then ? ....
perhaps it's not a troubling thought to you, and it does not offend your personal sense of right and wrong, morals, propriety ... because, like you said before ... you are well off enough not to work for several life times ? ....
I find it amazing that you can think nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be looked into, and that a legal document would absolve any parties of any connivance against the law ... either you're trying to argue B just because I said A, or your personal set of values need some serious examining ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
the basis of law is the moral and ethical values of a society ... it is designed to preserve and protect these values in a society ... in this case, organ trading is banned to prevent exploitation of the poor, and the underprivileged for their organs (perhaps it's something you, a self-professed wealthy boy, would have trouble understanding ? ) ....
like the scenario I listed out to you ... what if the "donor" was forced to donate under duress ? ... what if he was blackmailed to donate ? ... what if he's selling his organs for a pittance while the doc and the middlemen reaps the big bucks from the buyer ? ... the ethics committee was set up to make sure that this organ trading ban was not flouted ..... and, as we have seen, it has been repeatedly flouted till these recent cases blew everything out into the open ....
so what has the ethics committee been doing ? ... obviously, they have been failing in their jobs, no ? ...
now the doctor next ... I cannot help if you cannot see the stupidity of your mechanic analogy ... so I shall reproduce wholesale what I've written previously ... hopefully, you do better with route learning
your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
I feel sad for you if you can't see the difference ... but anyhow ... to paraphrase gasband ... sure, the doc's got a piece of legal black and white declaring that the "donor" and the "buyer" are related, even if one man's a yellow skinned rich singaporean chinese and the other's a brown skinned indonesian peasant with a name like sulaiman .... his ass is covered .....
of course, you're right in that the doctor need not go out of the way to make sure everything is ship shaped .... but look at the description above ... can the doctor plead innocence in such circumstances ? ....
touch your head and tell me, if it's wilfully turning a blind eye to a blatant breech of the law or not ? ...
of course ... legally, the doc's done nothing wrong ....
and you're not wrong, per se, to say that the doc's, and the ethics committee, have done anything illegal ....
but, here's where i question your values and ethics .... for it appears to me, that the only standard of proof, to you, is that little piece of legal black and white signed by the buyer and seller that they are related, nothing else is required ....
do you not care that some poor, wretched third world peasant may be exploited by the middle men, with the connivance of certain doctors, and the medical ethics committee that's supposed to catch all of this has been failing all this while till these recent cases blew wide open ? ....
so to you, nothing is wrong, nothing needs fixing ... because everything is "alright", "legally" .... aren't you not twisting the words of the law and hiding behind it for your convenience then ? ....
perhaps it's not a troubling thought to you, and it does not offend your personal sense of right and wrong, morals, propriety ... because, like you said before ... you are well off enough not to work for several life times ? ....
I find it amazing that you can think nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be looked into, and that a legal document would absolve any parties of any connivance against the law ... either you're trying to argue B just because I said A, or your personal set of values need some serious examining ...
Babe,I asked you so many a times already. I am getting tired repeating myself over and over again.
Do you have evidence to proof that the doctor has knowledge that it was illegal?
Or you suggesting that we hang all criminals based on circumstantial evidence and guesses.