Current Events > Anti-Vaxxers, Anti-Maskers. Should DRs+RNs be forced to wear masks for surgery?

(+) Yeah! (+)

lydiaquayle posted...

I would inform them and have them sign a consent form admitting that their stance violates basic medical sanitization standards.

TheOtherMike posted...

should they be turned away? Yes or no.

Just answer the question.

bbt this isn't 261 there arent any actual hardline conservatives on this board that do this bit

these people are irredeemably stupid...

how about we take all these moronic shit for brains anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers and just send them to an island where they can catch as many diseases as they wish since they wanna get sick so badly. lets indulge them that way so that normal people can live peacefully without having to deal with these fucking lunatics.

TC mustve just finished watching The Pitt

CreekCo posted...

That makes zero sense. You do realize the two vectors for measles are the ultra rich people who can afford to but dont (stateside) and the ultra poor (transitional migrants across international borders) who cant afford anything and are the most vulnerable.

Life is rarely as simple as we would like it to be and rules arent really going to keep you safe as there are none.

For the sake of clarity, this poster is an antivaxxer.

CreekCo posted...

So you would deny service to those without access to these vaccines?

re-read the topic. This is about people who had access to vaccines and refused (anti-vaxxers)

DrizztLink posted...

For the sake of clarity, this poster is an antivaxxer.

Youre really close to getting blocked. You say this same stupid stuff irregardless of context or content and its really not true either. Ive probably taken over twenty over the years. Its actually harassment to follow and lie on someone repeatedly after youve been asked to stop with the unwanted attention/behavior. Just block me.

@Rika Those arent necessarily the people who would be hurt by this sort of policy. Laws are made to protect all because of unintended consequences and good ones lean toward doubt. I actually got contacted by someone whos life is about to be adversely affected by the new policies being enacted stateside and they need help.

You should almost NEVER under any circumstances refuse treatment to a patient especially if there is a treatment that can be given and no barrier to providing it. Thats a basic tenant of healthcare.

CreekCo posted...

Youre really close to getting blocked. You say this same stupid stuff irregardless of context or content and its really not true either.

Oh no. Not that.

And:

1. It is indeed true and you know it, which is why you never actually deny it
2. Irregardless isn't a word

Ill help you out.

The issue is that by tolerating these anti-science people, they are endangering society. It should be a basic tenant of the healthcare system to help the most amount of people in the best way possible, and tolerating people who want to spread deadly disease achieves the opposite of that goal. It could be made a requirement that in order to receive other forms of healthcare they need to receive their vaccines first if they are medically eligible

Science doesnt get people sick. Diseases do. We should heal everyone we can NOT just people we agree with. You can talk with them later. I did read the topic but you ignored what I said. Diseases actually have pathology thats actual science, not technoreligion.

Theres two vectors (where this comes from) for measles. This is not from general population. General population is already vaccinated and you basically cant even contract this depending on when. The problem is RICH PEOPLE who answer to no one and POOR, DISPLACED people who have no home from other countries without our health care system and who cannot receive treatment here easily for fear of deportation. So making a mean natured law will hurt those it is supposed to help. If you mandate this, they are getting deported. The rich people will just ignore you anyways.

So we need other solutions but ones that come from a loving place not trying to use this bad situation to enforce or promote political agendas. Peoples lives are at stake.

As long as Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers are fine with doctors and nurses suffering with colds and fevers, sneezing and coughing in their wounds, not washing their hands with sanitizing cleansers, then I have no problem.

CreekCo posted...

So we need other solutions but ones that come from a loving place not trying to use this bad situation to enforce or promote political agendas.

Funny how Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers made it a political agenda by denying basic medical standards.

lydiaquayle posted...

As long as Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers are fine with doctors and nurses suffering with colds and fevers, sneezing and coughing in their wounds, not washing their hands with sanitizing cleansers, then I have no problem.

Why would a medical professional act in such an absurd way? It goes against everything they are taught. 'First do no harm' is the basic principle of healthcare. You know they are guided by their own ethics code, don't you?

Nurses sneezing into wounds? This is some of the worst drivel I've seen on these boards. Listen to yourself. It's embarrassing.

Quite a few Trump slurpers showed up in this topic. It's not really too hard to figure out which ones they are, (I mean, even beyond the fact that I have them tagged).

CreekCo posted...

Science doesnt get people sick. Diseases do. We should heal everyone we can NOT just people we agree with. You can talk with them later. I did read the topic but you ignored what I said. Diseases actually have pathology thats actual science, not technoreligion.

Theres two vectors (where this comes from) for measles. This is not from general population. General population is already vaccinated and you basically cant even contract this depending on when. The problem is RICH PEOPLE who answer to no one and POOR, DISPLACED people who have no home from other countries without our health care system and who cannot receive treatment here easily for fear of deportation. So making a mean natured law will hurt those it is supposed to help. If you mandate this, they are getting deported. The rich people will just ignore you anyways.

So we need other solutions but ones that come from a loving place not trying to use this bad situation to enforce or promote political agendas. Peoples lives are at stake.

Why are you placing a higher value on the life of an anti-vaxxer (one refusing treatment) vs someone who is following all their medical guidance to the best of the ability? One is maliciously putting society at risk and creating more victims, where is your compassion for those people?

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

Quite a few Trump slurpers showed up in this topic. It's not really too hard to figure out which ones they are, (I mean, even beyond the fact that I have them tagged).

If I'm going to be called a Trumper for supporting the principle of Universal Healthcare, it will be a moment I shall treasure.

You cannot buy that kind of ironic absurdity.

ai123 posted...

If I'm going to be called a Trumper for supporting the principle of Universal Healthcare, it will be a moment I shall treasure.

You cannot buy that kind of ironic absurdity.

are you saying that people should not be allowed to refuse universal healthcare? Which is what they did as anti-vaxxers

ai123 posted...

If I'm going to be called a Trumper for supporting the principle of Universal Healthcare, it will be a moment I shall treasure.

You cannot buy that kind of ironic absurdity.

Why did you assume I was talking about you?
*SPOILERS* I wasn't.

In other news, I am still not Blocked.

Rika_Furude posted...

are you saying that people should not be allowed to refuse universal healthcare?

Where do you think I said that people are not allowed to refuse healthcare?

It's called 'universal' because it is available to everyone. Not because everyone is obliged to consent to every possible treatment.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

Why did you assume I was talking about you?
*SPOILERS* I wasn't.

Hope more than expectation. I know you are a better poster than that (can't say the same for everyone in the thread).

You must admit, it would be deliciously ironic if I were.

ai123 posted...

You must admit, it would be deliciously ironic if I were.

True slurpers could never grasp that level of subtlety, they're extra obvious.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

True slurpers could never grasp that level of subtlety, they're extra obvious.

Yep.

Universal healthcare means healthcare for all who need and consent to it. No one is denied treatment because they are too poor, or because others are seen as 'worth more', or because their behaviour must be punished or 'corrected' (which is what Republicans are doing when they deny healthcare to trans people and women seeking an abortion). I would have thought this was basic, foundational stuff for people on the left.

But somehow we have ended up with the surreal image of nurses sneezing into the wounds of people who don't believe in hygiene. The internet is a very strange place at times.

ai123 posted...

Why would a medical professional act in such an absurd way? It goes against everything they are taught. 'First do no harm' is the basic principle of healthcare. You know they are guided by their own ethics code, don't you?

According to Anti-Vaccers, and Anti-Maskers, such germs and viruses are harmless, and are preferred, over having to abide by basic sanitizing procedures.

Rika_Furude posted...

Why are you placing a higher value on the life of an anti-vaxxer (one refusing treatment) vs someone who is following all their medical guidance to the best of the ability? One is maliciously putting society at risk and creating more victims, where is your compassion for those people?

All life is precious, Rika. Full stop. There are no qualifiers to this statement.

ai123 posted...

You know they are guided by their own ethics code, don't you?

According to Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers, there is no harm in not practicing basic sanitizing procedures.

lydiaquayle posted...

According to Anti-Vaccers, and Anti-Maskers, such germs and viruses are harmless, and are preferred, over having to abide by basic sanitizing procedures.

So a nurse should ditch their training, professional standards, and ethics, adopt the beliefs of these people, and sneeze right into those wounds!

Listen. To. Yourself.

lydiaquayle posted...

According to Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers, there is no harm in not practicing basic sanitizing procedures.

I dont think your heart is really 100% into what youre saying but I realize that its hard sometimes to admit common ground on issues especially on CE.

CreekCo posted...

I dont think your heart is really 100% into what youre saying but I realize that its hard sometimes to admit common ground on issues especially on CE.

I am only abiding by the principles and consequences of the Anti-Vaccer / Anti-Masker ideology. After all, I only wish to serve what they actually want.

ai123 posted...

Where do you think I said that people are not allowed to refuse healthcare?

It's called 'universal' because it is available to everyone. Not because everyone is obliged to consent to every possible treatment.

So should treatment not be prioritised to those who have a higher chance of accepting it? Why waste resources on people who have a proven track record for refusing treatment when there are people in the queue waiting to accept treatment?

Those two things are not mutually inclusive, ya know. Just pointing that out. (Masks and such)

CreekCo posted...

All life is precious, Rika. Full stop. There are no qualifiers to this statement.

You didnt answer the question.

Rika_Furude posted...

You didnt answer the question.

He also never actually addressed the accusation, so there's a pretty obvious reason why.

Rika_Furude posted...

You didnt answer the question.

I respect your opinions.

Hospital Transplant Committees are constantly having to decide whether a liver should go to a healthy young teenager who happened to have an accident, or a 55 year old alcoholic who still refuses to go sober. Those things aren't first-come / first-served. Hospitals and providers are always having to triage and make decisions on who 'deserves' it more -- whether they admit to it or not.

lydiaquayle posted...

Hospital Transplant Committees are constantly having to decide whether a liver should go to a healthy young teenager who happened to have an accident, or a 55 year old alcoholic who still refuses to go sober. Those things aren't first-come / first-served. Hospitals and providers are always having to triage and make decisions on who 'deserves' it more -- whether they admit to it or not.

It's literally the definition of triage.

CreekCo posted...

I respect your opinions.

i want you to directly quote and answer the questions I asked.

lydiaquayle posted...

According to Anti-Vaccers, and Anti-Maskers, such germs and viruses are harmless, and are preferred, over having to abide by basic sanitizing procedures.

Medical professionals know better, so this modest proposal would have them violate every tenet of their profession to try to kill antivax dipshits.

Rika_Furude posted...

So should treatment not be prioritised to those who have a higher chance of accepting it? Why waste resources on people who have a proven track record for refusing treatment when there are people in the queue waiting to accept treatment?

Treatment should be offered on the basis of need.

If someone is in a queue a healthcare centre, it is reasonable to assume that they are seeking treatment.

ai123 posted...

Treatment should be offered on the basis of need.

If someone is in a queue a healthcare centre, it is reasonable to assume that they are seeking treatment.

If they arent engaging with the healthcare treatment in good faith, people who are engaging in good faith should be prioritised

Rika_Furude posted...

i want you to directly quote and answer the questions I asked.

I did. Its ok to agree to disagree. There is nothing you can say that can cause me to believe in any excuse to devalue to degrade human life. I feel the same way about personal freedoms. History teaches us things the internet causes us to feel comfortable ignoring.

Rika_Furude posted...

If they arent engaging with the healthcare treatment in good faith, people who are engaging in good faith should be prioritised

What does 'bad faith' mean in this context?

They won't engage in good faith with having a broken bone set? Or a wound stitched? Or they'll have bad faith chemotherapy, perhaps?

CreekCo posted...

I did. Its ok to agree to disagree. There is nothing you can say that can cause me to believe in any excuse to devalue to degrade human life. I feel the same way about personal freedoms. History teaches us things the internet causes us to feel comfortable ignoring.

So yeah, antivaxxer.

CreekCo posted...

I did. Its ok to agree to disagree. There is nothing you can say that can cause me to believe in any excuse to devalue to degrade human life. I feel the same way about personal freedoms. History teaches us things the internet causes us to feel comfortable ignoring.

You didnt clarify why you prioritise the health of anti-vaxxers to a higher degree than you do that of people who engage in the healthcare system in good faith

ai123 posted...

What does 'bad faith' mean in this context?

rejecting medical advice, treatment, prevention etc recommended by healthcare professionals/the healthcare system, without a valid reason to decline

if two people are seeking treatment, but one has a proven track record of rejecting medical advice and the other does not, one of those people is acting in more bad faith in the context of the healthcare system

Rika_Furude posted...

rejecting medical advice, treatment, prevention etc recommended by healthcare professionals/the healthcare system, without a valid reason to decline

if two people are seeking treatment, but one has a proven track record of rejecting medical advice and the other does not, one of those people is acting in more bad faith in the context of the healthcare system

I think there has to be a distinction between intrinsically limited health care resources (e.g., organs for transplant) and stuff that is not limited that way (e.g., setting broken bones, treating infections).

For the limited resources, it absolutely makes sense to judge equally needy patients on criteria like expected compliance, attitude, etc. E.g., it would be stupid to give a liver transplant to someone in liver failure because of their drinking when they have no credible intention of changing their ways.

But most health care is not like that, and for those treatments it would be awful to get judgmental about the patients' lifestyles, such as no antiviral treatment for an antivaxxer, no bone setting for someone that rode a motorcycle without a helmet, etc.

Rika_Furude posted...

rejecting medical advice, treatment, prevention etc recommended by healthcare professionals/the healthcare system, without a valid reason to decline

if two people are seeking treatment, but one has a proven track record of rejecting medical advice and the other does not, one of those people is acting in more bad faith in the context of the healthcare system

Doesn't matter. Non-compliance is a huge problem in healthcare, and it isn't at all limited to anti vaxxers. You not going to treat that guy who is bad at taking his meds either?

My answer will always be that people should be treated, free of charge at the point of service, on the basis of need, with their consent, to the best ability to the healthcare professional. No matter what they believe, no matter how stupid they are, no matter how difficult it is, no matter how much money they have, no matter how undesirable you think they are, no matter how much they will cooperate.

Because that is what Universal Healthcare is.

ai123 posted...

Doesn't matter. Non-compliance is a huge problem in healthcare, and it isn't at all limited to anti vaxxers. You not going to treat that guy who is bad at taking his meds either?

My answer will always be that people should be treated, free of charge at the point of service, on the basis of need, with their consent, to the best ability to the healthcare professional. No matter what they believe, no matter how stupid they are, no matter how difficult it is, no matter how much money they have, no matter how undesirable you think they are, no matter how much they will cooperate.

Because that is what Universal Healthcare is.

"With their consent." That we agree on.