Cutting off your finger - Page 2

vhawk01 · #11 04-10-2007, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think the hospital could be sued. I liked your original idea. Sew the finger back on and put some type of temporary contraption on his hand that prevents him from doing it again while he undergoes psychiatric treatment. Then, if he does it again, I guess there's not much you can do and the finger stays off.

The key (for me), is that he wasn't in the right state of mind to have made that decision for himself. Since it's a first time deal, I think they should've sewed it back on. I understand not doing so a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hospitals agree with your reasoning exactly. They just set the cutoff one re-attachment earlier.

Lestat · #12 04-10-2007, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think the hospital could be sued. I liked your original idea. Sew the finger back on and put some type of temporary contraption on his hand that prevents him from doing it again while he undergoes psychiatric treatment. Then, if he does it again, I guess there's not much you can do and the finger stays off.

The key (for me), is that he wasn't in the right state of mind to have made that decision for himself. Since it's a first time deal, I think they should've sewed it back on. I understand not doing so a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hospitals agree with your reasoning exactly. They just set the cutoff one re-attachment earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't think it's the same reasoning, because they set the cutoff at zero chances for the vicitim to have made a mistake. I'm saying the number should be something higher than zero.

vhawk01 · #13 04-10-2007, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think the hospital could be sued. I liked your original idea. Sew the finger back on and put some type of temporary contraption on his hand that prevents him from doing it again while he undergoes psychiatric treatment. Then, if he does it again, I guess there's not much you can do and the finger stays off.

The key (for me), is that he wasn't in the right state of mind to have made that decision for himself. Since it's a first time deal, I think they should've sewed it back on. I understand not doing so a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hospitals agree with your reasoning exactly. They just set the cutoff one re-attachment earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't think it's the same reasoning, because they set the cutoff at zero chances for the vicitim to have made a mistake. I'm saying the number should be something higher than zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the same reasoning. Nothing special about one mistake, two mistakes, or ten mistakes. Its not the mistakes made that bother them, its the likelihood of future ones. How much more likely is the third after the second? How about the second after the first? They think both numbers are high enough, you think only the first one is, but the reasoning is the same.

chezlaw · #14 04-10-2007, 04:47 PM

Yeah lie through your teeth. We have an ethical duty to undermine stupid authorities.

chez

vhawk01 · #15 04-10-2007, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah lie through your teeth. We have an ethical duty to undermine stupid authorities.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with Kant on this one, so don't come to me expecting me to fudge your chart to get insurance to cover it.

chezlaw · #16 04-10-2007, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah lie through your teeth. We have an ethical duty to undermine stupid authorities.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with Kant on this one, so don't come to me expecting me to fudge your chart to get insurance to cover it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm kinda with kant on this as well. Hence the ethical duty bit.

but I was talking from the perspective of a national health system. I wouldn't advocate defauding an insurance company but I would happily (and believe ethically) lie to them in the way I did to that printer manufacturer.

chez

Lestat · #17 04-10-2007, 05:21 PM

Ok, maybe I'm being really nitty here, but I think there is a big difference between zero and anything that is not zero.

Before you chop off a finger for the first time, you don't know what it's like to have chopped off a finger. So this (in my mind), is very different from doing it a second time when you know full well what it's like. If fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a completely different situation.

So I still say allow for at least once chance (which is very different than zero chance), that the victim will be mortified with his decision. After that, I agree with the hospital.

vhawk01 · #18 04-10-2007, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, maybe I'm being really nitty here, but I think there is a big difference between zero and anything that is not zero.

Before you chop off a finger for the first time, you don't know what it's like to have chopped off a finger. So this (in my mind), is very different from doing it a second time when you know full well what it's like. If fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a completely different situation.

So I still say allow for at least once chance (which is very different than zero chance), that the victim will be mortified with his decision. After that, I agree with the hospital.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then I guess your thinking IS different from the hospitals. I am almost positive they could care less about 'blame' or 'second chances.' They are only interested in the best distribution of scarce resources, so their main concern is going to be recurrance risk. So, in order to convince them, you'd have to make the argument that your chances of doing it a second time are <<< (ok, at least <&lt

your chances of doing it a third time.

Lestat · #19 04-10-2007, 05:43 PM

<font color="blue">So, in order to convince them, you'd have to make the argument that your chances of doing it a second time are <<< (ok, at least <&lt

your chances of doing it a third time. </font>

Don't you think that's the case? I kinda do, although I've never seen studies on it. I would think most people regret doing so the first time. I could be wrong. But if even some people do, I think it's worth doing.

vhawk01 · #20 04-10-2007, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">So, in order to convince them, you'd have to make the argument that your chances of doing it a second time are <<< (ok, at least <&lt

your chances of doing it a third time. </font>

Don't you think that's the case? I kinda do, although I've never seen studies on it. I would think most people regret doing so the first time. I could be wrong. But if even some people do, I think it's worth doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess they would disagree. I don't personally have a horse in the race, I understand your point, but I have a hard time thinking that the reason the hospital has this policy is 'because they can,' 'spite,' or 'man, we never thought of that.'