Cont: Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3

[xjx388]

is now followed by:





It looks to me like your position on ethics/legality may finally be starting to evolve beyond foolishly naive.

Congratulations on making this big step!

I do have a question. It may be somewhat challenging for you:

Does ethics require following a flawed law?

You’ve been the victim of a cruel deception.

Ethics requires adherence to laws, full stop. This whole COVID thing is a great example. Texas State Board of Pharmacy made a rule that that says hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin can only be issued with a written diagnosis consistent with the evidence for their use. Obviously, “having some on hand in case I get COVID,” isn’t such a diagnosis. Should a doctor fudge a script to reflect a bogus diagnosis so that a patient (more likely their family/colleagues) has it on hand in case they get sick? Many doctors are doing this thinking the law is flawed and they should be allowed to. I say bull; a doctor follows the law, regardless of what they think. They work to change the law if they think it’s flawed.

 

[xjx388]

The problem is: who decides a law or rule is flawed? That simply can’t be up to an individual to decide.

The current rules keeping most of us home these days: I say the rule is flawed. Does my saying so make me ethically right?

Disagreement is not a license.

 

[Cabbage]

You’ve been the victim of a cruel deception.

Ethics requires adherence to laws, full stop. This whole COVID thing is a great example. Texas State Board of Pharmacy made a rule that that says hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin can only be issued with a written diagnosis consistent with the evidence for their use. Obviously, “having some on hand in case I get COVID,” isn’t such a diagnosis. Should a doctor fudge a script to reflect a bogus diagnosis so that a patient (more likely their family/colleagues) has it on hand in case they get sick? Many doctors are doing this thinking the law is flawed and they should be allowed to. I say bull; a doctor follows the law, regardless of what they think. They work to change the law if they think it’s flawed.

How silly of me. I foolishly give you credit for your position on ethics evolving, and then you demonstrate that position is as naive as it ever was.

"Ethics requires following the law" can never be justified by giving a single example of just one law that it is ethical to follow. To support your claim, you actually need to demonstrate that ethics requires following Every. Single. Law. Otherwise, the claim is merely Ethics requires following some laws. Now having said that:


You’ve been the victim of a cruel deception.

Ethics is independent of laws. Full stop. To demonstrate this, I need only exhibit a single law that it would be unethical to follow. It, of course, is irrelevant where this law comes from; it's existence alone falsifies your claim. I submit that it would have been unethical to follow the anti-Jewish laws in Nazi Germany.

I brought this up before and you accused me of "Godwinning" the thread. Absolute rubbish. As I just explained, it is absolutely relevant to your universal claim that "Ethics requires following the law"--It demonstrates that claim is as foolish as it ever was.

I invite you once again to answer the question in my previous post. And please, try giving it some serious thought for a change.

 

[dann]

You’ve been the victim of a cruel deception.

Come on!!! There's no comeback from this. Can't you at least acknowledge that Cabbage has exposed your contradiction in terms?

Ethics requires following the law.

is now followed by:

Fortunately most medical providers recognize flawed laws and aren't afraid to stand up.

It looks to me like your position on ethics/legality may finally be starting to evolve beyond foolishly naive.

Congratulations on making this big step!

I do have a question. It may be somewhat challenging for you:

Does ethics require following a flawed law?

 

[xjx388]

Come on!!! There's no comeback from this. Can't you at least acknowledge that Cabbage has exposed your contradiction in terms?

Another victim of a mangled post. I tried to explain what happened. That second bit you posted was actually uttered by SkepticGinger. I never said that. There was no contradiction.

 

[Cabbage]

And I treat your opinions with utter amusement. I have to admit, I didn’t think this thread could be Godwinned, but you did it!

Oh, I see that now: You're correct; I attributed to you a quote which actually came from Skeptic Ginger.

In that case, I see that I was wrong when I thought your position on ethics was evolving. Nope. It's still hopelessly naive.

 

[xjx388]

How silly of me. I foolishly give you credit for your position on ethics evolving, and then you demonstrate that position is as naive as it ever was.

"Ethics requires following the law" can never be justified by giving a single example of just one law that it is ethical to follow. To support your claim, you actually need to demonstrate that ethics requires following Every. Single. Law. Otherwise, the claim is merely Ethics requires following some laws. Now having said that:


You’ve been the victim of a cruel deception.

Ethics is independent of laws. Full stop. To demonstrate this, I need only exhibit a single law that it would be unethical to follow. It, of course, is irrelevant where this law comes from; it's existence alone falsifies your claim. I submit that it would have been unethical to follow the anti-Jewish laws in Nazi Germany.

I brought this up before and you accused me of "Godwinning" the thread. Absolute rubbish. As I just explained, it is absolutely relevant to your universal claim that "Ethics requires following the law"--It demonstrates that claim is as foolish as it ever was.

I invite you once again to answer the question in my previous post. And please, try giving it some serious thought for a change.

How silly of me for assuming that the doctors under discussion do not live in a society with laws like Nazi Germany but instead live in the good ol’ US of A. Medical ethics requires adhering to the laws.

I do recognize that ethics is a separate thing from the law but they go hand in hand in a medical context. For example: should doctors feel ethically free to perform abortions outside of the law if they disagree with the law? I don’t see how the answer is “yes.” The law comes first; medical ethics covers adherence to legal requirements AND other non-legal issues. Doctors can’t separate the two.

It would be unethical for a doctor to recommend an illegal drug/treatment/diagnostic AND to recommend unproven drugs/treatments/diagnostics, even if those drugs/treatments/diagnostics aren’t illegal. At core, that’s the issue here: advocating for unproven diagnostics -assessing/diagnosing people they’ve never met.

Trump’s response to Covid-19 is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. His advice/action is stupid, dangerous and just plain wrong and whether or not he has a mental illness is immaterial. It’s plain to see on its face. We could have predicted it without a diagnosis/“dangerousness” assessment just by simple observation of him by laypeople. Medicine has no place either practically or scientifically.

 

[Cabbage]

How silly of me for assuming that the doctors under discussion do not live in a society with laws like Nazi Germany but instead live in the good ol’ US of A. Medical ethics requires adhering to the laws.

You're ignoring the fact that I merely presented that as a counter example: There do exist laws which are unethical to follow, falsifying your original statement.

Yes, I will acknowledge that the set of laws in America corresponds more closely (to my code of ethics, anyway) than would the set of Nazi Germany laws. That doesn't imply, however, that I (or anyone) should ever simply abdicate my own personal judgment of ethics to whatever the law does or does not allow. I'm not prepared to ever abdicate my own judgment that way, and you shouldn't, either.

I do recognize that ethics is a separate thing from the law but they go hand in hand in a medical context. For example: should doctors feel ethically free to perform abortions outside of the law if they disagree with the law? I don’t see how the answer is “yes.” The law comes first; medical ethics covers adherence to legal requirements AND other non-legal issues. Doctors can’t separate the two.

I think the answer is absolutely yes. If a law outlawing abortion were to be passed in America, I'm not going to suddenly change my mind that abortion is now suddenly unethical. I am strongly pro-choice, and I think it is ethical to allow a woman the right to choose, independent of what the law may say. Please note that I am also OK with a doctor refusing to perform an abortion if it violates his own code of ethics (even if the law permits it).

It would be unethical for a doctor to recommend an illegal drug/treatment/diagnostic AND to recommend unproven drugs/treatments/diagnostics, even if those drugs/treatments/diagnostics aren’t illegal. At core, that’s the issue here: advocating for unproven diagnostics -assessing/diagnosing people they’ve never met.

Trump’s response to Covid-19 is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. His advice/action is stupid, dangerous and just plain wrong and whether or not he has a mental illness is immaterial. It’s plain to see on its face. We could have predicted it without a diagnosis/“dangerousness” assessment just by simple observation of him by laypeople. Medicine has no place either practically or scientifically.

With respect to your position on Trump's response to Covid-19: I have no issue with any of that. I agree with you there. But obviously not saying all laws are unethical; that's absurd. Of course it's ethical to follow many laws. That simply does not imply that all laws are ethical.

 

[xjx388]

You're ignoring the fact that I merely presented that as a counter example: There do exist laws which are unethical to follow, falsifying your original statement.

Your counter example is inapplicable to the context in which we are debating.

Yes, I will acknowledge that the set of laws in America corresponds more closely (to my code of ethics, anyway) than would the set of Nazi Germany laws. That doesn't imply, however, that I (or anyone) should ever simply abdicate my own personal judgment of ethics to whatever the law does or does not allow. I'm not prepared to ever abdicate my own judgment that way, and you shouldn't, either.

I agree in a general way, but not in specific contexts. Medicine is a context in which ethics are fundamental. Practicing medicine, for better or worse, is a license extended to those who pledge to follow 1) the laws of the State in which they are licensed and 2)the ethical codes of the profession. Doctors do have to abdicate their own judgement to the law and ethics of their profession.

I think the answer is absolutely yes. If a law outlawing abortion were to be passed in America, I'm not going to suddenly change my mind that abortion is now suddenly unethical. I am strongly pro-choice, and I think it is ethical to allow a woman the right to choose, independent of what the law may say. Please note that I am also OK with a doctor refusing to perform an abortion if it violates his own code of ethics (even if the law permits it).

Violating the law puts the doctor and, more importantly, the patient at risk. It would be better for doctors to band together and fight the law -which is possible in a Democracy. Breaking the law is unethical because, in an environment where abortion is illegal, abortions cannot be performed safely. If the procedure goes wrong, the doctor is less likely to send the patient to a hospital for fear of risking her license/jail time, which puts the patient at risk.

With respect to your position on Trump's response to Covid-19: I have no issue with any of that. I agree with you there. But obviously not saying all laws are unethical; that's absurd. Of course it's ethical to follow many laws. That simply does not imply that all laws are ethical.

Not quite: I never said all laws are ethical. There are flawed laws. I asked the question earlier: If one doctor says the law is flawed, is that then license for the doctor to break the law? Who decides when a law is flawed? I would say that the decision lies with the professional organizations: "We, as a profession, feel the law is flawed; we make an exception in the ethical code so that doctors don't feel obligated to follow that law." This is exactly what happened with the duty to warn -the organizaitons acted before it was made legal in the courts. It can't be up to individual judgement; individuals can easily be wrong.

 

[Cabbage]

Your counter example is inapplicable to the context in which we are debating.

No, it's not inapplicable. You made a universal statement. Don't whine to me whine I point out how ignorant the statement was.

I agree in a general way, but not in specific contexts. Medicine is a context in which ethics are fundamental. Practicing medicine, for better or worse, is a license extended to those who pledge to follow 1) the laws of the State in which they are licensed and 2)the ethical codes of the profession. Doctors do have to abdicate their own judgement to the law and ethics of their profession.

None of that proves that every medical law is perfectly ethical, and therefore I continue to disagree.

Violating the law puts the doctor and, more importantly, the patient at risk. It would be better for doctors to band together and fight the law -which is possible in a Democracy. Breaking the law is unethical because, in an environment where abortion is illegal, abortions cannot be performed safely. If the procedure goes wrong, the doctor is less likely to send the patient to a hospital for fear of risking her license/jail time, which puts the patient at risk.

Whether or not violating the law puts anyone at risk really depends on the law. For example, suppose abortion is outlawed tomorrow. A doctor who has the facilities to perform abortion today is not suddenly putting any patient at any unusual risk for using those same facilities to violate the anti-abortion law tomorrow.

Not quite: I never said all laws are ethical. There are flawed laws. I asked the question earlier: If one doctor says the law is flawed, is that then license for the doctor to break the law? Who decides when a law is flawed? I would say that the decision lies with the professional organizations: "We, as a profession, feel the law is flawed; we make an exception in the ethical code so that doctors don't feel obligated to follow that law." This is exactly what happened with the duty to warn -the organizaitons acted before it was made legal in the courts. It can't be up to individual judgement; individuals can easily be wrong.

You said, "Ethics requires following the law". There were no caveats listed. There were no exceptions noted. The natural interpretation is that this was intended as a universal comment. Sure, I can see a distinction that "Ethics requires following the law" is not the same claim as "All laws are ethical"; indeed, that is why I initially raised my objection: Ethics does not require following unethical laws.

Are you now walking back your claim that "Ethics requires following the law", subject to some restrictions?

 

[xjx388]

No, it's not inapplicable. You made a universal statement. Don't whine to me whine I point out how ignorant the statement was.

The situation in Nazi Germany is wholly inapplicable to the situation in today’s America.

None of that proves that every medical law is perfectly ethical, and therefore I continue to disagree.

I’m not trying to prove every law is ethical; I’m trying to argue that ethics requires following the law.

Whether or not violating the law puts anyone at risk really depends on the law. For example, suppose abortion is outlawed tomorrow. A doctor who has the facilities to perform abortion today is not suddenly putting any patient at any unusual risk for using those same facilities to violate the anti-abortion law tomorrow.

The patient is at legal risk. The doctor is at legal risk. If the patient has a complication, they will be less likely to seek care and the doctor will be less likely to send to the hospital because of that risk.

And then you have to think of the sociocultural paradigm in which a society would pass such a law. Obviously there would be widespread opposition to abortion and any doctor doing it would be viewed as a bad doctor. A bunch of bad doctors denigrates the profession. In such a dystopian society, ethics is very different. Again, ethics requires following the law, for a lot of reasons.

You said, "Ethics requires following the law". There were no caveats listed. There were no exceptions noted. The natural interpretation is that this was intended as a universal comment. Sure, I can see a distinction that "Ethics requires following the law" is not the same claim as "All laws are ethical"; indeed, that is why I initially raised my objection: Ethics does not require following unethical laws.

Are you now walking back your claim that "Ethics requires following the law", subject to some restrictions?

In medicine, I can’t think of any exceptions in modern America. You can let me know what you think would be an exception. What’s a current unethical law that you think doctors should not follow?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Yale doctors felt they had a duty to warn. They were accused of wanting to sell books and taking their position for political reasons.

Now we are in the middle of a crisis that has turned into a disaster needlessly directly as the result of Trump's pathologic narcissism.

Dr Lee and her colleagues were absolutely right to choose a duty to warn over the Goldwater Rule that really isn't applicable. Trump is really ill, unlike Goldwater, the circumstances are not even close.

But it's too late. Not enough people listened.

Dr. Bandy Lee: Trump is spreading a "mental health pandemic" that's making coronavirus worse

This a real crisis, both in terms of Trump's presidency and in terms of his psyche. At first Trump tried to manage the coronavirus in his mind by pretending that it was nothing. It was something that would go away in no time; the virus would somehow magically disappear. That is Trump's fantasy world. When that wasn't happening, and the stock market was in crisis and tumult, Trump then tried to look like he was in charge by giving a speech to the whole country. Trump continues to have these televised speeches and press conferences to make it look like he is control of the coronavirus crisis, all while he has Mike Pence and other government officials praise him on TV.

Trump is not in touch with reality. He cannot control the coronavirus with his mind and by living in a fantasy world, as he has done for most of the crisis. Mental health professionals have been warning for years that Trump's mental health issues would lead to such a dire situation. Trump is not showing just a lack of presidential leadership. What he is doing is so irresponsible and inept that having him as president is in some ways worse than having no leadership in the country at all. Trump is spreading disinformation, suppressing reality, and threatening those experts and other people who are telling him things about the coronavirus pandemic that he doesn't want to hear.
Now we in America and around the world are living through the horrible results of Trump's behavior. His mental health issues are translating directly into deaths and widespread calamity.

So there it is. You can't get any more specific than that. De Lee and colleagues were right. We are on part 3 of this thread and at least one person is still trying to make the case this was not a valid case for overruling an outdated ethics position*. Professionals should have instead followed "the rules" and not their professional judgement.


*Hopefully we are long past the stupidity of claiming Trump's diagnosis still needs an in-person exam.

 

[Cabbage]

The situation in Nazi Germany is wholly inapplicable to the situation in today’s America.

But it's applicable in pointing out the ignorance of the "Ethics requires following the law" statement.

I’m not trying to prove every law is ethical; I’m trying to argue that ethics requires following the law.

I noted the difference in my previous post. I'm still unclear on your position, and you haven't been forthcoming: Does ethics require following an unethical law? I've asked that multiple times now. I've yet to get an answer. It's absolutely relevant, you know.

The patient is at legal risk. The doctor is at legal risk.

That's circular reasoning, you know--the only risk is getting caught. That's not justification for the law itself, however. There's no unusual medical risk.

If the patient has a complication, they will be less likely to seek care and the doctor will be less likely to send to the hospital because of that risk.

I'll give you that. I disagree that it makes the doctor's actions unethical. I claim that makes the law itself unethical.

And then you have to think of the sociocultural paradigm in which a society would pass such a law. Obviously there would be widespread opposition to abortion and any doctor doing it would be viewed as a bad doctor.

How is that obvious? The modern GOP seems determined to restrict abortion regardless of the demographics of popular opinion, for example. Not only is this not obvious, it is obviously wrong.

A bunch of bad doctors denigrates the profession.

Now you're even getting yourself confused. You led into this sentence saying they "would be viewed as a bad doctor". Now you're claiming they actually are bad doctors and not simply viewed that way.

You're getting even sloppier than usual with your reasoning.

In such a dystopian society, ethics is very different. Again, ethics requires following the law, for a lot of reasons.

I'll ask again: Does ethics require following unethical laws? Yeah, like I said: Challenging question, I know. So challenging you evidently refuse to answer.

In medicine, I can’t think of any exceptions in modern America. You can let me know what you think would be an exception. What’s a current unethical law that you think doctors should not follow?

I'll admit I don't know medical law well enough to give an answer. That does not prohibit me from seeing the naive simplicity of your claim. I've already demonstrated real world laws that it would be a travesty to follow....and you whined that I wasn't being fair.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In medicine, I can’t think of any exceptions in modern America. You can let me know what you think would be an exception. What’s a current unethical law that you think doctors should not follow?

I'll admit I don't know medical law well enough to give an answer. That does not prohibit me from seeing the naive simplicity of your claim. I've already demonstrated real world laws that it would be a travesty to follow....and you whined that I wasn't being fair.

There are many, especially in the anti-abortion states.

 

[xjx388]

There are many, especially in the anti-abortion states.

Ok, then...examples please.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, then...examples please.

Pretty friggin obvious. Too far off topic. Seems you'd like to change the subject.

 

[xjx388]

Pretty friggin obvious. Too far off topic. Seems you'd like to change the subject.

Yeah, I’m gonna start a new thread about ethics, the law and medicine soon. Hopefully you will join me there and we can debate that further. I don’t want to change the subject; I just think that angle is worth exploring further.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I’m gonna start a new thread about ethics, the law and medicine soon. Hopefully you will join me there and we can debate that further. I don’t want to change the subject; I just think that angle is worth exploring further.

Gonna be hard to do if you don't recognize some people see anti-abortion laws as unethical. Go ahead, start the thread. I have a dozen examples to start off the conversation.

 

[xjx388]

Gonna be hard to do if you don't recognize some people see anti-abortion laws as unethical. Go ahead, start the thread. I have a dozen examples to start off the conversation.

That discussion is now here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342972

 

[Bob001]

The evidence piles uip:

No one could make up a character as narcissistic and lacking in human empathy as President Trump. Trump’s own words make the point better than any analysis or commentary:

“President Trump is a ratings hit. Since reviving the daily White House briefing Mr. Trump and his coronavirus updates have attracted an average audience of 8.5 million on cable news, roughly the viewership of the season finale of ‘The Bachelor.’ Numbers are continuing to rise...
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2020

More than 2,400 Americans had died by Sunday. Governors around the country are screaming for more assistance from the federal government. Trump? He obsesses over ratings. It is hard to comprehend how indifferent he is to human suffering.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/30/trumps-narcissism-has-never-been-more-dangerous/