User talk:WaitingforGodot/abort1
"the only medical procedures that legislative bodies and governmental fiats have attempted (generally successfully) to regulate."[edit]
I think you're really overstating the case here. "The government" is "in the room" every time I deal with a health care professional, from overseeing her licence to operate, to the FDA or some similar body regulating which drugs she might prescribe for me, to (in most modern countries) deciding how much she can charge to perform certain procedures, to regulating the standards for facilities and equipment. When it comes to the practice of biomedicine, there are lots of things besides abortion that are government-regulated. --P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. 
20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Other than right to die cases, i've never seen any attempt by a legislative body to regulate any medical technique, procedure, or tool. The AMA, the Surgen general, etc., all regulate things, but they are medical doctors dealing with scientific facts about what procedures are working, what are not, what training is required, and which is not. That's what I'm trying to get across. I'll rework it, though, thanks.
"i've never seen any attempt by a legislative body to regulate any medical technique, procedure, or tool." Seriously? You know I think the world of you, but I think you're off on this one. P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. 22:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I guess i don't understand. illicit drugs are a matter of legislation, yes. But your list does not show a single medical procedure (heart surgery, kidney transplants, using lasers to cut out breast cancer, etc) that are legislatively decided. There are no laws that i can find that say "to have a nose job or boob job, you must get a second opinion or take 2 days to decide to do it". Yet with abortion, VOTERS decide that patients need a 24-hour waiting period. Legislators decide that a specific procedure for late term abortions is not "medically necessary". I truly have never seen (again, other than right-to-death issues) the idea that voters and legislatures and not doctors or the medical oversight govenment groups think themselves qualified to deal with medical decisions. Again, i'm more than happy to have long discussions or be shown I'm wrong. i'm pretty opinoinated, which is *NOT* a good thing in this case. :-)
- Special legal restrictions on electroshock therapy, especially (but not only) for minors - [1]. In Australia, I believe psychosurgery (e.g. lobotomies) requires court permission - [2]. I also believe the sterilization of minors, or sexual reassignment therapies (e.g. hormones), cannot be undertaken just by parental consent, but requires judicial permission - [3] ("Although the law is clear that parents generally cannot consent to sterilization of a minor without a court order...") (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The difference there is that most of those procedures are imposed on the patient, I think that WfG is trying to focus on elective procedures but things like fertility treatments and surrogacy are often legislated for.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 00:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at the Victorian legislation, Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) s. 58, permission of the Psychosurgery Review Board is required even if the patient gives consent. i.e., even elective psychosurgery requires the Board's permission. Even if the patient and doctor agree, if the Board refuses consent, the psychosurgery cannot go ahead. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The mini mob has spoken. Until i find a different way to say it, it's our. As i said, when i finally put this article up to see if it's ok to replace the other, - ill ask people to really make sure it's not too biased "pro choice". but for now, it's not even really done.:-)
- If you look at the Victorian legislation, Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) s. 58, permission of the Psychosurgery Review Board is required even if the patient gives consent. i.e., even elective psychosurgery requires the Board's permission. Even if the patient and doctor agree, if the Board refuses consent, the psychosurgery cannot go ahead. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The difference there is that most of those procedures are imposed on the patient, I think that WfG is trying to focus on elective procedures but things like fertility treatments and surrogacy are often legislated for.
- Special legal restrictions on electroshock therapy, especially (but not only) for minors - [1]. In Australia, I believe psychosurgery (e.g. lobotomies) requires court permission - [2]. I also believe the sterilization of minors, or sexual reassignment therapies (e.g. hormones), cannot be undertaken just by parental consent, but requires judicial permission - [3] ("Although the law is clear that parents generally cannot consent to sterilization of a minor without a court order...") (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I guess i don't understand. illicit drugs are a matter of legislation, yes. But your list does not show a single medical procedure (heart surgery, kidney transplants, using lasers to cut out breast cancer, etc) that are legislatively decided. There are no laws that i can find that say "to have a nose job or boob job, you must get a second opinion or take 2 days to decide to do it". Yet with abortion, VOTERS decide that patients need a 24-hour waiting period. Legislators decide that a specific procedure for late term abortions is not "medically necessary". I truly have never seen (again, other than right-to-death issues) the idea that voters and legislatures and not doctors or the medical oversight govenment groups think themselves qualified to deal with medical decisions. Again, i'm more than happy to have long discussions or be shown I'm wrong. i'm pretty opinoinated, which is *NOT* a good thing in this case. :-)
Cancer[edit]
The breast cancer stuff is mostly relevant due to PalMD and Schlafly's slagging match back in the day. It's still an important topic, but I think it's out of place in the main article and really needs to get its own page as it is now with the list of studies and tumbleweeds. ADK...I'll golf your pea soup! 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done, or "doing".
En attendant Godot 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
See also[edit]
Can I suggest When_does_life_begin - but then I would, I wrote a large part of it. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)