Project Prevention

[Dantheman]

I'm having a hard time adjusting to the idea of PNWBrit and mtngirl being civil and even agreeing with each other. What alternate universe is this?

[Mazderati]

If, as you suggest, there is a failure of informed consent, that is the fault of the clinics and hospitals where the surgery is performed. PP is not involved in the informed consent process.

Strictly speaking, I agree. But PP shares responsibility even if not the legally enforceable kind.

[TG]

You've been building straw men for four pages and still don't understand informed consent. Morning coffee at McDonald's with the rest of the old fucks may be more your thing.

when you try and fuck one straw man in the ass with another straw man, does your condom get shredded?

or are you barebacking and just enjoying all the prickles?

[GeezerSteve]

Strictly speaking, I agree. But PP shares responsibility even if not the legally enforceable kind.

So if lack of informed consent is your problem, where is the outcry against virtually all surgeries where informed consent requirements are satisfied by the patient or his/her representative signing fine print forms that they don't read? Although I cannot speak from personal experience, my MD bud says that it's common practice for nearly all hospitals and clinics (e.g., Planned Parenthood) to require face-to-face pre-surgery counseling for sterilization patients, which seems much closer to actual informed consent than signing fine print papers people don't read. If he's correct about that, it's logical to conclude that PP deals are more likely to involve actual informed consent than the vast majority of surgeries performed.

AFAICT, this gets down to an emotional opposition to the $100 extra payment received weeks after the deal is made, a deal the woman can slip out of without consequence during the 30+ day waiting period, during which she has likely cleaned up at the insistence of the surgeon. ($100 = delta of $300 sterilization incentive payment vs. $200 for birth control.) Or maybe it's about PP's founder spewing about addicted mothers having "litters of kids," which I acknowledge as tasteless and vulgar (notwithstanding that it often has basis in fact, e.g., the addict who had 8 kids at the rate of 1/year, 4 who whom were adopted by PP's founder and her husband).

[Mazderati]

when you try and fuck one straw man in the ass with another straw man, does your condom get shredded?

or are you barebacking and just enjoying all the prickles?

Anything of substance to add or just passing through slinging shit? Either way, I appreciate you using one of your 14 posts a year to respond.

[neufox47]

So?

I mean, adopting 4 kids doesn't really compare to getting indignant on social media, but its a start.

[mall walker]

I for one eagerly await "sterilize the poor" being brought into the fold of Democratic Party platforms for the upcoming midterm elections

[summit]

Diy Steve has pretty much destroyed coercion argument.

However the perception issue remains which is why I still agree with iceman's pragmatic view.

[Mazderati]

Nah, it's just that no one wants to spend time on someone who is more interested in destroying an argument than the substance of the issue.

[Buster Highmen]

Nah, it's just that no one wants to spend time on someone who is more interested in destroying an argument than the substance of the issue.

.

[summit]

I think I said something about incentives for permanent medical procedures for the desperate is something fraught with ethical pitfalls but can be overcome only with sufficient structure and safeguards. The system described by DIY, since he bothered to research how this actually works, systemically addresses the concerns of coercion with basic guarantees of medical testing for being clean, very delayed gratification, a waiting period and ability to change one's mind during it, and extensive informing of the patient, and the spirit of the issue.

So if you consider the neuro/behavioral understanding of addiction and think back to your classes in medical ethics I've taken (I'll pause for the other posters to consider the classes in medical ethics they have taken...) we have hit a lot of the basic principles including nonmalfeasance, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and respect for justice with respect to an addict. (Depends on your text, but most include at least those four)

I challenge you to come up with a better ideological counter argument than "DIYSteve is just argumentative" and "Yea what he said!" and "I hate the idea because I'd rather wave a magic wand and change the entire US mental healthcare system" (disclaimer, I'l be the first to wave that wand when I find it)

I maintain my support for iceman's pragmatic opposition to incentive tubal ligation. Supporting argument #1: posters in this thread.

[mall walker]

Despite brimming with contempt for people with different morals and/or perspectives, you're kind enough to acquiesce on certain issues that don't directly impact you.

Humanist of the year award for Summit.

qft

[summit]

Despite brimming with contempt for people with different morals and/or perspectives, you're kind enough to acquiesce on certain issues that don't directly impact you.

Humanist of the year award for Summit.

Unable to actually address any of the actual issues, but feeling vaguely offended, you ignore all reason and go to personal attacks...

Logician of the year award for dromontana

[summit]

I'm not arguing legalities. I'm not a law talking guy. I am addressing the ethical considerations which are addressed by details of how the program actually works. These affect your position and have to be reconciled unless you claim facts don't matter because of feelings.

It reminds me of arguing with Christian fundies about abortion. If you start with a conclusion everything else either supports it or can be ignored.

That's the problem I observed most of this thread between the two sides. Reality is not so black and white as the arguments here, particularly if you get into the details.

[PNWbrit]

I think I said something about incentives for permanent medical procedures for the desperate is something fraught with ethical pitfalls but can be overcome only with sufficient structure and safeguards. The system described by DIY, since he bothered to research how this actually works, systemically addresses the concerns of coercion with basic guarantees of medical testing for being clean, very delayed gratification, a waiting period and ability to change one's mind during it, and extensive informing of the patient, and the spirit of the issue.

So if you consider the neuro/behavioral understanding of addiction and think back to your classes in medical ethics I've taken (I'll pause for the other posters to consider the classes in medical ethics they have taken...) we have hit a lot of the basic principles including nonmalfeasance, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and respect for justice with respect to an addict. (Depends on your text, but most include at least those four)

I challenge you to come up with a better ideological counter argument than "DIYSteve is just argumentative" and "Yea what he said!" and "I hate the idea because I'd rather wave a magic wand and change the entire US mental healthcare system" (disclaimer, I'l be the first to wave that wand when I find it)

I maintain my support for iceman's pragmatic opposition to incentive tubal ligation. Supporting argument #1: posters in this thread.

Have you considered taking up bird watching?

[Timberridge]

On one condition. If he does and sees a real honest-to-god gyrfalcon, you guys and mtngirl have to admit you're wrong.

[summit]

Strong counterargument there... and I had to google gyrafalcon

[PNWbrit]

On one condition. If he does and sees a real honest-to-god gyrfalcon, you guys and mtngirl have to admit you're wrong.