|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 14, 2022 8:42:07 GMT 12
Agreed. We need a law change which clearly allows Dr's to overrule parents wishes without having to go to court in specific circumstances. Such a law already exists for emergency surgery. It's just if it's not an emergency that it goes to court. Parrents should be charged costs of the litigation. Definitely not, doctors are humans, not gods and make an awful lot of mistakes - I remember when i was a kid the family doctor mis-diagnosed my sister's appendicitis which almost killed her. My ex was a doctor (a very good one, many other doctors would send patients to her who they could not diagnose themselves) and what she had to say about many of them would make your hair stand on end. If there are special circumstances then they must be proven. The evidence clearly shows that a group of specialist, who have done an infinite amount of more training and has infinite real life experience, than 99.999% of parents, is far more qualified to make the correct choice than the parent. Of course it needs its check and balances, multiple specialists would need to confirm, and the requirement needs to be meet a certain threshold. Eg it doesn't sound like this new case meets the threshold for a guardianship application given the parents are suggesting that they have time to go somewhere else for the surgery and nz health do not appear to be opposing that. It's about lowering the threshold for what needs to go to court. Emergency, child is on the operating table, surgeons are already allowed to make the decision. Very Urgent, needs to happen now or likely hood of death in the current months likely. This needs a path other than the courts. Not urgent, child has a failed leg repair that need to be broken and reset so they can walk properly. This should go through the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Dec 14, 2022 8:52:51 GMT 12
Definitely not, doctors are humans, not gods and make an awful lot of mistakes - I remember when i was a kid the family doctor mis-diagnosed my sister's appendicitis which almost killed her. My ex was a doctor (a very good one, many other doctors would send patients to her who they could not diagnose themselves) and what she had to say about many of them would make your hair stand on end. If there are special circumstances then they must be proven. The evidence clearly shows that a group of specialist, who have done an infinite amount of more training and has infinite real life experience, than 99.999% of parents, is far more qualified to make the correct choice than the parent. Of course it needs its check and balances, multiple specialists would need to confirm, and the requirement needs to be meet a certain threshold. Eg it doesn't sound like this new case meets the threshold for a guardianship application given the parents are suggesting that they have time to go somewhere else for the surgery and nz health do not appear to be opposing that. It's about lowering the threshold for what needs to go to court. Emergency, child is on the operating table, surgeons are already allowed to make the decision. Very Urgent, needs to happen now or likely hood of death in the current months likely. This needs a path other than the courts. Not urgent, child has a failed leg repair that need to be broken and reset so they can walk properly. This should go through the courts. There is no evidence to suggest a change in law is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 14, 2022 9:05:01 GMT 12
The evidence clearly shows that a group of specialist, who have done an infinite amount of more training and has infinite real life experience, than 99.999% of parents, is far more qualified to make the correct choice than the parent. Of course it needs its check and balances, multiple specialists would need to confirm, and the requirement needs to be meet a certain threshold. Eg it doesn't sound like this new case meets the threshold for a guardianship application given the parents are suggesting that they have time to go somewhere else for the surgery and nz health do not appear to be opposing that. It's about lowering the threshold for what needs to go to court. Emergency, child is on the operating table, surgeons are already allowed to make the decision. Very Urgent, needs to happen now or likely hood of death in the current months likely. This needs a path other than the courts. Not urgent, child has a failed leg repair that need to be broken and reset so they can walk properly. This should go through the courts. There is no evidence to suggest a change in law is needed. Baby W's heart was damaged more as a result of the legal delays caused by the parents anti-vax views. The impact of that will never truly be known. Maybe he will live to 100. Maybe he will die of heart failure in his 30's. I would agree it's not evidence enough for a reason. But the govt don't need evidence, they look at probabilities, likelihoods and perceived outcomes. Those outcomes could equally be reducing pressure on the court system. One of the major drivers to legalise mauaruana was to reduce the tax payer burden on the police and the court system. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 14, 2022 9:24:22 GMT 12
...anti-vaxer science deniers...that one sentence says so much about a person. I have to laugh at anyone who views themselves as pro-science yet continues to support a jab that clearly does very little and certainly falls well short of what the "scientists" claimed. What happened to 95% efficacy? herd immunity? "if you get jabbed you won't catch covid"? "if you get jabbed you won't transmit covid"? "if you get jabbed you won't end up in hospital"? "if you get jabbed you won't die of covid"? Can you tell me where all the piles and piles of unjabbed dead bodies are hiding? It just doesn't seem to matter what a spectacular failure the jabs are. The pharma gods don't have to deliver on a single one of their claims to maintain credibility with the supposedly "pro-science" fraternity. The triple jabbed are now way over-represented in every covid statistic. All cause mortality is unprecedented in highly jabbed populations. Cardiac issues are through the roof and cancer rates are out the gate. Hospitals are overwhelmed but not due to covid. Yet anyone who so much as questions the efficacy or safety of the jabs are automatically labeled as anti-vaxers and ironically... "anti-science"!!! It is absolutely stunningly bizzare behaviour, completely disconnected from reality. This whole jab operation (and politics) has been run like a cult right from the word go. Does any of the following sound familiar?... Some groups may not fit the definition of a cult, but may pose potential risks for participants. Here are some warning signs of a potentially unsafe group or leader. • Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. • No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. • Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. • The group/leader is always right. • The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. Black IS White So many people believe that. The PR army have earnt their money. If the jab was effective, why are we having a third wave? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 14, 2022 9:27:59 GMT 12
There is no evidence to suggest a change in law is needed. Baby W's heart was damaged more as a result of the legal delays caused by the parents anti-vax views. The impact of that will never truly be known. Maybe he will live to 100. Maybe he will die of heart failure in his 30's. I would agree it's not evidence enough for a reason. But the govt don't need evidence, they look at probabilities, likelihoods and perceived outcomes. Those outcomes could equally be reducing pressure on the court system. One of the major drivers to legalise mauaruana was to reduce the tax payer burden on the police and the court system. I think you've answered your own question. Baby Will's surgery wasn't urgent. We already have all of the laws in place for this situation. There are sufficient checks and balances in place. Kind of interesting that the Mother is a medical professional. No one has mentioned that. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Dec 14, 2022 9:42:32 GMT 12
There is no evidence to suggest a change in law is needed. One of the major drivers to legalise mauaruana was to reduce the tax payer burden on the police and the court system. and yet the government is now pushing thru legislation to make it illegal for anyone born after 1 Jan 2009 to ever smoke, and also restrict who can sell fags. What burden is that going to put on the cops and courts? Notwithstanding that I have never smoked and hate the habit, this is just another cluster in the making by a government totally out of touch with reality. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 14, 2022 10:06:52 GMT 12
One of the major drivers to legalise mauaruana was to reduce the tax payer burden on the police and the court system. and yet the government is now pushing thru legislation to make it illegal for anyone born after 1 Jan 2009 to ever smoke, and also restrict who can sell fags. What burden is that going to put on the cops and courts? Notwithstanding that I have never smoked and hate the habit, this is just another cluster in the making by a government totally out of touch with reality. I understand it is done. No pushing is required... I am not sure how the police/justice burden will increase? The police already have to enforce/prosecute sales to underaged people, so nothing changes in this regard, they just continue to do that. The number of stores that sell fags will be reduced from 6000 to 600, making it even easier to police. And those 600 stores will be able to use technology such as facial recognition and real-time ID checks to ensure people are who they say they are. More importantly the reduction of the estimated costs on the health system of $5bn can be redirected to all the upcoming vaccine induced medical conditions that you claim are on the horizon for those who took the mandated gene-therapy. :-) :-) |
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Dec 14, 2022 10:11:32 GMT 12
Its all about "CONTROL"
Soon they will be banning alcohol.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 14, 2022 10:44:16 GMT 12
Its all about "CONTROL" Soon they will be banning alcohol. Caffeine will get banned first. The tea cartels of India and Sri Lanka are the main drivers behind the WEF 2032 plan to ban caffeine worldwide. It's well documented that when even moderate quantities of caffeine is mixed with dihydrogen monoxide, it becomes a lethal poison which can cause instant death, particularly in infants. WEF wants to reduce access to caffeine to prevent the water supply from becoming compromised. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 14, 2022 11:02:39 GMT 12
Its all about "CONTROL" Soon they will be banning alcohol. Caffeine will get banned first. The tea cartels of India and Sri Lanka are the main drivers behind the WEF 2032 plan to ban caffeine worldwide. It's well documented that when even moderate quantities of caffeine is mixed with dihydrogen monoxide, it becomes a lethal poison which can cause instant death, particularly in infants. WEF wants to reduce access to caffeine to prevent the water supply from becoming compromised. I can't tell if this is very good humour, or you are intentionally advancing a conspiracy theory ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Dec 14, 2022 12:03:42 GMT 12
Yep....I think caffeine should be banned. Along with sugar. It's the only way to get me off rum and coke. Oh ...and water. Water forms into big blocks of ice that make the Rums even more yummy. Bloody hell ....its time to get govt out of our lives
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 14, 2022 12:11:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Dec 14, 2022 12:23:19 GMT 12
More satire? Or have you completely lost the plot? Hard to tell.. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Dec 14, 2022 12:28:24 GMT 12
and yet the government is now pushing thru legislation to make it illegal for anyone born after 1 Jan 2009 to ever smoke, and also restrict who can sell fags. What burden is that going to put on the cops and courts? Notwithstanding that I have never smoked and hate the habit, this is just another cluster in the making by a government totally out of touch with reality. I understand it is done. No pushing is required... I am not sure how the police/justice burden will increase? The police already have to enforce/prosecute sales to underaged people, so nothing changes in this regard, they just continue to do that. The number of stores that sell fags will be reduced from 6000 to 600, making it even easier to police. And those 600 stores will be able to use technology such as facial recognition and real-time ID checks to ensure people are who they say they are. More importantly the reduction of the estimated costs on the health system of $5bn can be redirected to all the upcoming vaccine induced medical conditions that you claim are on the horizon for those who took the mandated gene-therapy. :-) :-) you are correct on one point, the legislation was passed on Tuesday. As for the rest, there is a saying, "history proves we never learn from history", in this case the classic example was prohibition in the US in the 30's which was a spectacular failure. This government time and time again fails on understanding the law of unintended consequences. What will this legislation do 1. Provide increased opportunities for criminals, from the ASH web site New Zealand has a problem at its border - cigarettes. Customs' head of investigations says profits from selling smuggled cigarettes are estimated to be eight times more lucrative than the illegal cocaine trade. ASH Director, Deborah Hart talks to Newshub and says we need " ...a whole lot more resource put into countering the illicit trade."
2. There is always the attraction of "forbidden fruit" and by making smoking illegal it will likely promote the curiosity of the young to try it (just like alcohol and drugs). 3. If it is to be enforced then seeing as the police currently do nothing to enforce smoking laws, then yes there will be a cost along with the increased theft of smokes. Reality is the police are so under resourced so it is likely to be the last thing on their agenda to enforce. Interesting you comment about facial recognition, so now it is to be used to police people. In one of your previous guises (Grounded/Dr Wrong/something deleted) you claimed it was only for "convenience". Your last crack about jab injuries is very low blow considering the level of suffering in the community arising from the jabs... |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 14, 2022 12:40:01 GMT 12
More satire? Or have you completely lost the plot? Hard to tell.. The murdering fuckwits were well known conspiracy theorists. Among other things they were Anti-vax, believed that the vax was to reduce the population. They believed that the Port Arthur masaca was faked by the government to get peoples guns off them. Meanwhile dumb fucks like you continue to spread mis-information which fuels these guys at the outer extreme. You have no respect or care in the world for the damage that your conspiracy spreading words do. |
|
