The New Political Definition of Healthcare

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

Is the doctor being inquisitive, or is he/she performing the very function that we, as patients, and he, as guided by the Hippocratic Oath, is required to?


2. Well....it seems that that depends on who is in charge. If a Progressive, Liberal, secularist....then that role is ....muted......altered.

Here is one glaring example. The Obama regime wants doctors to base the care they give their patient on what the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union called 'medical totalitarianism.' Rather than 'waste' time, care, medicine on you, the patient.....consider the collective, i.e., consider 'social justice.'

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health - For a Fit Body and Mind

Downgrading American Medical Care




3. If you have any doubt as to what 'social justice' means, look at the atrocities of the Soviet system in the last century. The slaughter of millions was met with a shrug, and chalked up to "you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette."



In other words, your life means nothing if one endorses the collective, big government.

Welcome to the 'brave new world.'

You are the equivalent of a paint store with only a single color paint and a single wide brush for sale.

This is another failed TROLL thread!

Once again your ignorance is on display.....

I note that you have been unable to give a single example of anything.....anything....in the OP that is not accurate, correct, and undeniable.

Let's remind all: the view of Obama, Emanuel, Progressives,et al is that government is in charge of whatever medical care citizens get......deserve.....



And the care is based not on efficacy and saving lives, but on costs, as they so determine.


Any student of history....and I realize that you and scholarship have yet to be acquainted....
....notes the similarity in outlook of today's Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, with their earlier iteration.....
communists, Nazis, and fascists.


I have the sense that you see the similarity, too...and it embarrasses you.
Excellent.

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

Is the doctor being inquisitive, or is he/she performing the very function that we, as patients, and he, as guided by the Hippocratic Oath, is required to?


2. Well....it seems that that depends on who is in charge. If a Progressive, Liberal, secularist....then that role is ....muted......altered.

Here is one glaring example. The Obama regime wants doctors to base the care they give their patient on what the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union called 'medical totalitarianism.' Rather than 'waste' time, care, medicine on you, the patient.....consider the collective, i.e., consider 'social justice.'

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health - For a Fit Body and Mind

Downgrading American Medical Care




3. If you have any doubt as to what 'social justice' means, look at the atrocities of the Soviet system in the last century. The slaughter of millions was met with a shrug, and chalked up to "you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette."



In other words, your life means nothing if one endorses the collective, big government.

Welcome to the 'brave new world.'

You are the equivalent of a paint store with only a single color paint and a single wide brush for sale.

This is another failed TROLL thread!

Once again your ignorance is on display.....

I note that you have been unable to give a single example of anything.....anything....in the OP that is not accurate, correct, and undeniable.

Let's remind all: the view of Obama, Emanuel, Progressives,et al is that government is in charge of whatever medical care citizens get......deserve.....



And the care is based not on efficacy and saving lives, but on costs, as they so determine.


Any student of history....and I realize that you and scholarship have yet to be acquainted....
....notes the similarity in outlook of today's Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, with their earlier iteration.....
communists, Nazis, and fascists.


I have the sense that you see the similarity, too...and it embarrasses you.
Excellent.

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

 

[xotoxi]

A question pertinent to your vote on election day:
Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?


From the OP: "Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun owner ship in my home."


How about a current and specific example of what happens when Progressives/Liberals are in charge of healthcare: doctors aren't.


5. "BOSTON, June 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A well-loved and respected doctor with a background in sexual-risk behaviors has been expelled from one of the United States’ most prestigious and top-ranked medical centers after he raised evidence-based health risk concerns over the center’s decision to endorse and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Church called the medical center “so indoctrinated with a worldview” supportive of the LGBTQ agenda that it sees this movement as “beyond reproach,” even to the extent of viewing someone as a bigot and culpable of misconduct charges for raising legitimate criticism about the center’s promotion of this movement and its activities.

.... Church and other like-minded colleagues repeatedly raised concern with officials over the center’s decision to not only endorse the homosexual lifestyle by hosting an annual “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Achievement Award ceremony,” but to involve staff in LGBTQ events including participation in Boston’s annual “Gay Pride Week.”
Leading U.S. hospital fires doctor for raising concerns about health risks of gay sex




Don't try to hide behind 'this is a private business'.....this is a medical facility, held to higher imperatives.....life and death.

Would it be acceptable if a hospital advocated smoking, or playing 'Russian Roulette'?

Or, maybe, had a dispensing machine of those airline mini liquor and alcohol nips bottle in the emergency room lobby?

Why not?

I suppose this is similar to when Conservatives are in charge of healthcare and allow medical doctrine to be influenced by political agenda rather than science...

A little over a year ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law a set of abortion regulations requiring pre-procedure ultrasounds. To simplify a bit, the law—which took the form of amendments to the so-called “Texas Woman’s Right to Know Act”—requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen.

...

In very limited circumstances, the woman may also choose not to listen to the doctor’s explanations of the image and of the heart sounds.
The circumstances are these: if she certifies in writing that (1) she is pregnant as the result of a crime (such as rape or incest) that she either reported to law enforcement authorities or failed to report because she “reasonably believe that doing so would put [her] at risk of retaliation resulting in serious bodily injury”; (2) she is a minor obtaining an abortion under judicial-bypass procedures (i.e., a minor who has a judge’s approval for obtaining an abortion without parental involvement); or (3) her fetus has a documented, irreversible medical condition or abnormality.

Some Reflections on the Texas Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Law, a Year After Its Passage: Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns[/S]

...except for the fact that the penalty of non-compliance is not just getting fired from a job...

The statute also contains other provisions, including criminal penalties for and de-licensure of doctors who fail to comply.

We should make sure that we recognize the rights of PRIVATE COMPANIES to create agenda driven policies (such as your above example, or the example of a Catholic medical center from allowing abortions), while also recognizing the dangers of THE GOVERNMENT creating agenda driven LAWS.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

Is the doctor being inquisitive, or is he/she performing the very function that we, as patients, and he, as guided by the Hippocratic Oath, is required to?


2. Well....it seems that that depends on who is in charge. If a Progressive, Liberal, secularist....then that role is ....muted......altered.

Here is one glaring example. The Obama regime wants doctors to base the care they give their patient on what the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union called 'medical totalitarianism.' Rather than 'waste' time, care, medicine on you, the patient.....consider the collective, i.e., consider 'social justice.'

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health - For a Fit Body and Mind

Downgrading American Medical Care




3. If you have any doubt as to what 'social justice' means, look at the atrocities of the Soviet system in the last century. The slaughter of millions was met with a shrug, and chalked up to "you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette."



In other words, your life means nothing if one endorses the collective, big government.

Welcome to the 'brave new world.'

You are the equivalent of a paint store with only a single color paint and a single wide brush for sale.

This is another failed TROLL thread!

Once again your ignorance is on display.....

I note that you have been unable to give a single example of anything.....anything....in the OP that is not accurate, correct, and undeniable.

Let's remind all: the view of Obama, Emanuel, Progressives,et al is that government is in charge of whatever medical care citizens get......deserve.....



And the care is based not on efficacy and saving lives, but on costs, as they so determine.


Any student of history....and I realize that you and scholarship have yet to be acquainted....
....notes the similarity in outlook of today's Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, with their earlier iteration.....
communists, Nazis, and fascists.


I have the sense that you see the similarity, too...and it embarrasses you.
Excellent.

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

There are always errors even unto outright fabrications in your posts. Here is a gross error in your OP:

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now explain how this bit Chica, criticizing Dr. Emanuel comments about the ACA (ObamaCare), appeared in a June 18, 2008 American Medical Assn. article when Obama was still on the campaign trail in June of 2008 and ObamaCare had not even been proposed! I didn't even have to look for that...it just jumped out at me the first read through.

Can't wait for your normal ad hominem blast as you attempt to disconnect from that error AND your perfidy re: your alleged "error free" posted drivel!

 

[PoliticalChic]

A question pertinent to your vote on election day:
Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?


From the OP: "Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun owner ship in my home."


How about a current and specific example of what happens when Progressives/Liberals are in charge of healthcare: doctors aren't.


5. "BOSTON, June 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A well-loved and respected doctor with a background in sexual-risk behaviors has been expelled from one of the United States’ most prestigious and top-ranked medical centers after he raised evidence-based health risk concerns over the center’s decision to endorse and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Church called the medical center “so indoctrinated with a worldview” supportive of the LGBTQ agenda that it sees this movement as “beyond reproach,” even to the extent of viewing someone as a bigot and culpable of misconduct charges for raising legitimate criticism about the center’s promotion of this movement and its activities.

.... Church and other like-minded colleagues repeatedly raised concern with officials over the center’s decision to not only endorse the homosexual lifestyle by hosting an annual “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Achievement Award ceremony,” but to involve staff in LGBTQ events including participation in Boston’s annual “Gay Pride Week.”
Leading U.S. hospital fires doctor for raising concerns about health risks of gay sex




Don't try to hide behind 'this is a private business'.....this is a medical facility, held to higher imperatives.....life and death.

Would it be acceptable if a hospital advocated smoking, or playing 'Russian Roulette'?

Or, maybe, had a dispensing machine of those airline mini liquor and alcohol nips bottle in the emergency room lobby?

Why not?

I suppose this is similar to when Conservatives are in charge of healthcare and allow medical doctrine to be influenced by political agenda rather than science...

A little over a year ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law a set of abortion regulations requiring pre-procedure ultrasounds. To simplify a bit, the law—which took the form of amendments to the so-called “Texas Woman’s Right to Know Act”—requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen.

...

In very limited circumstances, the woman may also choose not to listen to the doctor’s explanations of the image and of the heart sounds.
The circumstances are these: if she certifies in writing that (1) she is pregnant as the result of a crime (such as rape or incest) that she either reported to law enforcement authorities or failed to report because she “reasonably believe that doing so would put [her] at risk of retaliation resulting in serious bodily injury”; (2) she is a minor obtaining an abortion under judicial-bypass procedures (i.e., a minor who has a judge’s approval for obtaining an abortion without parental involvement); or (3) her fetus has a documented, irreversible medical condition or abnormality.

Some Reflections on the Texas Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Law, a Year After Its Passage: Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns[/S]

...except for the fact that the penalty of non-compliance is not just getting fired from a job...

The statute also contains other provisions, including criminal penalties for and de-licensure of doctors who fail to comply.

We should make sure that we recognize the rights of PRIVATE COMPANIES to create agenda driven policies (such as your above example, or the example of a Catholic medical center from allowing abortions), while also recognizing the dangers of THE GOVERNMENT creating agenda driven LAWS.

I like that!

A real attempt to counter my thesis.

I don't believe it analogous in any way.

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

2. When the commissars take over, as per my example.....the birthright of Americans goes by the wayside: the physician was told he had to give up his first amendment rights.
Not the case in your example.

3. What muddy's the waters is this: in my example, the physician is following the Hippocratic Oath....laudable...
...you would like to bring up some way to facilitate the murder of an independent human being.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

Is the doctor being inquisitive, or is he/she performing the very function that we, as patients, and he, as guided by the Hippocratic Oath, is required to?


2. Well....it seems that that depends on who is in charge. If a Progressive, Liberal, secularist....then that role is ....muted......altered.

Here is one glaring example. The Obama regime wants doctors to base the care they give their patient on what the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union called 'medical totalitarianism.' Rather than 'waste' time, care, medicine on you, the patient.....consider the collective, i.e., consider 'social justice.'

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health - For a Fit Body and Mind

Downgrading American Medical Care




3. If you have any doubt as to what 'social justice' means, look at the atrocities of the Soviet system in the last century. The slaughter of millions was met with a shrug, and chalked up to "you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette."



In other words, your life means nothing if one endorses the collective, big government.

Welcome to the 'brave new world.'

You are the equivalent of a paint store with only a single color paint and a single wide brush for sale.

This is another failed TROLL thread!

Once again your ignorance is on display.....

I note that you have been unable to give a single example of anything.....anything....in the OP that is not accurate, correct, and undeniable.

Let's remind all: the view of Obama, Emanuel, Progressives,et al is that government is in charge of whatever medical care citizens get......deserve.....



And the care is based not on efficacy and saving lives, but on costs, as they so determine.


Any student of history....and I realize that you and scholarship have yet to be acquainted....
....notes the similarity in outlook of today's Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, with their earlier iteration.....
communists, Nazis, and fascists.


I have the sense that you see the similarity, too...and it embarrasses you.
Excellent.

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

There are always errors even unto outright fabrications in your posts. here is a gross error in your OP:

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now explain how this bit Chica, criticizing Dr. Emanuel comments about the ACA (ObamaCare) appeared in a June 18, 2008 American Medical Assn. article when Obama was still on the campaign trail in June of 2008 and ObamaCare had not even been proposed! I didn't even have to look for that...it just jumped out at me the first read through.

Can't wait for your normal ad hominem blast as you attempt to disconnect from that error AND your perfidy re: your alleged "error free" posted drivel!

Any normal human being (that leaves you out) can see that there is certainly no lie on my part....nor is there any error.

My record of correctness remains at 100%.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.


Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

I win again.


Now go wipe that egg off your face.
Oh....wait....it looks better with the egg.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

.

There is no medical necessity for the above. That's the problem.

 

[Dot Com]

Welcome back Polispice

as to your OP, can you write it in grammatically correct paragraph form so that it can be read as opposed to your made up AZN bulleted gobbledyGOOK formatting then I'll consider addressing it

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are the equivalent of a paint store with only a single color paint and a single wide brush for sale.

This is another failed TROLL thread!

Once again your ignorance is on display.....

I note that you have been unable to give a single example of anything.....anything....in the OP that is not accurate, correct, and undeniable.

Let's remind all: the view of Obama, Emanuel, Progressives,et al is that government is in charge of whatever medical care citizens get......deserve.....



And the care is based not on efficacy and saving lives, but on costs, as they so determine.


Any student of history....and I realize that you and scholarship have yet to be acquainted....
....notes the similarity in outlook of today's Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, with their earlier iteration.....
communists, Nazis, and fascists.


I have the sense that you see the similarity, too...and it embarrasses you.
Excellent.

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

There are always errors even unto outright fabrications in your posts. here is a gross error in your OP:

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now explain how this bit Chica, criticizing Dr. Emanuel comments about the ACA (ObamaCare) appeared in a June 18, 2008 American Medical Assn. article when Obama was still on the campaign trail in June of 2008 and ObamaCare had not even been proposed! I didn't even have to look for that...it just jumped out at me the first read through.

Can't wait for your normal ad hominem blast as you attempt to disconnect from that error AND your perfidy re: your alleged "error free" posted drivel!

Any normal human being (that leaves you out) can see that there is certainly no lie on my part....nor is there any error.

My record of correctness remains at 100%.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.


Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

I win again.


Now go wipe that egg off your face.
Oh....wait....it looks better with the egg.

IF, as you NOW CLAIM:

Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

HOW/WHY did Obama do that in June of 2008 before he was even elected and long before ObamaCare was even conceived?

Here again is your remark from the OP;

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now that you have doubled down on your stupidity, who got the egg where?

Take a look in the mirror, Chica!

 

[xotoxi]

I like that!

A real attempt to counter my thesis.

I don't believe it analogous in any way.

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

2. When the commissars take over, as per my example.....the birthright of Americans goes by the wayside: the physician was told he had to give up his first amendment rights.
Not the case in your example.

3. What muddy's the waters is this: in my example, the physician is following the Hippocratic Oath....laudable...
...you would like to bring up some way to facilitate the murder of an independent human being.

1. Your thesis (which I quoted) is: Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?
Therefore, my example is perfectly analogous.

2. Your example was NOT of a physician who gave up his First Amendment Rights, unless you were to tell me that the physician was fired by the government.

3. Fetuses are "independent"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there medical evidence to support Dr. Church's health risk concerns over the center’s decision to endorse and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle?


You betcha!

6. "Since 2004, Church has challenged hospital administrators to talk about what he believes are the health risks associated with gay sex. According to Church, gay and bisexual men face a significantly elevated risk of sexually-transmitted disease, including HIV.

“Health care (professionals have) a higher calling,” Church said in a Sept. 1 interview. “It’s an awkward double standard. We counsel people about other self-destructive behaviors like smoking and alcohol but have to be silent about this because it’s socially acceptable.”
http://newbostonpost.com/2015/09/08...mments-on-gay-lifestyle/#sthash.v39xGPpw.dpuf


And...that's what happens when the Liberal fascists are put in charge.




a. Although referring to a different issue, Dr. Alex Rosenau said this about politicians dictating to doctors:

“Here is my problem with legislative medicine,” said Dr. Alex Rosenau, president-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians and senior vice chairman of emergency medicine at Lehigh Valley Health Network in Eastern Pennsylvania. “It prevents me from being a professional and using my judgment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/n...in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0


Think about that when you vote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I like that!

A real attempt to counter my thesis.

I don't believe it analogous in any way.

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

2. When the commissars take over, as per my example.....the birthright of Americans goes by the wayside: the physician was told he had to give up his first amendment rights.
Not the case in your example.

3. What muddy's the waters is this: in my example, the physician is following the Hippocratic Oath....laudable...
...you would like to bring up some way to facilitate the murder of an independent human being.

1. Your thesis (which I quoted) is: Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?
Therefore, my example is perfectly analogous.

2. Your example was NOT of a physician who gave up his First Amendment Rights, unless you were to tell me that the physician was fired by the government.

3. Fetuses are "independent"?

1. He was fired for disagreeing with Progressive government doctrine.


2. Unborn human beings are unique, independent human beings, having their own DNA, fingerprints, etc.
I'm surprised you don't know that.

 

[Dot Com]

Is there medical evidence to support Dr. Church's health risk concerns over the center’s decision to endorse and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle?


You betcha!

6. "Since 2004, Church has challenged hospital administrators to talk about what he believes are the health risks associated with gay sex. According to Church, gay and bisexual men face a significantly elevated risk of sexually-transmitted disease, including HIV.

“Health care (professionals have) a higher calling,” Church said in a Sept. 1 interview. “It’s an awkward double standard. We counsel people about other self-destructive behaviors like smoking and alcohol but have to be silent about this because it’s socially acceptable.”
Hospital review board to decide fate of doctor who criticized gay “lifestyle” | NewBostonPost


And...that's what happens when the Liberal fascists are put in charge.




a. Although referring to a different issue, Dr. Alex Rosenau said this about politicians dictating to doctors:

“Here is my problem with legislative medicine,” said Dr. Alex Rosenau, president-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians and senior vice chairman of emergency medicine at Lehigh Valley Health Network in Eastern Pennsylvania. “It prevents me from being a professional and using my judgment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/n...in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0


Think about that when you vote.

“It prevents me from being a professional and using my judgment.” reminds me of Dr.'s having their hands tied by insurance co's

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again your ignorance is on display.....

I note that you have been unable to give a single example of anything.....anything....in the OP that is not accurate, correct, and undeniable.

Let's remind all: the view of Obama, Emanuel, Progressives,et al is that government is in charge of whatever medical care citizens get......deserve.....



And the care is based not on efficacy and saving lives, but on costs, as they so determine.


Any student of history....and I realize that you and scholarship have yet to be acquainted....
....notes the similarity in outlook of today's Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, with their earlier iteration.....
communists, Nazis, and fascists.


I have the sense that you see the similarity, too...and it embarrasses you.
Excellent.

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

There are always errors even unto outright fabrications in your posts. here is a gross error in your OP:

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now explain how this bit Chica, criticizing Dr. Emanuel comments about the ACA (ObamaCare) appeared in a June 18, 2008 American Medical Assn. article when Obama was still on the campaign trail in June of 2008 and ObamaCare had not even been proposed! I didn't even have to look for that...it just jumped out at me the first read through.

Can't wait for your normal ad hominem blast as you attempt to disconnect from that error AND your perfidy re: your alleged "error free" posted drivel!

Any normal human being (that leaves you out) can see that there is certainly no lie on my part....nor is there any error.

My record of correctness remains at 100%.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.


Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

I win again.


Now go wipe that egg off your face.
Oh....wait....it looks better with the egg.

IF, as you NOW CLAIM:

Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

HOW/WHY did Obama do that in June of 2008 before he was even elected and long before ObamaCare was even conceived?

Here again is your remake from the OP;

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now that you have doubled down on you stupidity, who got the egg where?

Take a look in the mirror, Chica!

I wrote:
Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

You were unable to deny either.

So stipulated.

You remain the eternal loser.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You prove my point through your own words...that same broad brush in motion loaded with that same monotonous colour.

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

There are always errors even unto outright fabrications in your posts. here is a gross error in your OP:

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now explain how this bit Chica, criticizing Dr. Emanuel comments about the ACA (ObamaCare) appeared in a June 18, 2008 American Medical Assn. article when Obama was still on the campaign trail in June of 2008 and ObamaCare had not even been proposed! I didn't even have to look for that...it just jumped out at me the first read through.

Can't wait for your normal ad hominem blast as you attempt to disconnect from that error AND your perfidy re: your alleged "error free" posted drivel!

Any normal human being (that leaves you out) can see that there is certainly no lie on my part....nor is there any error.

My record of correctness remains at 100%.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.


Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

I win again.


Now go wipe that egg off your face.
Oh....wait....it looks better with the egg.

IF, as you NOW CLAIM:

Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

HOW/WHY did Obama do that in June of 2008 before he was even elected and long before ObamaCare was even conceived?

Here again is your remake from the OP;

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now that you have doubled down on you stupidity, who got the egg where?

Take a look in the mirror, Chica!

I wrote:
Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

You were unable to deny either.

So stipulated.

You remain the eternal loser.

You LIED about the attribution you IDIOT! That is an error and you boasted you never err! What did I say you would do?

So here it is yet again!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[Dot Com]

Hmmm.....looka that!

Still can't find a single error in any of my posts....yet you continue to try in the way pigs sniff out truffles.

So....the real motive of your posts is that you hate me?

I get it: I'd describe our relationship kinda like a pig hates butchers.

There are always errors even unto outright fabrications in your posts. here is a gross error in your OP:

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now explain how this bit Chica, criticizing Dr. Emanuel comments about the ACA (ObamaCare) appeared in a June 18, 2008 American Medical Assn. article when Obama was still on the campaign trail in June of 2008 and ObamaCare had not even been proposed! I didn't even have to look for that...it just jumped out at me the first read through.

Can't wait for your normal ad hominem blast as you attempt to disconnect from that error AND your perfidy re: your alleged "error free" posted drivel!

Any normal human being (that leaves you out) can see that there is certainly no lie on my part....nor is there any error.

My record of correctness remains at 100%.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.


Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

I win again.


Now go wipe that egg off your face.
Oh....wait....it looks better with the egg.

IF, as you NOW CLAIM:

Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

HOW/WHY did Obama do that in June of 2008 before he was even elected and long before ObamaCare was even conceived?

Here again is your remake from the OP;

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Now that you have doubled down on you stupidity, who got the egg where?

Take a look in the mirror, Chica!

I wrote:
Obama picked Emanuel to provide the "ethics" for ObamaCare....
Emanuel demanded that physicians abjure the Hippocratic Oath.

You were unable to deny either.

So stipulated.

You remain the eternal loser.

You LIED about the attribution you IDIOT! That is an error and you boasted you never err! What did I say you would do?

So here it is yet again!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Thank you

ignoble end to ANOTHER hack thread by OP

 

[xotoxi]

I like that!

A real attempt to counter my thesis.

I don't believe it analogous in any way.

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

2. When the commissars take over, as per my example.....the birthright of Americans goes by the wayside: the physician was told he had to give up his first amendment rights.
Not the case in your example.

3. What muddy's the waters is this: in my example, the physician is following the Hippocratic Oath....laudable...
...you would like to bring up some way to facilitate the murder of an independent human being.

1. Your thesis (which I quoted) is: Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?
Therefore, my example is perfectly analogous.

2. Your example was NOT of a physician who gave up his First Amendment Rights, unless you were to tell me that the physician was fired by the government.

3. Fetuses are "independent"?

1. He was fired for disagreeing with Progressive government doctrine.


2. Unborn human beings are unique, independent human beings, having their own DNA, fingerprints, etc.
I'm surprised you don't know that.

1. Show me this doctrine.

2. Fetuses are not independent. By definition, they are 100% dependent.

But I am not arguing for or against abortion...I am neutral on the subject. My example was to point out what happens when healthcare laws are created based on political agenda which are counter to medical evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I like that!

A real attempt to counter my thesis.

I don't believe it analogous in any way.

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

2. When the commissars take over, as per my example.....the birthright of Americans goes by the wayside: the physician was told he had to give up his first amendment rights.
Not the case in your example.

3. What muddy's the waters is this: in my example, the physician is following the Hippocratic Oath....laudable...
...you would like to bring up some way to facilitate the murder of an independent human being.

1. Your thesis (which I quoted) is: Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?
Therefore, my example is perfectly analogous.

2. Your example was NOT of a physician who gave up his First Amendment Rights, unless you were to tell me that the physician was fired by the government.

3. Fetuses are "independent"?

1. He was fired for disagreeing with Progressive government doctrine.


2. Unborn human beings are unique, independent human beings, having their own DNA, fingerprints, etc.
I'm surprised you don't know that.

1. Show me this doctrine.

2. Fetuses are not independent. By definition, they are 100% dependent.

But I am not arguing for or against abortion...I am neutral on the subject. My example was to point out what happens when healthcare laws are created based on political agenda which are counter to medical evidence.

You brought up abortion, not I.

Would you equally suggest a mother's 'right' to kill her 'dependent' six month old that she was breast feeding?

BTW......the man Obama chose as his science adviser said exactly that.

a. Peter Singer says infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics.Killing them, therefore,cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
Peter Singer Joins Obama s Health Care Administrators I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story Experience




President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience



This is the same Obama who favors infanticide.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I like that!

A real attempt to counter my thesis.

I don't believe it analogous in any way.

1. Whether a physician is pro or con abortion....what is your problem with this:
"...requires abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to the procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen."

2. When the commissars take over, as per my example.....the birthright of Americans goes by the wayside: the physician was told he had to give up his first amendment rights.
Not the case in your example.

3. What muddy's the waters is this: in my example, the physician is following the Hippocratic Oath....laudable...
...you would like to bring up some way to facilitate the murder of an independent human being.

1. Your thesis (which I quoted) is: Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?
Therefore, my example is perfectly analogous.

2. Your example was NOT of a physician who gave up his First Amendment Rights, unless you were to tell me that the physician was fired by the government.

3. Fetuses are "independent"?

1. He was fired for disagreeing with Progressive government doctrine.


2. Unborn human beings are unique, independent human beings, having their own DNA, fingerprints, etc.
I'm surprised you don't know that.

1. Show me this doctrine.

2. Fetuses are not independent. By definition, they are 100% dependent.

But I am not arguing for or against abortion...I am neutral on the subject. My example was to point out what happens when healthcare laws are created based on political agenda which are counter to medical evidence.

1. "Show me this doctrine."
One can always detect a loser when they play dumb.

"Because of your help, we’ve gone further in protecting the rights of lesbian and gay and bisexual and transgender Americans than any administration in history."
Remarks by the President at Pride Month Celebration

That 'protection' extends to ending the employment of a doctor who spills the beans about the danger of said lifestyle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dr. Church was fired from his hospital job because he actually spoke out about the medical dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. These health risks are his area of expertise....but woe betide any whose words are contrary to the secular tsunami sweeping this nation.


So.....what did Dr. Church do that is inimical to the best interests of his patients? Nothing.

He simply made the facts known.


7. "The hospital did not at any time dispute the truth of his medical statements, nor did they address his other concerns.

They did not claim that Dr. Church ever discussed this with patients, or treated patients any differently if they were involved with these behaviors.

Instead Dr. Church was met with increasingly harsh efforts by the hospital administration to silence and censor him. They told him that his admonitions about homosexual behavior constituted “discrimination and harassment,” were “offensive to BIDMC staff,” and could not be tolerated. Physician expelled from hospital staff for telling the truth about "gay" behavior.




He voiced a medical opinion......one with which no medical professional disagreed.

But the commissars, the apparatchiks, the fellow travelers.....the lock-step-Liberals would not put up with such independent behaviors!

....so he had to be crushed.