I figured in defense of my fellow officers I would start a thread comparing medical errors and police brutality leading to death.
Here is the link regarding medical errors leading to death
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html
Here is the link regarding all police brutality not just deaths
Statistics should tell you why this is the case.
I am just curious why every time a medical error leads directly to death or disfigurement it is not newsworthy.
We put our trust in these people same as we do police officers and do not expect to die in their hands. You would figure 10+ years of school and residency would error proof a person.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
We put our trust in these people same as we do police officers and do not expect to die in their hands. You would figure 10+ years of school and residency would error proof a person.[/quote]
If medicine were so easy it wouldn’t take nearly a decade to become a dr. Nearly any bonehead can become a cop.
Does that help you figure anything out?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
We put our trust in these people same as we do police officers and do not expect to die in their hands. You would figure 10+ years of school and residency would error proof a person.
If medicine were so easy it wouldn’t take nearly a decade to become a dr. Nearly any bonehead can become a cop.
Does that help you figure anything out?[/quote]
That is not relevant. Medical errors happen more often and are done by highly trained professionals.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
We put our trust in these people same as we do police officers and do not expect to die in their hands. You would figure 10+ years of school and residency would error proof a person.
If medicine were so easy it wouldn’t take nearly a decade to become a dr. Nearly any bonehead can become a cop.
Does that help you figure anything out?
That is not relevant. Medical errors happen more often and are done by highly trained professionals.
[/quote]
Again, refer to my comment about statistics.
to all officers, thank you, but are there any bad cops?
To all doctors, thank you, but are there any bad doctors?
To come to the defense of someone simply because of a shared vocation or for any other shared link is illogical.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
To come to the defense of someone simply because of a shared vocation or for any other shared link is illogical.[/quote]
Collectivism at its finest.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
to all officers, thank you, but are there any bad cops?
To all doctors, thank you, but are there any bad doctors?
To come to the defense of someone simply because of a shared vocation or for any other shared link is illogical. [/quote]
I actually did it because cop bashing is at least a once a month new thread in this forum. On the other hand we never see the medical community publicly dragged through the mud when they make way more life altering mistakes than police officers do.
When a police officer uses excessive force it is pounced on. When a doctor bypasses the wrong artery or performs the wrong procedure nothing is publicized unless this is the umteenth time the offense has been perpetrated by said doctor.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
On the other hand we never see the medical community publicly dragged through the mud when they make way more life altering mistakes than police officers do.
[/quote]
As a free person I choose whether or not I am going to have a medical procedure performed on me. It is a voluntary process.
Tell me exactly how I get to voluntarily take part in the immoral laws that are brutally enforced by cops.
You compare apples to orange with your analogy.
State mandated laws are not voluntary, medical treatment is.
There are fewer doctors than cops and more people are more likely to seek medical attention than they are to deal with the police in a given lifetime. This combination of lack of skilled professionals combined with an overabundance of users makes for a very volatile situation any time one walks into a dr’s office. Really, government is to blame here too.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
On the other hand we never see the medical community publicly dragged through the mud when they make way more life altering mistakes than police officers do.
As a free person I choose whether or not I am going to have a medical procedure performed on me. It is a voluntary process.
Tell me exactly how I get to voluntarily take part in the immoral laws that are brutally enforced by cops.
You compare apples to orange with your analogy.
State mandated laws are not voluntary, medical treatment is.
There are fewer doctors than cops and more people are more likely to seek medical attention than they are to deal with the police in a given lifetime.
This combination of lack of skilled professionals combined with an overabundance of users makes for a very volatile situation any time one walks into a dr’s office. Really, government is to blame here too.[/quote]
Yes, medical treatment is voluntary. Once you are under anesthesia nothing being done is voluntary. Complying with laws is also voluntary. Once you don’t comply nothing being done is voluntary.
I know this is like talking to a wall since any law telling YOU what YOU can and can’t do is ridiculous abuse of power.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Complying with laws is also voluntary.[/quote]
True, but whether or not I want to interact with the police is not!
Only because it is YOU that is incapable of making a perfectly logical distinction.
Many laws that you are forced to enforce are immoral. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot put into their own bodies. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot do with their property.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Complying with laws is also voluntary.
True, but whether or not I want to interact with the police is not!
I know this is like talking to a wall since any law telling YOU what YOU can and can’t do is ridiculous abuse of power.
Only because it is YOU that is incapable of making a perfectly logical distinction.
Many laws that you are forced to enforce are immoral. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot put into their own bodies. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot do with their property.[/quote]
Let me just clarify your stance here. You don’t think drinking and doing drugs should be illegal? Based on your property stance neither should driving your own privately owned vehicle under the influence of said substances. Do you have children?
[quote]snipeout wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Complying with laws is also voluntary.
True, but whether or not I want to interact with the police is not!
I know this is like talking to a wall since any law telling YOU what YOU can and can’t do is ridiculous abuse of power.
Only because it is YOU that is incapable of making a perfectly logical distinction.
Many laws that you are forced to enforce are immoral. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot put into their own bodies. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot do with their property.
Let me just clarify your stance here. You don’t think drinking and doing drugs should be illegal? Based on your property stance neither should driving your own privately owned vehicle under the influence of said substances. Do you have children?
[/quote]
Yes. And I actively drink and drive whenever I get the chance.
The difference between a doctor’s mistake and cop’s brutality is the same as the difference between a dog being tripped over and a dog being kicked.
State of mind makes all the difference in the world.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. And I actively drink and drive whenever I get the chance.[/quote]
I take it you’re joking.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Complying with laws is also voluntary.
True, but whether or not I want to interact with the police is not!
I know this is like talking to a wall since any law telling YOU what YOU can and can’t do is ridiculous abuse of power.
Only because it is YOU that is incapable of making a perfectly logical distinction.
Many laws that you are forced to enforce are immoral. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot put into their own bodies. It is always immoral to tell people what they can or cannot do with their property.
Let me just clarify your stance here. You don’t think drinking and doing drugs should be illegal? Based on your property stance neither should driving your own privately owned vehicle under the influence of said substances. Do you have children?
Yes. And I actively drink and drive whenever I get the chance.[/quote]
One day when you grow up and have kids you will appreciate laws and stuff.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. And I actively drink and drive whenever I get the chance.
I take it you’re joking.[/quote]
No. I stop on my way home sometimes at my favorite pub and have a few drinks and then drive home afterwards.
I don’t drive drunk because I don’t ever get drunk.
Eat a dick, point-zero-fucking-eight!
I guess I’m confused as to why you would mention it. If, you’re saying you would not test as legally drunk…well, I don’t know what you’re saying.
Strange quote from the FDA article:
"In its report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, the IOM estimates that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die each year not from the medical conditions they checked in with, but from preventable medical errors.
"A medical error, under the report’s definition, could mean a health-care provider chose an inappropriate method of care, such as giving a patient a certain asthma drug without knowing that he or she was allergic to it.
Or it could mean the health provider chose the right course of care but carried it out incorrectly, such as intending to infuse a patient with diluted potassium chloride --a potassium supplement-- but inadvertently giving the patient a concentrated, lethal overdose…
"Despite the recent focus on the IOM statistics, experts assure that the health system in the United States is safe. But its safety record is a far cry from the enviable record of the similarly complex aviation industry, which is being held up as an example for the medical world.
A person would have to fly nonstop for 438 years before expecting to be involved in a deadly airplane crash, based on recent airline accident statistics. That, IOM says, places health-care at least a decade behind aviation in safeguarding consumers’ lives and health."
Um, in 1999 the airlines were killing 44,000-plus Americans per year?
In fact, back in the days of the DC-3 the aviation industry had a far better safety record than this.
10 years behind?