Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
American people: We can't let the children go without.
Welfare mothers who continue to have babies for profit: The American people won't let my kids go without.
Mothers must be held responsible and accountable for the kids they pop out. They keep doing it because they can. They know welfare will just keep giving them more money. There is no responsibility or accountability there. THAT has to change.
i have a very vivid and weird imagination- Okay I will say what I have been thinking-anyone else been wondering if grand dad ever made any, ahem, deposits with the doc she used???
i have a very vivid and weird imagination- Okay I will say what I have been thinking-anyone else been wondering if grand dad ever made any, ahem, deposits with the doc she used???
i have a very vivid and weird imagination- Okay I will say what I have been thinking-anyone else been wondering if grand dad ever made any, ahem, deposits with the doc she used???
He violated 4 out of 6 by my count. He should be held accountable for enabling a crazy person to live out her insane dreams while risking her life and the embryos future lives.
To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools gave preferential consideration to the children of physicians.[citation needed]
To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.
Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably Oregon,[5]Washington,[6]Montana,[7] and the Netherlands,[8] a doctor can prescribe euthanasia with the patient's consent.
To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too menial for physicians, and therefore was left for barbers (the forerunners of modern surgeons). Surgery was not recognized as a specialty at that time. This sentence is now interpreted as acknowledging that it is impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. It also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.
To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.
He also may be sued for malpractice (The plaintiff is or was the patient, or a legally designated party acting on behalf of the patient) if she is deemed nutty enough by a court of law to require a court ordered guardian. Because performing surgeries on a patient who may not be sane enough to give consent is negligient. Medical malpractice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitokenshi
Still though doctors have been ordered to pay child support in certain circumstances. With this woman being a nut job this would be another one of those circumstances.
This is not looking good at all for those kids. If they were taken only 6 of the octuplets will have a chance for adoption. The rest of the children are too old and/or have disabilities.
He violated 4 out of 6 by my count. He should be held accountable for enabling a crazy person to live out her insane dreams while risking her life and the embryos future lives.
To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools gave preferential consideration to the children of physicians.[citation needed]
To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.
Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably Oregon,[5]Washington,[6]Montana,[7] and the Netherlands,[8] a doctor can prescribe euthanasia with the patient's consent.
To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too menial for physicians, and therefore was left for barbers (the forerunners of modern surgeons). Surgery was not recognized as a specialty at that time. This sentence is now interpreted as acknowledging that it is impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. It also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.
To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.
He also may be sued for malpractice (The plaintiff is or was the patient, or a legally designated party acting on behalf of the patient) if she is deemed nutty enough by a court of law to require a court ordered guardian. Because performing surgeries on a patient who may not be sane enough to give consent is negligient. Medical malpractice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This ethicial doctor is under investigation for a 49yr old woman who is pregnant with quadruplets.
She is married but they have no health insurance & are saying they are unable to pay or take care of 4 babies. Not sure if she works or if the husband works. They have no other children.
Wondering if you can't afford health insurance, how do you afford IVF?
If you've been unemployed for 10 years, how do you afford IVF?
The doc's partner is saying he is a very "novel" doctor. That's an understatement.
He violated 4 out of 6 by my count. He should be held accountable for enabling a crazy person to live out her insane dreams while risking her life and the embryos future lives.
To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools gave preferential consideration to the children of physicians.[citation needed]
To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.
Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably Oregon,[5]Washington,[6]Montana,[7] and the Netherlands,[8] a doctor can prescribe euthanasia with the patient's consent.
To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too menial for physicians, and therefore was left for barbers (the forerunners of modern surgeons). Surgery was not recognized as a specialty at that time. This sentence is now interpreted as acknowledging that it is impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. It also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.
To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.
He also may be sued for malpractice (The plaintiff is or was the patient, or a legally designated party acting on behalf of the patient) if she is deemed nutty enough by a court of law to require a court ordered guardian. Because performing surgeries on a patient who may not be sane enough to give consent is negligient. Medical malpractice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is why his license should be taken away. It still doesn't make him responsible for child support...that's all on HER.
As far as medical malpractice, it takes A LOT (I think someone with much more severe issues than her) to have a court appoint a guardian.
This ethicial doctor is under investigation for a 49yr old woman who is pregnant with quadruplets.
She is married but they have no health insurance & are saying they are unable to pay or take care of 4 babies. Not sure if she works or if the husband works. They have no other children.
Wondering if you can't afford health insurance, how do you afford IVF?
If you've been unemployed for 10 years, how do you afford IVF?
The doc's partner is saying he is a very "novel" doctor. That's an understatement.
I do think he is paying patients like Suleman's nanny stated. This man had the lowest success rate in the country. He had to do something before his practice was taken away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
He violated 4 out of 6 by my count. He should be held accountable for enabling a crazy person to live out her insane dreams while risking her life and the embryos future lives.
As far as medical malpractice, it takes A LOT (I think someone with much more severe issues than her) to have a court appoint a guardian.
A friend of mine (musician) was heavily into drugs and one day when she called 911 because she was freaking out they took her in to the psychiatric center where the court imposed a guardianship over her until she gathered her senses, took about 2 weeks. She was not even crazy, just on drugs. Britney spears STILL has a guardian over her months later.
You just have to get the person to be diagnosed and evaluated and the court will jump right in if you ask them too if they cannot make rational decisions, at the very least they would have the children removed from her care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You pervert. 
