3 ms·

>Honestly I think people are overreacting because they have absolutely no idea of anything about everything that's inside bodies. Having used coagulators and se

>Honestly I think people are overreacting because they have absolutely no idea of anything about everything that's inside bodies. Having used coagulators and seen hundreds of livers (pathologist) and the eventual macroscopical but benign scars they get because of ("naturally occurring") small infarctii or such, this has really no consequences whatsoever. I don't know how it worked in this case, but there's a reason doctors are disciplinally judged by their peers in some countries. You must be Dr. Manhattan. It's a big deal to us uneducated ants but you're enlightened so you can see it for what it is, is that right? Actually, you are simply too arrogant to see it.

hycaria 9y ago
It's important, just not for the reason most commonly accepted ie risk for the patient yada yada. Easy question : do you know what it looks like ? I think no picture has been published, I infer what it probably looks like out of what I've seen and my experience which is relevant in this case, but most people are probably not able to do so (this is arrogant I guess ?). BUT it is indeed bad and damaging for the doctor/patient relationship, which is today even more prevalent than the care one.
- theprotocol 9y ago
  >Easy question : do you know what it looks like ? I think no picture has been published, I infer what it probably looks like out of what I've seen and my experience which is relevant in this case, but most people are probably not able to do so (this is arrogant I guess ?). I have not seen a photo of it, but it's frankly irrelevant. You're shoehorning in your experience of having seen exposed organs as giving you some kind of expertise; but it does not, this is an issue of ethics about a breach of body autonomy and consent. >BUT it is indeed bad and damaging for the doctor/patient relationship, which is today even more prevalent than the care one. This is a very mechanistic interpretation which does not regard justice or principles as being a thing and only considers results.

hycaria 9y ago

It's important, just not for the reason most commonly accepted ie risk for the patient yada yada. Easy question : do you know what it looks like ? I think no picture has been published, I infer what it probably looks like out of what I've seen and my experience which is relevant in this case, but most people are probably not able to do so (this is arrogant I guess ?). BUT it is indeed bad and damaging for the doctor/patient relationship, which is today even more prevalent than the care one.

theprotocol 9y ago
>Easy question : do you know what it looks like ? I think no picture has been published, I infer what it probably looks like out of what I've seen and my experience which is relevant in this case, but most people are probably not able to do so (this is arrogant I guess ?). I have not seen a photo of it, but it's frankly irrelevant. You're shoehorning in your experience of having seen exposed organs as giving you some kind of expertise; but it does not, this is an issue of ethics about a breach of body autonomy and consent. >BUT it is indeed bad and damaging for the doctor/patient relationship, which is today even more prevalent than the care one. This is a very mechanistic interpretation which does not regard justice or principles as being a thing and only considers results.