4 ms·

Doubt the doctors are the evil ones. If they're using an outdated procedure it means they haven't been kept up to date on the latest treatment protocols. The

Doubt the doctors are the evil ones. If they're using an outdated procedure it means they haven't been kept up to date on the latest treatment protocols. The hospital beaurocrats trying to keep their accredation and earn big bucks, those are the evail ones.

fnid 17y ago
They are evil because they were thinking of themselves before the patient and using lies to intimidate her into agreeing with them -- when they were wrong. That's evil. Unfortunately, it's a story repeated across the nation every day.
- andreyf 17y ago
  No accreditation means no funding, means no hospital, means no job. So by your definition, the only way doctors can remain doctors at said hospital is by being evil. Hence, I would blame the short-sighedness of whoever created and approved for the rules of accreditation for hospitals, not the people at the whims of those rules.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    If you're right, all it means is that no ethical doctor would remain at said hospital. Ethics only count when they go against one's own interests, otherwise they'd be pointless. I can't believe you're making excuses for doctors who (if the story is true) tried to bully a woman against her will into having major spinal surgery that she clearly didn't need.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Not quite making excuses, just pointing out that the system that necessitates 'evil' behavior is also to blame...
  - DavidSJ 17y ago
    One's choices are never completely at the whim of someone else's rules.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Wrong, there are many people who may go to that hospital by choice. It only is the act of lying and not obeying the patients wishes that are evil. If they can't keep their accreditation then perhaps they could offer discounts to entice people to their hospital.
  - radu_floricica 17y ago
    Don't downmod this, it has a valid point. It's by far better if the rules of the game don't give incentives to being evil. If they do it's as good as guaranteed that sometime somewhere you will get this kind of incident. Whether you choose to also blame the individuals involved is up to you, but it's the rule-makers who created this.
    - zaphar 17y ago
      Every rule system ever designed has the potential to be misinterpreted, misused, and create incentives that were never intended. Rule systems and rule makers can't be held responsible for idiotic/selfish/malicious behavior by individuals. Yes rules and systems can be refined to improve them but ultimately it will always be up to the individual to exercise judgement and moral character. So I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. If you blame the system for being misused you miss the point.
gruseom 17y ago
It's interesting that you try to absolve the doctors by rendering them passive ("they haven't been kept up to date" - whose responsibility is that? and how did they react when presented with correct information?). Most evil happens by default. The same is no doubt the case with the hospital administrators. The interesting characters in the story (again, assuming this is all true) are the sympathetic subordinates - nurses and so on - who supplied information about what was really going on.

fnid 17y ago

They are evil because they were thinking of themselves before the patient and using lies to intimidate her into agreeing with them -- when they were wrong. That's evil. Unfortunately, it's a story repeated across the nation every day.

andreyf 17y ago
No accreditation means no funding, means no hospital, means no job. So by your definition, the only way doctors can remain doctors at said hospital is by being evil. Hence, I would blame the short-sighedness of whoever created and approved for the rules of accreditation for hospitals, not the people at the whims of those rules.
- gruseom 17y ago
  If you're right, all it means is that no ethical doctor would remain at said hospital. Ethics only count when they go against one's own interests, otherwise they'd be pointless. I can't believe you're making excuses for doctors who (if the story is true) tried to bully a woman against her will into having major spinal surgery that she clearly didn't need.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Not quite making excuses, just pointing out that the system that necessitates 'evil' behavior is also to blame...
- DavidSJ 17y ago
  One's choices are never completely at the whim of someone else's rules.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Wrong, there are many people who may go to that hospital by choice. It only is the act of lying and not obeying the patients wishes that are evil. If they can't keep their accreditation then perhaps they could offer discounts to entice people to their hospital.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Don't downmod this, it has a valid point. It's by far better if the rules of the game don't give incentives to being evil. If they do it's as good as guaranteed that sometime somewhere you will get this kind of incident. Whether you choose to also blame the individuals involved is up to you, but it's the rule-makers who created this.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    Every rule system ever designed has the potential to be misinterpreted, misused, and create incentives that were never intended. Rule systems and rule makers can't be held responsible for idiotic/selfish/malicious behavior by individuals. Yes rules and systems can be refined to improve them but ultimately it will always be up to the individual to exercise judgement and moral character. So I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. If you blame the system for being misused you miss the point.

gruseom 17y ago

It's interesting that you try to absolve the doctors by rendering them passive ("they haven't been kept up to date" - whose responsibility is that? and how did they react when presented with correct information?). Most evil happens by default. The same is no doubt the case with the hospital administrators. The interesting characters in the story (again, assuming this is all true) are the sympathetic subordinates - nurses and so on - who supplied information about what was really going on.