Jump to content

Gay Prostitution, Gay Politics, and Public Morality


Will
This topic is 7112 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

RE: gays and republicans

 

Dear Reggie, I seem to remember learning in school that our homeland is not just a country but is also an "experiment in democracy". Does a good scientist decide exactly what the outcome is going to be before he conducts an experiment? Doesn't he do what seems correct to him and then gage the consequencies? I feel that the USA does its best work when it is out ahead on the cutting edge of human freedom. But it looks to me that we are right now behind Canada, several European countries taken as individuals, and the European Court. Probably others I just don't know enough about to mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest regulation

RE: experiment

 

Bilbo, in this country scientists are not allowed to experiment on human beings unless enough is known about the results of the experiment beforehand to be certain that, whatever the results, no one will be harmed. I don't think you can say the same thing about the experiment that you propose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: experiment

 

What started as an interesting discussion/debate has devolved to semantics and nitpicking.

 

 

 

>in this country scientists are

 

>not allowed to experiment on

 

>human beings unless enough is

 

>known about the results of

 

>the experiment beforehand to be

 

>certain that, whatever the results,

 

>no one will be harmed.

 

 

 

 

 

Reggie, This is somewhat true in the US for overt but not necessarily government or military sponsored covert experimentation. Even in regulated human experimentation and clinical trials the premise that scientists are "certain that, whatever the results, no one will be harmed" is not reality. Regulation requires risk be minimized but just read the informed consent which participants must sign. It specifically lists possible adverse effects to participation. Such experiments are specifically looking for adverse as well as therapeutic effects

 

I think Bilbo was referring to a social experiment which is not regulated by the FDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest craigrc

RE: experiment

 

Frankly I think that the "experiment" analogy used by Bilbo is a flawed one, but it was he who decided to apply it to the subject of this discussion and I don't see why Regulation should be criticized for replying to him in the same terms that he used.

 

With regard to clinical trials of drugs involving human patients, I believe that every medical doctor, including those involved in the administration of such trials, has taken an oath to do nothing that would harm a patient. One hopes that doctors take that oath seriously.

 

Given the many occasions on which laws have had an effect quite different from what their authors intended -- one could cite the recent problems with the deregulation of electric utilities in California as an example currently in the news -- I think that legislators should be at least as slow and careful with legislative experiments as doctors are with clinical drug trials, if not more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: experiment

 

I am most assuredly not the one who first referred to our country as an experiment in democracy. Perhaps I did compare it too closely to an actualy laboratory experiment, but what other animal or with what other animal could an experiment in government occur? The social interactions of other animals, even the gay ones, seem to be dictated by instinct. And, for the most part, they aren't very democratic to the best of my limited knowledge.

Would someone mind answering the other thing I mentioned, ie that many countries seem to be further ahead on personal liberties than we are at the moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest craigrc

RE: Personal Liberties

 

Bilbo, I'll be happy to speak to your point that other countries are "ahead" of us on "personal liberties." The short answer is, it's only true if you focus on some types of personal liberty and ignore others.

 

For example, while Canada may have fewer restrictions on gays serving in the military, they also have restrictions on certain kinds of speech, restrictions that would not be permitted under our First Amendment. Britain's law on free speech is also much less expansive than ours, so much so that Britain has become the venue of choice for people who want to bring libel suits; the restrictions on such suits that our Supreme Court imposed under the First Amendment in Sullivan v. New York are not part of British law, so it is much easier for public figures and government officials to win such suits there than here. Germany also has laws restricting political speech -- designed to allow the government to curb any resurgence of Nazism -- that would not be permitted here. Those laws have been used by the German government recently to curb the activities of Scientologists in that country. France does not offer suspects in criminal cases quite the same legal protections that suspects get in the U.S., and pretrial detention of suspects is much easier there than it is here. To give another example, France does not permit religious expression by individuals to the same extent as in this country. The Education Ministry there recently ruled that Muslim girls do not have the right to wear traditional Muslim headscarves and other attire in public schools. In all of the countries I have listed, immigration law is far stricter than in the U.S., as is the naturalization process. I could go on, but I'm sure you see the point. If treatment of gays is all you care about, you might want to move to Europe. Otherwise, you should stay here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Personal Liberties

 

The level of contributions to this thread reminds me why I love M4M so much.

 

Craig is right about personal liberties varying from country to country. The most liberal -- that is, permissive -- country I know anything about is Italy. It makes the U.S. idea of individual freedoms look like a totalitarian state. On the other hand, public speech can be highly controlled. A well-known American art historian criticized the recent cleaning of a Renaissance tomb sculpture; the restorer sued him for libel and won; until the thing was settled in court (I forget how), the American scholar could not return to Italy without being arrested at the airport. Closer to home, another American I know was arrested in Rome as he was cruising the part of the Capitoline Hill called "Little Goat Moun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: experiment

 

Hello Craigrc,

 

>Frankly I think that the "experiment"

>analogy used by Bilbo is

>a flawed one, but it

>was he who decided to

>apply it to the subject

>of this discussion and I

>don't see why Regulation should

>be criticized for replying to

>him in the same terms

>that he used.

 

My intent was never to criticize Reg, but rather to disagree and correct a statement I believe is "flawed". If Reg's reply was flawed since he was responding to a flawed analogy I not only don't think my response was out of line but question the purpose of the "flawed reply" in the first place.

 

>

>With regard to clinical trials of

>drugs involving human patients, I

>believe that every medical doctor,

>including those involved in the

>administration of such trials, has

>taken an oath to do

>nothing that would harm a

>patient. One hopes that

>doctors take that oath seriously.

>

 

I think you might be suprised by what oaths are really taken or the wide variation in the oaths.

 

the results of a study by Robert Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D., in which 157 deans of allopathic and osteopathic schools of medicine in Canada and the United States were surveyed regarding the use of the Hippocratic Oath:

 

1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

3. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.

4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.

5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.

6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.

7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.

8. Only 11% invoke a diety.

9. 8% prohibit abortion.

10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.

 

The original Oath of Hippocrates, 400 BC

 

Translated by Francis Adams

 

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation - to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, ant to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and by that precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mishievious. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate, may the reverse be my lot!

 

All physicians and medical professionals are bound by some oath, values or ethics governed by professional associations or regulatory agencies. After 33 years as a medical professional, I can state without qualification that human beings are harmed not only by experimentation but by the PRACTICE (not science) of medicine. That harm is mostly a side effect or adverse reaction to a treatment for a greater harm. Thousands of examples could be sited but one of the most common and most severe that comes to mind is chemotherapy for cancer. We inject a toxin at often just sub-lethal doses to kill the CA cells with the hope that the subsequent immunosuppression doesn't lead to the patients death. The side effects are far from harmless and we know in advance they will be there.

 

Enough for the semantics. I just hope I've helped some understand the heuristic nature of the practice or art of medicine. It is wonderful indeed but not without "harm"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest craigrc

RE: Personal Liberties

 

Will, thanks for the compliment about contributions (if you meant me).

 

Let me add that Britain's lack of a statute with the broad scope of our First Amendment and lack of a body of case law like that created by our Supreme Court has other effects. For example, if you travel to Britain with a laptop computer you may find that customs officials at Heathrow will scan your hard disk with a device programmed to detect images that are considered pornographic under British law. If they find any, your computer will be seized and you will be detained. Depending upon the images, you may or may not be charged with attempting to smuggle indecent materials into the country. I think I'll leave mine at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Personal Liberties

 

Egad! I've been going back and forth to Britain with my handy laptop and never thought twice about it.

 

Yes, I did mean you. And I also followed your post on another thread regarding the new piece of bugging information from Sean the Charm-Free Escort. I see you've started a separate thread in the past few hours on that topic. I'm on my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
Guest Tampa Yankee

This is pretty scary...

 

Damn!! This IS pretty scary.

 

The last few days I myself have been thinking of posting a few of the archived posts in the belief that many current members were not around in the 'good ole days'. Some might find earlier threads an interesting, if dated, read. Coincidentally, while this particular thread was not in my top two to resurrect, both of those are referenced above.

 

My #1 is "What does it mean to be gay", the post that actually attracted me to the Message Center and got me hooked. It was also my introduction to Will and Boston Guy. Skeptic was the third member of the triad that grounded that discussion. Unfortunately he disappeared/morphed soon thereafter. My #2 is the predecssor to the above thread regarding the Houston sting and prostitution. There are many more jewels IMO for those interested in delving into the dusty archives.

 

 

Yeah, really scary!! Are you projecting?? :o

 

:7

 

P.S. It is interesting to see how well some of my views have aged over the last four years. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Judges

 

Well, I didn't come off as stupidly as I might have. But I still have that habit of getting myself in trouble by using metaphors when I think aloud.

 

This thread really brings home the fear we all had that if W was elected he would be appointing Supreme Court justices. I note that none have retired. Not even his good friend Orgies Scalia. Do none, even the more conservative ones, trust him to make a good appointment, one with whom they have enough basic agreements to trust them to properly represent their way of thinking? I know that the justices cannot make political endorsements. But has there clinging to their chairs not made one for them? However, some of them are surely getting to the age where their choice might be resigning anyway or dieing in place? Not that there's really anything wrong with doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...