"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - HL Mencken
====
"I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." - Confucius
====
"The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease" - Sir William Osler
====
" The best test of a person's character is how he or she treats those with less power." - Bob Sutton
====
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them - well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
====
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
====
"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them" - Friedrich Nietzsche
====
"Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple." - Charles Mingus
====
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein
====
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
====
"This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around." - Talking Heads, Life During Wartime
====
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." - Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
====
"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing." - Thomas Sowell
====
"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - HL Mencken
====
"If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." - Abraham Maslow
====
"A great teacher is one who realizes that he himself is also a student and whose goal is not to dictate the answers, but to stimulate his students creativity enough so that they go out and find the answers themselves." - Herbie Hancock
====
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
====
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't." - Anatole France
====
"In character, in manner, in style, in all things, the supreme excellence is simplicity." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
====
Workouts by month - Goal 200 from 11/1/09 through 10/31/10
http://ow.ly/1mYi7 - ABIM MOC program - two differing viewpoints - you can guess my voteMarch 16, 2010 5:06
RT @yejnes: My thoughts on the annual exam, etc., final letter ACP Internist, March 2010 http://bit.ly/9FNcXn wel-stated & importantMarch 15, 2010 12:47
A note to the professors, from the "real" world, on the use of ICDs in a fee for service community... http://ow.ly/1jaPy - great postMarch 13, 2010 2:19
RT @paulinechen: New "Doctor and Patient"; Learning to Keep Patients Safe in a Culture of Fear http://nyti.ms/bYA14V - blog post comingMarch 12, 2010 1:35
RT @tom_peters: @kevinmd Spoken like an MD. - true primary care is very complex - it is not simple care -March 11, 2010 12:43
RT @efalchuk: Seriously, what is Nancy Pelosi Talking About? http://bit.ly/9sHSc2 #healthreform #hcr #healthcare think Dazed and ConfusedMarch 10, 2010 7:53
Obama Says Health Overhaul Should Trump Politics - http://nyti.ms/bwKRyo - and he is correctMarch 8, 2010 7:28
@BertDecker multiples of 37 - trivial - any factor of 111 would factor into the others. The key here is that 37 * 3 = 111March 7, 2010 9:00
I’ll agree to support states’ rights for Oregon, if those judges can reason far enough to then apply that same standard to states’ anti-abortion laws. Surely if one state can decide to kill its elderly, another state can decide not to kill its babies. And maybe if this were permitted, it would promote a more civil society. People who like euthanasia can move to Oregon, and people who don’t like abortion can move to Kansas.
She makes a great point! I understand why abortion should be legalized, although I personally dislike abortions. Allowing states to make decisions on various decisions makes great sense to me. Example would include same-sex marriage (or civil unions), medical marijuana, euthanasia, abortion. We should let states make these decisions individually. If this encourages some people to move, I have no problem. After all, Nevada having legalized gambling and brothels has influenced population in that state.
I’m sorta in the same boat. I have trouble with abortion but I do, on very many situations, have a social libertarian mindset. There was a fetal and maternal medicine guy who gave a clinical correlation for my class and he thought, within our lifetime, as doctors we’d be able to take an embryo or fetus from a mother at any stage of development and grow it to viability in an artificial womb.
I’m always looking for concrete terms and definitions, even amongst the sort of subjectiveness of philosophical discussion. Certainly there is nothing inherent about trying to define life (and limit abortion) at viability (which case law in this country does), because medical science keeps stretching that — the definition changes from year to year.
So, I am with the poster. However, I was a little confused initially. The poster sounds like a pro-choicer herself (maybe I’m reading into that), but what she’s proposing is basically the exact situation pre-Roe v. Wade (well in terms of abortion).
Don’t you support a federal damages cap on malpractice cases? Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought you specifically argued that this matter was a federal matter and states’ rights shouldn’t apply.
If that’s the case, and again maybe I’m incorrect, it would seem that you are, shall we say, inconsistent.
I guess I am a libertarian at heart but it also seems like we should all sort of function under the same set of guiding rules. It’s either okay or not okay to kill a fetus/baby or let a terminal person commit suicide/be murdered. It seems odd to say it’s murder in Kansas but kind and wonderful in oregon. It’s not like you are talking about the weight of a tractor trailer or sales tax percents.
It seems that if each state gets to pick and choose on these things why shouldn’t we allow certain states to choose state religions and outlaw interracial marrige. My understanding of legal technicalities is admittedly limited however when you look at history it seems like things that were outrageous 40 years ago-black and whites drinking from the same fountain and being married are perfectly reasonable things now due to federal interventions not states’ choices. I guess we use the constitution as an absolute standard which to make the big decisions on but what else should be used when we can’t find the answers there?
3 Responses to More on States’ rights
Colin
October 12th, 2005 at 6:42 am
I’m sorta in the same boat. I have trouble with abortion but I do, on very many situations, have a social libertarian mindset. There was a fetal and maternal medicine guy who gave a clinical correlation for my class and he thought, within our lifetime, as doctors we’d be able to take an embryo or fetus from a mother at any stage of development and grow it to viability in an artificial womb.
I’m always looking for concrete terms and definitions, even amongst the sort of subjectiveness of philosophical discussion. Certainly there is nothing inherent about trying to define life (and limit abortion) at viability (which case law in this country does), because medical science keeps stretching that — the definition changes from year to year.
So, I am with the poster. However, I was a little confused initially. The poster sounds like a pro-choicer herself (maybe I’m reading into that), but what she’s proposing is basically the exact situation pre-Roe v. Wade (well in terms of abortion).
Curious JD
October 12th, 2005 at 11:20 am
DB,
Don’t you support a federal damages cap on malpractice cases? Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought you specifically argued that this matter was a federal matter and states’ rights shouldn’t apply.
If that’s the case, and again maybe I’m incorrect, it would seem that you are, shall we say, inconsistent.
tina
October 18th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
I guess I am a libertarian at heart but it also seems like we should all sort of function under the same set of guiding rules. It’s either okay or not okay to kill a fetus/baby or let a terminal person commit suicide/be murdered. It seems odd to say it’s murder in Kansas but kind and wonderful in oregon. It’s not like you are talking about the weight of a tractor trailer or sales tax percents.
It seems that if each state gets to pick and choose on these things why shouldn’t we allow certain states to choose state religions and outlaw interracial marrige. My understanding of legal technicalities is admittedly limited however when you look at history it seems like things that were outrageous 40 years ago-black and whites drinking from the same fountain and being married are perfectly reasonable things now due to federal interventions not states’ choices. I guess we use the constitution as an absolute standard which to make the big decisions on but what else should be used when we can’t find the answers there?