Comments on: More on States’ rights http://www.medrants.com/archives/2548 Internal medicine, American health care, and especially medical education Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:15:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tina http://www.medrants.com/archives/2548/comment-page-1#comment-79605 tina Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:04 +0000 http://medrants.com/?p=2548#comment-79605 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? 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?

]]> By: Curious JD http://www.medrants.com/archives/2548/comment-page-1#comment-76912 Curious JD Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:20:14 +0000 http://medrants.com/?p=2548#comment-76912 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. 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.

]]> By: Colin http://www.medrants.com/archives/2548/comment-page-1#comment-76849 Colin Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:48 +0000 http://medrants.com/?p=2548#comment-76849 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). 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).

]]>