• FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
    5·
    10 months ago

    I think the thrust of their point is it’s between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things.

    And my point is it isn’t.

    Saying, “It’s between an individual and their doctor.” implies there could be a time when a person wants to ingest something or do something to their body that affects nobody but them (vaccinations I still advocate the administration of at gunpoint) and they shouldn’t be allowed to because a doctor said no.

    Doctors are their to advise, but not at the level of the individual to consent.

    By all means keep antibiotics behind a key, but if a person wants to eat paint chips doctors should be there to monitor their blood for lead and explain why they maybe shouldn’t, not to stop them.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      4·
      10 months ago

      When did I say a doctor can override a patient? That’s not remotely the standard of care in the US. Calling that a red herring is generous.

      • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
        4·
        10 months ago

        When did I say a doctor can override a patient?

        “it’s between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things.”

        It isn’t. It’s between an individual and their damn self.

          • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
            3·
            10 months ago

            Alright I can tell when a conversation isn’t productive anymore.

            When you stop listening?

            I explained very clearly why the implications of the position you took were harmful.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              4·
              10 months ago

              I didn’t stop listening. I read what you wrote. You are not entitled to my attention, to be blunt. And vice versa!

              This is a fight now, it’s not a discussion. We both made our cases, we both processed the other’s argument (I hope), and we both still disagree. Let’s just move on.