What's TB got to do with this?? I'm Confused!Originally Posted by TurboTomato
Snip "consumption."
One issue arising from this is as follows: should the 'innocent' Iraqi doctor (or his mate - whichever of them went for the self-immolation option) who rammed the Jeep into Glasgow airport be entitled to first class skin grafts courtesy of the tax payer?
Yes – we call it humanity. He may learn from the example.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Yes - I am just thinking about whether he gets the very best (ie 1st class) service there - for example, could he decide which surgeon he wanted to perform the skin grafts? Would he get the most advanced, specialist care possible? Or whether he would just get the standard service.
I have to somehow doubt whether he would learn from the example. He would need a good brain wash as part of the treatment.
If he's the guy I saw on News 24, I got the distinct impression that somebody had used his head, so to speak!Is there a difference between Glasgow and anywhere else ? Quite possiblyhave a look here
.... to quote the soon to be famous weegie, John Smeaton, on the airport incident.
on the National ITV newS.
The interviewer asked "What message do you have for the bombers" he replied. "This is Glasgow we'll just set about you"
on cnn they asked how he restrained the suspect and he said "me and other folk were just trying to get the boot in and some other guy banjoed him" !
..cue, no doubt, utter confusion on the faces of the studio news team
In war, the enemy soldiers get the same field medical treatment as our own I believe. The concept is one of reciprocity. Which is why we have the Geneva Convention.
And whilst I'm sure al-Quaeda doesn't hold to it, I'm also sure that torturing and mistreating combatants in Gunatanamo has provoked and intensified the "War on Terror", not to mention losing almost all of the USA's moral high ground.
Well, hell, in that case why not just line him up against a wall and shoot him, huh? Because, apart from any moral considerations, I'm sure that wouldn't make him a martyr or anything...
Similarly, scars would be a visible sign to "inspire" other nutters. Whereas a crim with a restored face is just another crim. Assuming he's found guilty, then he's a crim, and should be given the same degree of medical treatment as any other crim, no more and no less.
If nutters and religious fanatics had their way, MJ and any other kinds of dancing would be banned as immoral. Just think about how horrible it would be, folks!
Actually, I suspect Guantanamo is pretty much a holiday camp compared with what the US is doing in other places. The pictures from Abu Ghirab were a much bigger embarrassment, and it seems pretty clear (see the Taguba report, for example) that those pictures were the tip of the iceberg.
Just on a medical realism front: apparently the man has 90% burns. The doctors will do very well to keep him alive. If he survives, I think severe scarring is going to be pretty much a given.
Here goes my hip-wiggle...
Agreed. Nonetheless, it almost inevitably leads to a situation where many if not most non-indoasian people will (at the very least) look twice at an indo-asian that they do not know personally.Please, this isn't America, innocent until proven guilty... Iraqie <> Terrorist
Thank you
[in the same way that I would look twice at groups of teens/early twenties (any creed or colour) who are being a bit rowdy/noisy .... and quite probably innocently]
Sad for all those that are completely innocent.
I was listening on the radio: A muslim chap was decrying 'Islamism' (as opposed to Islam), a radical political idealism, which he seemed to think ought to be weeded out and banned (a bit like National Front and Naziism, I guess).
Ian
Its about time that Western countries taken a harder stance against this sort of nonsense. The sort of people trotted out on TV as spokesmen*1 for Muslims are people who think death sentences for insulting people are a sensible response (e.g. Salman Rushdie*2). They're also the people who support riots because some cartoons by non-muslims, that they don't need to look at, offend them by their very existence.
Where are the good muslims? why is our media propogating the myth that all muslims are nutters ? Where are the nice family men that install good values into their children ? If, in order to be in any position as spokesmen for other muslims, you must be a nutter - i think theres a fundamental problem here and the media needs to stop using these people to speak for on ANYONE else's behalf.
*1 and it is Men, no woman speaks for muslims either.
*2 now spokemen have found offense in Salmans knighthood ; as if calling for their death gives you ownership of someone life to the extent that any honour for them is obviously an insult to you - what Mickey Mouse World of Logic are they living on ?
Well - let's make the point a bit crisper for you David and put it in terms of a moral dilemma: in this scenario, there are limited resources available to perform an operation - you have 2 patients. One is a terrorist - and let's say in this example, they killed 100 people. The other patient was burned as a result of the terrorist incident. The terrorist has 90% burns and the victim has 80% burns. In this scenario, you can only treat one person fully and completely. Who would you choose?
It's a silly comparison, it's like saying "Which of your children do you save from drowning?" - it's not exactly a real-life scenario. In your comparison, then yes of course you choose the victim first. But we're not in that position, so it's pointless trying to make that analogy.
The whole "schools and hospitals" argument is simplistic, it's the sort of comment pop stars make when they want to try to appear profound. It's like the old argument of "We can send men to the moon, but why can't we do XYZ", where XYZ is the popular cause of the day - as if there's some equivalence between the two propositions.
But to be absolutely clear, are you really suggesting that, as a punishment, we inflict pain and suffering on the perpetrator of a crime? That we (and who's "we"?) deliberately decide to "make him suffer", above and beyond any legal punishment decided by our judicial system? That doctors become judges (and, in effect, torturers)? Can you not see where this "lynch mob" road leads to?
That's the economic and moral argument - we can afford it, and punishment is decided by the courts.
But from a practical perspective also, it's far more effective as a gesture to heal criminals than to leave them with "visible punishment" signs - which themselves would act as recruiting sergeants for other radical nutters. You can't win a fight against terrorism by punhishing people, or by military means - you have to convert them; and eventually you have to negotiate with them. Northern Ireland's taught us that, if nothing else. Similarly, I expect we'll be negotiating with Hamas at some point in the future.
So that's the third argument - it'd be ineffective in the wider fight.
David - No, I am not suggesting inflicting pain and suffering on the perpetrators of crime. As anyone who is working in, or has been through the NHS, there are trade-offs made every day and decisions made about allocation of scarce resources. A prominent example made the headlines recently about not operating on overweight people or smokers.
----------
Can you expand a bit more on your 'conversion' idea. How do you 'convert' an Islamic terrorist with deeply held convictions? Can you provide any relevant examples?
Yep - Fatah.
How embarrassing would it be if it turned out that 2 doctors were on there way to deliver some gas bottles for a friend, when their defective jeep burst into flames and out of control?
I'll get my asbestos coat
and the molotov cocktails were simply flaming sumbucas* for a party later, and they were punching the police because they thought THEY were terrorists....oh how we would laugh at it allHow embarrassing would it be if it turned out that 2 doctors were on there way to deliver some gas bottles for a friend, when their defective jeep burst into flames and out of control?
I'll get my asbestos coat
*no idea how to spell that
Don't be silly. Everyone arrested is obviously guilty - I mean, they've got brown skin, beards and funny foreign names.
Case closed.
Sambuca*no idea how to spell that
Or, T H A T
It's a religious thing. Logic of any kind simply doesn't feature.
Quite right. A comment (admittedly not serious) about allowing the perpetrator to suffer morphed into philosophical dilemma setting.
It is interesting, to me, how the reaction to all sorts of law breaking involves a deluge of comments all about causing suffering to the perpetrator, everybody from Saddam Hussein to drunk drivers who cause death or serious injury.
It's precisely that sort of 'the proper response is to inflict suffering, this will provoke the desired change' which - in a highly refined form - leads to suicide bombers.
Until society automatically and unabashedly reacts in a measured fashion no matter how outrageous the provocation we can't really call ourselves a civilisation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks