Thank you for that valuable insider perspective, you with the face.
I always figure that I’m not practicing good medicine if I’m not making some people unhappy with my decisions at least some of the time.
So, let’s recap.
Zoe has:
[ul]
[li]Failed to acknowledge her error in claiming a violation of veterinarian ethical rules[/li][li]Failed to apologize for her unwarranted swipe at the ethics of the legal profession[/li][li]Failed to produce any citation to any authority other than her own gut feelings in support of her position[/li][li]Failed to address any arguments in this thread that speak to the above criticisms[/li][/ul]
Not a record admirable for its cogency or its persuasive power, Zoe.
I suspect she started out filled with outrage over the prospect of euthanizing healthy animals. That, alone, is certainly a subject that is at least debatable on the merits. But she let herself inveigh against vetbridge’s supposed ethical lapse, and now finds it embarrassing to step back, retract, apologize, and re-frame her debate.
Or possibly she’s just a lamebrain. But she hasn’t been lamebrained in other threads, as I recall, so I’m guessing it’s that first thing, the embarrassed one.
Well, she did post this: Phlosphr, I Pit Your Lapses in Integrity, in which she pitted someone for not being entirely clear on the history of his affiliation with the Society for Creative Anachronism.
So she’s posted one of these bizarro-world pit threads before. I agree that usually she manages okay.
I had forgotten that thread. It’s the SDMB equivalent of La-La-La-I’m-Not-Listeniiinnnnnggggg.
Let me see if I understand this. Vetbridge has/had a vet - animal owner relationship with an elderly lady who was spending large amounts of money on animals that possibly weren’t always hers. Vetbridge receives a letter claiming to be from a neice of the woman, disparaging the woman’s mental health. Vetbridge has no professional relationship with the writer of this letter.
Uh, I can’t understand any reason why Vetbridge should not have given this woman the letter. I just can’t. If someone is making statements behind my back that call into question my ability to handle my life and finances, I damn sure want to know about it. It is my opinion that if the neice had the best interest of her aunt at heart, and not the best interest of money in which for some reason she thinks she has a claim, she would be talking with a lawyer (to get power or attorney) or the woman’s doctor (to discuss her concerns about her aunts abilities) rather than discuss them with someone who has absolutely no right, ability or obligation to make decisions on behalf of the aunt.
Yep, that about sums it up.
I’d never read that one before, and your characterization is pretty on-target. It is also very much like this thread in that way. One gets the sense here that if the state board overseeing such matters, or some ethics board from a national organization responsible for these issues, were to post something specifically stating that vetbridge’s actions were completely in keeping with responsible ethical veterinarian practice, her response would be either “So you agree that there were some ethical lapses to consider!” or “Well, you must never have had to see someone’s cognitive faculties deteriorate.”
Or “You are forever reminding me of how different the *veterinary * profession is from those with ethical standards.” Not a very persuasive response.
My father had a similiar issue-a former employee of his was caught sending various letters to other funeral directors, accusing my father of unethical business practices. Most of the people who received said letter were people who had known my father for years, and knew it was all a bunch of bullshit. Were they wrong to let my father know this guy was trying to fuck up his reputation? Since it could have harmed his business?
Guin, dear, in trying to argue on the merits, I think you’re fighting a losing battle here. Zoe simply will not listen to reason. Between this thread and the one I linked earlier, she’s shown an inability to admit that she’s wrong that borders on delusional.
I’m concerned. Maybe someone should write a letter . . . 
especially when one is arguing that the subject violated those same professional ethical standards.
You beat me to it!
That’s ok, it will ignored, ethically.
Since Bricker finally flinched, and neither of you seemed to take the hint of a proud mother celebrating, I suppose I have to spell it out for you: WHOOSH! (And Bricker knows better.) FTR, I don’t apologize for whooshes.
I’ll try really really hard not to slip up and make those responses when and if. Running out of things I’ve actually said and done to criticize me for?
And I beat you both to it long ago. I’ve been open at SDMB about my own struggles with mental illness. I’m a very easy target. Feel free.
True.
See above.
See Pennsylvania codes, oath. You failed to show how these did not apply.
I did fail to produce any examples of people being disciplined for similar violations of these codes. I don’t have access to that information and I suspect that you were aware of that, Mr. Attorney.
Very good, Bricker. Now point to your eyes and your nose.
I don’t find it embarrassing to apologize when I think I am wrong. I find it disingenuous to say that I think I am wrong just because so many people, many that I admire, disagree with me.
The reasons that you go on to state in your post finally give some ethical balance to the picture for me. Having been in a profession where I dealt with individuals, I know that guidelines for right and wrong are not always carved in stone, nor are they easy to explain. Thank you for putting some perspective on it that I can relate to.
Whoosh my ass. Show some fucking class and apologize for your behavior in this thread, or at least stop posting to it. My respect for you has already taken a major hit thanks to this, and I’m not sure how many more it can survive.
:rolleyes:
It really is fucking annoying to have posted several times on the ethical issues involved, have concordance from a large number of professionals in different fields, have no fucking comment from you throughout, and then have you claim at long last that finally someone gave some ethical balance to you. Like it or not, a fairly large number of people laid out an ethical justification for you, whereas you had a markedly misguided understanding of the issues involved from the beginning. Like not knowing whose information is to be protected, for example.
“La la la la la I’m not listening” indeed.
The whoosh was in reference to the remark made about the legal profession and ethics. Nothing else.
Hentor, I know that you are a psychologist and a professional and that we disagree on what was ethical in this situation. You were not able to explain why it was ethical in any way that made sense to me. You with the face had different reasoning.
Yes, I understood that. My comment still stands. If you try and make a joke and insult someone, even accidentally, the polite thing to do is apologize. “I never apologize for a whoosh,” is bullshit. Act like a grown-up.