What the *fuck*?

[yojimbo]

Oh and could you imagine the pit thread here if two American kids did something stupid while on holiday in say for example France and a prick doctor refused to threat them.

How anyone can try to excuse doctors for not helping when they could have is beyond me. This has nothing to do with politics, feelings about the war etc. this is about being a human being for fuck sake.

milroyj even if the Da was the worse bastard in the world do you actually think that the doctors were correct in not helping the kids? Please answer.

[CrazyMonkey]

OK everyone, prepare to hate me. I’m taking the doctors’ side on this one.

You’ve read one article – one very obviously biased article deliberately painting the doctors in a cruel light that devotes twice as much space to describing the kids’ injuries than to discussing the important issue - why something like this might take place.

You let this horribly biased article completely sway you to having a disgusting view of these doctors. You seem to think that they walked away from the scene high-fiving each other, saying “Hey Bill, you see the burns on that kid! Hell ya!” Do you really think that’s the case?

War is a tough fucking business. Rebuilding a country to be independent and stable after having just ousting it’s previous leadership is a phenominal task. Iraq has to be rebuilt as an independent, self-sufficient nation – not our welfare child. Tough decisions must be made in how much food, health care, and other forms of aid must be given. It’s a tough as hell job. I could never make those decisions. 90% of the people here don’t have the stomach to either. But somebody has to for the good of the future nature of Iraq.

Tough decisions also need to be made for security. There are still plenty of enemies of the US in Iraq, and they’d love to sneak a suicide bomb into a US military hospital. Someone has to decide who to let in and how to go about it, and that’s not an easy decision, but it’s one that is necessary to save lives.

So, a line has to be drawn, for the good of Iraq and for the good of the US Military. And that line was drawn at “Only patients with conditions threatening life, limb or eyesight and not resulting from a chronic illness are considered for treatment.” Can you draw a better line – one that doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the patients in the US military hospital, and that doesn’t give away too much free health care resulting in a lack of development of Iraq’s own health care system which must be able to take care of it’s citizens when the US leaves? I don’t think a more humanitarian limit can be set without opening up gray areas of judgement that will erode the purpose of setting such a limit and be detrimental to the safety of US health care personnal and the future of Iraq.

So, a line was drawn, and when the chips were on the table and the doctors had to face a tough decision, they stuck to it. Is that a tragedy? Yes. It it necessary? Yes. War, and the subsequent rebuilding, is tough fucking business. Small, horrible, personal tragedies will exist, but in the sense of the big picture, that’s how it must be. You can say “Oh, but this should be an exception, the circumstances, blah blah blah…”, but that doesn’t fly. There are a million tragedies in war, and there can’t be a million exceptions to the rule because then there is no rule.

**yojimbo: [b/]How these fuckers can sleep at night amazes me.

My $50 says they’re not sleeping anywhere near as well as you are, in your comfy bed at home, Monday-morning quarterbacking situations you can’t even come close to understanding. You fuckers are horrified and outraged over reading a few words on a web page – these guys had to look these kids in the eyes, see their pain, and turn them away, because it was their duty to do so, to support the bigger picture. That had to be a seriously hard decision to make, and for you fuckers to criticize when the hardest decision you had to make that day was “Whopper with cheese or McChicken sandwich?” is beyond ridiculous.

You want something you can criticize, try criticizing where the line had to be drawn. I think you’d be wrong, but at least there’s room to debate there. But to jump all over these doctors for doing their tough-as-hell jobs is shameful. I salute those doctors.

OK, flame suit’s on – let 'em rip.

[tomndebb]

And that line was drawn at “Only patients with conditions threatening life, limb or eyesight and not resulting from a chronic illness are considered for treatment.”

Cite?

You have an reference to the actual order from the Army command that makes this clear?

[NinjaChick]

*Originally posted by CrazyMonkey *
**OK everyone, prepare to hate me. I’m taking the doctors’ side on this one.

You’ve read one article – one very obviously biased article deliberately painting the doctors in a cruel light that devotes twice as much space to describing the kids’ injuries than to discussing the important issue - why something like this might take place.

You let this horribly biased article completely sway you to having a disgusting view of these doctors. You seem to think that they walked away from the scene high-fiving each other, saying “Hey Bill, you see the burns on that kid! Hell ya!” Do you really think that’s the case?

No. I let the basic fact that a doctor, let alone two, would refuse treatment to clearly-injured children. I don’t give a FUCK about the circumstances. If someone has taken an oath (read what cleosia posted in this thread) they should damn well uphold it. In this case, they took an oath to help the sick or injured, and failed to do so. I don’t think they were happy about it, but don’t tell me they were incapable of doing so. They could have if they wanted to. Additionally, I didn’t think the article was that biased.

War is a tough fucking business. Rebuilding a country to be independent and stable after having just ousting it’s previous leadership is a phenominal task. Iraq has to be rebuilt as an independent, self-sufficient nation – not our welfare child. Tough decisions must be made in how much food, health care, and other forms of aid must be given. It’s a tough as hell job. I could never make those decisions. 90% of the people here don’t have the stomach to either. But somebody has to for the good of the future nature of Iraq.

“Hey, a badly burned group of kids - shit, I’d better help, since I’m a doctor. Wait, but…Iraq’s gotta start being independent…shit. Guess I can’t help these kids.”

Tough decisions also need to be made for security. There are still plenty of enemies of the US in Iraq, and they’d love to sneak a suicide bomb into a US military hospital. Someone has to decide who to let in and how to go about it, and that’s not an easy decision, but it’s one that is necessary to save lives.

I was under the impression that they were in the hospital and then were turned away.

So, a line has to be drawn, for the good of Iraq and for the good of the US Military. And that line was drawn at “Only patients with conditions threatening life, limb or eyesight and not resulting from a chronic illness are considered for treatment.” Can you draw a better line – one that doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the patients in the US military hospital, and that doesn’t give away too much free health care resulting in a lack of development of Iraq’s own health care system which must be able to take care of it’s citizens when the US leaves? I don’t think a more humanitarian limit can be set without opening up gray areas of judgement that will erode the purpose of setting such a limit and be detrimental to the safety of US health care personnal and the future of Iraq.

There are going to be ‘gray areas’. It deals with humans, there are going to be gray areas. A better policy? If someone looks suspect (ie, not an obviously-distraught father with three obviously burned, crying kids) and isn’t in a critical state of health, say “I’m sorry, you’ll have to go to Baghdad”.

So, a line was drawn, and when the chips were on the table and the doctors had to face a tough decision, they stuck to it. Is that a tragedy? Yes. It it necessary? Yes. War, and the subsequent rebuilding, is tough fucking business. Small, horrible, personal tragedies will exist, but in the sense of the big picture, that’s how it must be. You can say “Oh, but this should be an exception, the circumstances, blah blah blah…”, but that doesn’t fly. There are a million tragedies in war, and there can’t be a million exceptions to the rule because then there is no rule.

Okay, we’re deep into opinion territory here, and probably not going to see eye to eye on this ever, but: they were children. Fine, don’t treat the adults. I don’t think our bases should be walk-in clinics. If three kids in obvious pain are miles from the nearest hospital and you’re closer, at least give them some basics: wash their wounds, give them some aspirin, maybe some antibiotics if neccesary. The eldest was eight fucking years old. I’m fine with the policy in place-for adults. Not for kids.

My $50 says they’re not sleeping anywhere near as well as you are, in your comfy bed at home, Monday-morning quarterbacking situations you can’t even come close to understanding. You fuckers are horrified and outraged over reading a few words on a web page – these guys had to look these kids in the eyes, see their pain, and turn them away, because it was their duty to do so, to support the bigger picture. That had to be a seriously hard decision to make, and for you fuckers to criticize when the hardest decision you had to make that day was “Whopper with cheese or McChicken sandwich?” is beyond ridiculous.

I know. I don’t know what I’d do if I were in that situation, nor do I claim “I would do this.” I merely can look at what happened with a sense of disgust and say “In my opinion, what they did was morally wrong”. I don’t claim to be able to do what’s right if I were in that situation.

You want something you can criticize, try criticizing where the line had to be drawn. I think you’d be wrong, but at least there’s room to debate there. But to jump all over these doctors for doing their tough-as-hell jobs is shameful. I salute those doctors.

OK, flame suit’s on – let 'em rip. **

You salute those doctors: fine. I normally would. They’ve gone through med school: hell of a lot more than I’ve done. They’ve been (are) in a war zone: I’m in suburban New Jersey. I think that this one thing they did (denying obviously wounded kids treatment) was, quite simply, morally appalling. I respect that they have a damn hard job. I respect that they were, in fact, following policy. I think it’s a fucked-up policy, at least if it applies to everyone, and I think that those doctors were fucking cowards for following this policy.

[NinjaChick]

*Originally posted by CrazyMonkey *
**OK everyone, prepare to hate me. I’m taking the doctors’ side on this one.

You’ve read one article – one very obviously biased article deliberately painting the doctors in a cruel light that devotes twice as much space to describing the kids’ injuries than to discussing the important issue - why something like this might take place.

You let this horribly biased article completely sway you to having a disgusting view of these doctors. You seem to think that they walked away from the scene high-fiving each other, saying “Hey Bill, you see the burns on that kid! Hell ya!” Do you really think that’s the case?

** No. I let the basic fact that a doctor, let alone two, would refuse treatment to clearly-injured children. I don’t give a FUCK about the circumstances. If someone has taken an oath (read what cleosia posted in this thread) they should damn well uphold it. In this case, they took an oath to help the sick or injured, and failed to do so. I don’t think they were happy about it, but don’t tell me they were incapable of doing so. They could have if they wanted to. Additionally, I didn’t think the article was that biased.

**

War is a tough fucking business. Rebuilding a country to be independent and stable after having just ousting it’s previous leadership is a phenominal task. Iraq has to be rebuilt as an independent, self-sufficient nation – not our welfare child. Tough decisions must be made in how much food, health care, and other forms of aid must be given. It’s a tough as hell job. I could never make those decisions. 90% of the people here don’t have the stomach to either. But somebody has to for the good of the future nature of Iraq.**

“Hey, a badly burned group of kids - shit, I’d better help, since I’m a doctor. Wait, but…Iraq’s gotta start being independent…shit. Guess I can’t help these kids.”

**

Tough decisions also need to be made for security. There are still plenty of enemies of the US in Iraq, and they’d love to sneak a suicide bomb into a US military hospital. Someone has to decide who to let in and how to go about it, and that’s not an easy decision, but it’s one that is necessary to save lives.**

I was under the impression that they were in the hospital and then were turned away.

**

So, a line has to be drawn, for the good of Iraq and for the good of the US Military. And that line was drawn at “Only patients with conditions threatening life, limb or eyesight and not resulting from a chronic illness are considered for treatment.” Can you draw a better line – one that doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the patients in the US military hospital, and that doesn’t give away too much free health care resulting in a lack of development of Iraq’s own health care system which must be able to take care of it’s citizens when the US leaves? I don’t think a more humanitarian limit can be set without opening up gray areas of judgement that will erode the purpose of setting such a limit and be detrimental to the safety of US health care personnal and the future of Iraq.**

There are going to be ‘gray areas’. It deals with humans, there are going to be gray areas. A better policy? If someone looks suspect (ie, not an obviously-distraught father with three obviously burned, crying kids) and isn’t in a critical state of health, say “I’m sorry, you’ll have to go to Baghdad”.

**

So, a line was drawn, and when the chips were on the table and the doctors had to face a tough decision, they stuck to it. Is that a tragedy? Yes. It it necessary? Yes. War, and the subsequent rebuilding, is tough fucking business. Small, horrible, personal tragedies will exist, but in the sense of the big picture, that’s how it must be. You can say “Oh, but this should be an exception, the circumstances, blah blah blah…”, but that doesn’t fly. There are a million tragedies in war, and there can’t be a million exceptions to the rule because then there is no rule.

** Okay, we’re deep into opinion territory here, and probably not going to see eye to eye on this ever, but: they were children. Fine, don’t treat the adults. I don’t think our bases should be walk-in clinics. If three kids in obvious pain are miles from the nearest hospital and you’re closer, at least give them some basics: wash their wounds, give them some aspirin, maybe some antibiotics if neccesary. The eldest was eight fucking years old. I’m fine with the policy in place-for adults. Not for kids.

**

My $50 says they’re not sleeping anywhere near as well as you are, in your comfy bed at home, Monday-morning quarterbacking situations you can’t even come close to understanding. You fuckers are horrified and outraged over reading a few words on a web page – these guys had to look these kids in the eyes, see their pain, and turn them away, because it was their duty to do so, to support the bigger picture. That had to be a seriously hard decision to make, and for you fuckers to criticize when the hardest decision you had to make that day was “Whopper with cheese or McChicken sandwich?” is beyond ridiculous.

**I know. I don’t know what I’d do if I were in that situation, nor do I claim “I would do this.” I merely can look at what happened with a sense of disgust and say “In my opinion, what they did was morally wrong”. I don’t claim to be able to do what’s right if I were in that situation.

**

You want something you can criticize, try criticizing where the line had to be drawn. I think you’d be wrong, but at least there’s room to debate there. But to jump all over these doctors for doing their tough-as-hell jobs is shameful. I salute those doctors.

OK, flame suit’s on – let 'em rip. **

You salute those doctors: fine. I normally would. They’ve gone through med school: hell of a lot more than I’ve done. They’ve been (are) in a war zone: I’m in suburban New Jersey. I think that this one thing they did (denying obviously wounded kids treatment) was, quite simply, morally appalling. I respect that they have a damn hard job. I respect that they were, in fact, following policy. I think it’s a fucked-up policy, at least if it applies to everyone, and I think that those doctors were fucking cowards for following this policy.

[NinjaChick]

Damn. Sorry about the double post…

[Cat_Whisperer]

Crazymonkey, I tend to agree with you - whatever happened in that situation, I am sure that it was not as black and white as the media portrayed it, and I am also sure that the media put their own spin on the story for their own agenda.

Can we get some military types in here for their opinions? I know that I talked with a Canadian soldier who was back from a tour of duty peacekeeping in Bosnia, and he said that the peacekeeping was absolutely horrible - one of the biggest sources of stress was that the soldiers were not allowed to do certain humanitarian things, regardless of their personal feelings about helping other human beings.

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**If you’d like, I can explain things using smaller words. This question was already answered:“How bad it is” might be a relative judgment. Making observations that ignore historical realities and contexts is simply promoting ignorance instead of fighting it. **

Sure, Tom. So let me get this straight.

My life is so bad, I’m starving, the kids are starving, the water is poisened, there’s no medical care, Americans are evil, so the rational response is to have more kids? No.

[Super_Gnat]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**Sure, Tom. So let me get this straight.

My life is so bad, I’m starving, the kids are starving, the water is poisened, there’s no medical care, Americans are evil, so the rational response is to have more kids? No. **

Seems like a justifiable response to me. The more kids you have, the more likely it seems that some will grow to adulthood. (As an aside: you are aware that the Americans invaded early this year, correct? Even if the man immediately stopped having sex with his wives, it doesn’t change the fact that they already had 14 kids. What do you expect him to do, shoot some of them?)

[Tarrsk]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**Sure, Tom. So let me get this straight.

My life is so bad, I’m starving, the kids are starving, the water is poisened, there’s no medical care, Americans are evil, so the rational response is to have more kids? No. **

Yes. As someone noted earlier, living in a third world country with a high child mortality rate means that for any father to have a serious hope of raising ANY kids to adulthood, he must have many children.

Not to mention that more kids = more helping hands around the house. The quality of life for each individual child will suffer, certainly, but the quality of life for the family as a whole will improve on average. When you’re barely living at subsistence level, such a choice is not the no-brainer stupidity that it would be in suburban Americana.

Trust me on this, please- my family prior to my parents’ generation were subsistence-level peasants in early 20th century China, and having large families was the only way they could both guarantee that the family as a whole would not die out. I imagine that the circumstances are not too different in today’s Iraq.

[tomndebb]

Sure, Tom. So let me get this straight.

My life is so bad, I’m starving, the kids are starving, the water is poisened, there’s no medical care, Americans are evil, so the rational response is to have more kids? No.

Well, you’re not getting it straight when you invent stuff (lie) and add stuff that is not there:

• Neither the guy nor his kids were starving. That point has already been made, so you are just lying to make a bad point, here.
• He appears to live in the country, so the poisoned waters of the cities is irrelevant. Another bit of deliberate “misdirection” on your part.
• The medical care was poor, but probably at expected third world levels prior to the war, however the hospital is currently out of specific supplies because of the war. The general poor quality of medical care is what necessitates large familes (the sort we used to raise in the U.S. before our medical care got better) but the current lack of specific supplies is a result of the war.
• I have never claimed that Americans are evil (and no one on this thread has done so): the ire has been directed toward two individuals who happened to be from the U.S. Your jingoism is overflowing when you extrapolate hatred of America from disdain for two citizens.
• Your claim that the “rational response” is to your dishonest presentation is, obviously, as dishonest as that presentation.

[yojimbo]

CrazyMonkey you can salute doctors who turn their backs on injured kids all you want. I however will not.