[POLITICS] Incident in Canada regarding a transgender woman sueing for not getting a brazilian wax.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/canadas-ball-waxing-horror-show-peak-transgen-activism/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/salon-forced-to-close-after-refusing-to-wax-transgender-females-male-genitalia

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/07/transgender-woman-files-complaints-when-womens-salons-wont-wax-her-male-genitalia/

Thoughts on this?

For my part I feel like the woman, Marcia Da Silva, is completely within her right here since her business is (Or was) run out of her home and also has religious reasons to not touch male genitals alongside not having any training in waxing male genitals. But what about the rest of it? Anyone have any particular thoughts?

How do you even brazillian wax a dick. I'm pretty sure she'd burn his balls off if she tried to wax him like how you do vaginas.

Sounds like he's being a...dick.

Joke aside, I'm more with the business owner here. Refusing to wax someone because they're transgender? Fair enough. Refusing to wax their dick, which, among other things, is something they have no training with? Yeah, I'm with her there.

On a side note though, the link to the college campus guidelines stuff from one of the articles is even more insane.

Not familiar with Canadian law. I guess the right to refuse service isn't a thing there and/or doesn't apply to this situation?

Anyway, yeah. This seems less like a gender rights issue and more of an issue of practicality.

Dreiko:
How do you even brazillian wax a dick. I'm pretty sure she'd burn his balls off if she tried to wax him like how you do vaginas.

It's essentially the same. It's not that hot and the waxing process doesnt hurt that much. They overdramatise it in movies. The shaft hurts more than the balls, the skin isnt as taught and that means its overal harder. Obviously, if you become erect this would make it easier (but probably more sensetive) but you would be immediately evicted

OT: The religious thing I dont care about. BUT there is probably some training you need to do to make sure it doesnt hurt that much. I am not an expert either way. As stated, an erections leads to immediate ejection from a clinic. I dont know how this would be seen in court, especially went its at home and there is no one to call.

The fact that she does this to business serially is a factor that needs to be taken into account. She sounds like a troll. Also, topless swims for teenagers? WTF. Someone has found a loophole and is trying to exploit it

Dreiko:
How do you even brazillian wax a dick. I'm pretty sure she'd burn his balls off if she tried to wax him like how you do vaginas.

Her.

My thoughts on this is that anti-LGBT people will use this as an excuse to hate on LGBT people.

Edit to expand on my thoughts:

One, you need better sites. No wonder you disagree with me so often, that first link alone is some toxic bigoted BS.

Second, the problem is her excuses. Sure, there was the practical and reasonable 'I am not equipped or trained to do this', but then she cites being 'uncomfortable' doing it. Fuck off. Religion too is a garbage excuse. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, quit.

If the bussiness never handled(heh) penises and balls before, i can sorta imagine how the employees might've refused. Risk of the injury also includes the risk of being sued over it, so they picked the option where someone doesn't get physically hurt.
But all i know about brazilian waxing is from seeing the effects of it, so i'm out of the element here.

Sounds like an example of an entitled twat attempting to become a professional serial litigator.

I feel "I am trained in waxing vaginas, not dick and balls" to be a valid excuse to not wax said genitalia.

Saelune:

Second, the problem is her excuses. Sure, there was the practical and reasonable 'I am not equipped or trained to do this', but then she cites being 'uncomfortable' doing it.

I think you'll find that most people are uncomfortable handling penises.

Religion too is a garbage excuse. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, quit.

It never was her job until someone turned up demanding that she make it her job.

I've already seen plenty of right wing types frame this in the "regressive" narrative with statements like "progressives think women should be forced to touch male genitals against their will" and stuff like that. It also probably doesn't help that this is a case of a lesbian transwoman which tends to be divisive even among progressives.

So if waxing a guys balls would be considered 'giving an intimate service' do they also refuse to wax a lesbians vadge?

Its an interesting issue but if they stuff they're saying about this guy lieing about what they look like, being on a period and topless swimming teens is all true they sound like an asshole (who happens to be transgender).

Of course the right will put them on a pedastal for everyone to see to pretend all trans people are like that. The living strawman has emerged.

Hawki:

Saelune:

Second, the problem is her excuses. Sure, there was the practical and reasonable 'I am not equipped or trained to do this', but then she cites being 'uncomfortable' doing it.

I think you'll find that most people are uncomfortable handling penises.

Religion too is a garbage excuse. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, quit.

It never was her job until someone turned up demanding that she make it her job.

Most people actually probably are not uncomfortable handling penises, considering about half have them, and a majority of those who don't are attracted to people who do have penises, but that's more just a 'showerthought'.

Her job is waxing people's bodies. Not like she was some random person, she was allegedly a proffesional waxer. (I say allegedly, since she clearly lacked proffesionalism in how she handled this)

Plenty of jobs I would never take cause I dont think I could handle it.

Silent Protagonist:
I've already seen plenty of right wing types frame this in the "regressive" narrative with statements like "progressives think women should be forced to touch male genitals against their will" and stuff like that. It also probably doesn't help that this is a case of a lesbian transwoman which tends to be divisive even among progressives.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:
I've already seen plenty of right wing types frame this in the "regressive" narrative with statements like "progressives think women should be forced to touch male genitals against their will" and stuff like that. It also probably doesn't help that this is a case of a lesbian transwoman which tends to be divisive even among progressives.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think there are plenty of non-religious reasons to be unwilling to wax someone's balls. Even so, I don't think this woman was using her religion as an excuse to not do her job anymore than the owner of a Kosher deli/butcher would not be doing their job by refusing to serve pork products or shellfish even though to a non-religious person just sees those as another kind of meat that they could reasonably expect to find in a meat shop.

Silent Protagonist:

Saelune:

Silent Protagonist:
I've already seen plenty of right wing types frame this in the "regressive" narrative with statements like "progressives think women should be forced to touch male genitals against their will" and stuff like that. It also probably doesn't help that this is a case of a lesbian transwoman which tends to be divisive even among progressives.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think there are plenty of non-religious reasons to be unwilling to wax someone's balls. Even so, I don't think this woman was using her religion as an excuse to not do her job anymore than the owner of a Kosher deli/butcher would not be doing their job by refusing to serve pork products or shellfish even though to a non-religious person just sees those as another kind of meat that they could reasonably expect to find in a meat shop.

As long as it's not based on religion, I'm fine with that excuse. From my experience, males and females are usually treated differently in salons based on what people are willing to deal with.

I do wonder if some will spin it to be about religious freedom and that's what loses the case.

Saelune:
My thoughts on this is that anti-LGBT people will use this as an excuse to hate on LGBT people..

Yep, bad actors making issue difficult. The line does need to be drawn somewhere and going through the court is usually the most official way. I hope this person realises how much damage they are doing to their cause/ people. I'm fine with people calling Marcia a her but that doesn't negate the current genetalia she has.

I wonder if in the future the delineation with just focus on genetalia and not male/ female

Saelune:

Hawki:

Saelune:

Second, the problem is her excuses. Sure, there was the practical and reasonable 'I am not equipped or trained to do this', but then she cites being 'uncomfortable' doing it.

I think you'll find that most people are uncomfortable handling penises.

Religion too is a garbage excuse. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, quit.

It never was her job until someone turned up demanding that she make it her job.

Most people actually probably are not uncomfortable handling penises, considering about half have them, and a majority of those who don't are attracted to people who do have penises, but that's more just a 'showerthought'.

What a rapey sounding sentence.

"Women shouldn't be uncomfortable with penises, they're attracted to them aren't they? A stranger showing a woman his penis should be seen as a compliment" (to be read in J Jonah Jameson's voice).

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

Silent Protagonist:
I think there are plenty of non-religious reasons to be unwilling to wax someone's balls. Even so, I don't think this woman was using her religion as an excuse to not do her job anymore than the owner of a Kosher deli/butcher would not be doing their job by refusing to serve pork products or shellfish even though to a non-religious person just sees those as another kind of meat that they could reasonably expect to find in a meat shop.

A religious reason seems like a perfectly valid cause to not be forced to handle a penis against one's will. Heck, I don't think anyone should be obligated to handle a penis against their will - or a vagina for that matter.

This salonist (sp?) agreed to a job where they would be waxing vaginas, not penises. Waxing a vagina vs. waxing a penis is likely a lot more passive than a penis. I mean, there are a lot more moving parts with a penis, and the surface of the testicles are not as flush as a vagina. It's a far more complicated "procedure", also greater surface area. One's like painting a fence, the other is like painting the front of a house - patio and all.

Dirty Hipsters:
If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

Saelune:
I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

trunkage:

Silent Protagonist:
I think there are plenty of non-religious reasons to be unwilling to wax someone's balls. Even so, I don't think this woman was using her religion as an excuse to not do her job anymore than the owner of a Kosher deli/butcher would not be doing their job by refusing to serve pork products or shellfish even though to a non-religious person just sees those as another kind of meat that they could reasonably expect to find in a meat shop.

As long as it's not based on religion, I'm fine with that excuse. From my experience, males and females are usually treated differently in salons based on what people are willing to deal with.

I do wonder if some will spin it to be about religious freedom and that's what loses the case.

Saelune:
My thoughts on this is that anti-LGBT people will use this as an excuse to hate on LGBT people..

Yep, bad actors making issue difficult. The line does need to be drawn somewhere and going through the court is usually the most official way. I hope this person realises how much damage they are doing to their cause/ people. I'm fine with people calling Marcia a her but that doesn't negate the current genetalia she has.

I wonder if in the future the delineation with just focus on genetalia and not male/ female

I don't really understand why it matters whether her reasons were religious or not. Unless I'm misinformed, this salon didn't offer male genital waxing to anyone. It would be different if it was something like "my religion says people with your eye color are bad so no waxing for you" but from what I can tell this women wasn't comfortable handling the penises of strangers and I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think it matters whether or not her reason is "God says it's bad to touch the penises of strangers" or she has a pathological fear of penises or whatever. As long as she isn't comfortable with it she shouldn't be forced to do it, especially over something as trivial as body hair removal.

CM156:

Dirty Hipsters:
If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

Saelune:
I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad and thats obviously a very respectable position but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Fieldy409:

CM156:

Dirty Hipsters:
If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

Saelune:
I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors take an oath, a waxer doesn't and isn't expected to.

Yea, I am going to have to side with the business. Making a cake is not the same as having to handle someone's genitals. Just as we have specialists in medicine that deal with specific fields, the same could apply here as well. OBGYN's do not take male patients as that is not their specialty. When you wax a female, you do not actually have to handle their genitals as there are no balls or penis to have to move or "lift" out of the way to be able to do the wax on a woman to begin with so you can safely wax a woman without having to touch their genitals at all. On a male body, unless you want hot wax on the penis or balls you would be forced to move them out of the way while applying the wax.

On the religious issue, I do believe one's beliefs should be respected and considered to an extent, but they are not necessarily the only factor to be considered. Many people choose to have a career in jobs that they can also respect their religious beliefs. If they view interacting with someone of the opposite sex's genitalia as being sexual, they have the option to choose jobs where they would not be forced to do that. Giving women waxes is not a job that they would be dealing with male genitals anymore than being an OBGYN would be and nor should they be expected to. There are salons that provide waxing services for male genitalia and they would have to see one of those that specializes in this rather than expect one that does not to perform a service which is outside their field, or find a business or individual who is willing to do so rather than try to force someone who is not to do something against their will.

There is no religion that says you can't bake a cake for someone because you disagree with their beliefs, thus I do not see refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple as actually in violation of one's religion. The baker on the other hand can refuse to add anything that they may find offensive to a cake such as refuse to add genitalia, swear words ect. They do however have 100% creative control over what shape they are willing to make a cake and what they will or will not write or decorate a cake with. If they are willing to make a cake of the same shape and/or decorations/ writing for a heterosexual couple, they should also be willing to do so for a gay couple, as that is not actually doing anything that would impact their actual religion and it is not asking them to do anything different than they would do for anyone else. Trying to have someone handle someone else's genitals however is not asking them to be treated as they treat anyone else, it is actually asking them to be treated differently than they treat others, so that is why it is seen as an unreasonable request and if the person who is being asked to do something different for them, they have every right to choose not to.

Fieldy409:
What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

Dirty Hipsters:

Fieldy409:

CM156:

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors take an oath, a waxer doesn't and isn't expected to.

A physician taking an oath also does not in any way mean they would ever be forced to handle genitals in the first place as we have specializations that allow physicians to choose the field they wish to work in. A podiatrist would have no reason to handle a person's genitals, and as I stated above, even a physician who specializes in female reproductive health has no reason to take a patient with male genitals. Yes, OBGYN's would refuse to see a patient with male genitalia, and have no reason to handle male genitalia, as that is outside their specialization.

CM156:

Fieldy409:
What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

This also depends on what the doctor chose to specialize in. Like I stated above, yes, doctors can and do refuse patients depending on their field of specialization.

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Fieldy409:
What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

This also depends on what the doctor chose to specialize in. Like I stated above, yes, doctors can and do refuse patients depending on their field of specialization.

There is a sort of exception in emergencies, though. Another important aside. But none of those compare to having one's genitalia waxed.

Lil devils x:

Dirty Hipsters:

Fieldy409:

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors take an oath, a waxer doesn't and isn't expected to.

A physician taking an oath also does not in any way mean they would ever be forced to handle genitals in the first place as we have specializations that allow physicians to choose the field they wish to work in. A podiatrist would have no reason to handle a person's genitals, and as I stated above, even a physician who specializes in female reproductive health has no reason to take a patient with male genitals. Yes, OBGYN's would refuse to see a patient with male genitalia, and have no reason to handle male genitalia, as that is outside their specialization.

Yup, that's a good point. I would assume that there may be times when doctors who do not specialize in particular genitalia may be asked to handle it (emergency room visit due to trauma to that area of the body for example), but medicine is definitely not my area of expertise and I would defer to you with regards to the healthcare field since I know you work in it.

CM156:

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

This also depends on what the doctor chose to specialize in. Like I stated above, yes, doctors can and do refuse patients depending on their field of specialization.

There is a sort of exception in emergencies, though. Another important aside. But none of those compare to having one's genitalia waxed.

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a Urologist, and even the OBGYN would likely be better off calling a Urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Lil devils x:
Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

Lil devils x:
Yea, I am going to have to side with the business. Making a cake is not the same as having to handle someone's genitals. Just as we have specialists in medicine that deal with specific fields, the same could apply here as well. OBGYN's do not take male patients as that is not their specialty. When you wax a female, you do not actually have to handle their genitals as there are no balls or penis to have to move or "lift" our of the way to be able to do the wax on a woman to begin with so you can safely wax a woman without having to touch their genitals at all. On a male body, unless you want hot wax on the penis or balls you would be forced to move them out of the way while applying the wax.

On the religious issue, I do believe one's beliefs should be respected and considered to an extent, but they are not necessarily the only factor to be considered. Many people choose to have a career in jobs that they can also respect their religious beliefs. If they view interacting with someone of the opposite sex's genitalia as being sexual, they have the option to choose jobs where they would not be forced to do that. Giving women waxes is not a job that they would be dealing with male genitals anymore than being an OBGYN would be and nor should they be expected to. There are salons that provide waxing services for male genitalia and they would have to see one of those that specializes in this rather than expect one that does not to perform a service which is outside their field, or find a business or individual who is willing to do so rather than try to force someone who is not to do something against their will.

There is no religion that says you can't bake a cake for someone because you disagree with their beliefs, thus I do not see refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple as actually in violation of one's religion. The baker on the other hand can refuse to add anything that they may find offensive to a cake such as refuse to add genitalia, swear words ect. They do however have 100% creative control over what shape they are willing to make a cake and what they will or will not write or decorate a cake with. If they are willing to make a cake of the same shape and/or decorations/ writing for a heterosexual couple, they should also be willing to do so for a gay couple, as that is not actually doing anything that would impact their actual religion and it is not asking them to do anything different than they would do for anyone else. Trying to have someone handle someone else's genitals however is not asking them to be treated as they treat anyone else, it is actually asking them to be treated differently than they treat others, so that is why it is seen as an unreasonable request and if the person who is being asked to do something different for them, they have every right to choose not to.

Yes this situation is less like a wedding cake baker refusing to make a cake because it will be used in a ceremony their religion finds immoral, but more like a wedding cake baker refusing to make someone a pie for their wedding. It doesn't really matter why the cake maker doesn't make pies and it isn't suddenly discrimination based on the identity of the person asking for the pie.

CM156:

Lil devils x:
Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Lil devils x:
Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Well then, I guess I was wrong.

Ah well. I can at least attest to being correct about lawyers.

CM156:

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Well then, I guess I was wrong.

Ah well. I can at least attest to being correct about lawyers.

So then you would also likely know that doing something you are not qualified to do very well could get you sued. :p

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Lil devils x:
That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Well then, I guess I was wrong.

Ah well. I can at least attest to being correct about lawyers.

So then you would also likely know that doing something you are not qualified to do very well could get you sued. :p

I did know that at least. I just thought based on the doctors I know and conversations I've had with them (which admittedly isn't a great argument) that most any MD would be qualified to treat a flesh wound like that regardless of specialty.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked