Posted on 04/07/2007 4:32:11 PM PDT by aculeus
Eyes do not contribute to the over population of morons who are inhabiting this earth. Healthy testicles do.
While I do not celebrate this man's mental infirmity, I do deem it a good thing he will not be passing on his genes
How about fear of anothers testicals?
I feel sorry for him. He needed compassion and friendship, and probably some halfway decent men around to serve as models to emulate.
I’ll bet Five bucks his momma was a vegetarian and only ate soy based foods, like Tofu.
The man had a problem with Bush.
You could therefore conclude that this is Bushes fault.
I agree.
I would also have preferred not to read this story.
Some things just aren’t meant to be shared, even on FReep.
Someone please post a pic of a hot-looking lady, so we can all feel like men again after reading this ...
[I still have a very pleasurable sexual experience just with myself.]
Why does that line make me think of Woody Allen?
Very well said!
NO! Don't SAY that here! DON'T!!
(Countdown to the Helen Thomas pic...10 - 9 - 8...)
One of my favorite Dilbert cartoons:
Boss: My boss says we need some eunuchs programmers.
Dilbert: I think he means Unix, not eunuchs. And I already know Unix.
Boss: If the company nurse drops by, tell her I said “Never mind.”
“The Making of a Democrat”
Origenal.
Those things cause trouble, ask me how I know....
While not a physician or health professional, I’m pretty sure MDs still take an oath reading, in part, ‘First do no harm.’ Time and again, psychiatrists and psychologists questioned this man’s judgment and sanity, yet a physician carried out the procedure regardless. I understand Dutch doctors will euthanize patients suffering only from depression, if those patients request it. How do these acts accord with the oath? Is the wording too vague? Are they hung up on the semantics of the word ‘harm’?
These kinds of behaviors are perverting the whole nature of the medical profession, like those SS doctors who conducted the selections at the concentration camps. Perhaps one solution would be strengthening ethics-related coursework at the undergraduate level. Another would be a more intensive review process—someone, somewhere should’ve been vetting this man’s ‘treatment’. Yet another solution might entail regulatory and/or legislative revisions to the language of the law pertaining to these kinds of out-of-control ‘cosmetic’ alterations.
Surgeons without ethics are butchers of men. Why isn’t there a greater outcry among members of the medical community about this sort of thing?
OK, I'll furnish some Yankee Brevity:
The Feminists and NOW gang are winning.
I think it’s going a little far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.