What a psychotically deceitful thing to say. Your false statement above is only nominally true if you perversely consider "treating" and "caring" for a patient to include cutting off their life sustaining medical care against their will.
However, I must use my medical judgment to decide whether a technology or medication prolongs dying.
Every medical treatment for every condition "prolongs dying" since living is also inherently dying. Your medical judgment has been exposed as being intrinsically perverted.
I will not write orders for treatments that cause pain,
So no orders for recuperative physical therapy from you. No gain is worth any pain in your sick school of medicine.
...continual insertion of needles,
So no need to proscribe insulin for diabetics, they are better off dead.
...suctioning by that wall vacuum you mentioned,
That was used in analogy to your false and polluted view of immunity from culpability.
...catheterization of the bladder,
Whoa, you'd even off everyone with a urethral stricture? You are one sick puppy.
...disimpaction of the bowel,
So you think your patients with chronic constipation are better off dead?
...itching,
You'd whack someone for dry scalp?
...collapsed lungs and broken ribs
I wonder if your local high school's football players know that you consider a hard tackle worthy of a death sentence?
when a patient is dying
Again, we're all dying. People like you just like to speed up the process for everyone else.
The safe guard is the review of the facts by the ethics committee, and the Medical Board and community scrutiny are backups.
Based on what you have written on this tread, if the participants in these organizations are anything like you the process is hopelessly flawed.
The ill-advised attempts to change the law so that doctors could never bow out of the case, and which deliberately removed legal protection when the doctor refused to do what he or she believed harmful, risked making every case a legal judgment rather than medical.
So cab drivers and tow truck operators can be required by law to take every request in the middle of the night, but incompetent hack doctors can't be burdened by providing life sustaining medical care for fear of higher insurance premiums when they choose to kill people.
Emilio Gonzales’ mother lost guardianship of her son because her lawyer talked her into taking his case to court. His lungs collapsed repeatedly from the ventilator pressures, and yet she still was encouraged to fight for surgery for a tracheostomy, so that she could be political tool at her baby boy’s expense.
You attribute malicious thoughts to woman trying to keep her sick child alive. Wow, a psychopathic medium! I'd ask if you read palms too but from what you have written here I am fairly certain you don't put that much effort into your diagnoses.
And the judge ended up in charge of her son’s fate.
But according to you that is a better outcome than his own mother who's mind you say you can read.
You may say anything on this forum, that is free speech and the purpose of this forum.
And you can apparently get off on killing your patients in the sad state of Texas.
However, that does not make it right, necessary or helpful.
Nor does all your killing. I'm just glad to have contributed to getting a sicko like you to document the perversity of their murderous thought process and clearly incompetent medical reasoning.
You are wrong on this point, just as you are wrong to make it personal.
The deliberate murder of innocent human beings is always personal. Only a homicidal psychopath wouldn't already know that.
I pray that the Lord will give you peace and wisdom.
I pray that the Lord will have mercy on you and all of the pitiful patients unfortunate enough to have you involved with overriding their expressed desire for life sustaining medical care.
And the surest and fastest way to “kill” Emilio would have been to do what his mother demanded: attempt to place and use a tracheostomy.
Father Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, who holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience, as well as being an unimpeachable pro-life activist and ethicist, and the Council of Bishops of Texas even agreed that it was ethical to turn off the ventilator in the case of Emilio Gonzales. (I probably would not have gone that far, but would have refused to increase the technology or do painful maneuvers to maintain the ventilator.)
Life at all costs is not medicine.