• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Actually : Pfizer 95% is efficacy but efficiency is only 40% /ROFLMAO.........

When 90% of the population has done the right thing and got themselves vaccinated, the gahment will not spare a second thought on squeezing the 10% who is likely not going to vote for them anyway.

When public healthcare is at stake, there are no discrimination or equal rights to be entertained. Many countries around the world have already made vaccination mandatory with passports to boot. We haven't done that yet.

it is unconstitutional to deny someone access to public goods because of a health choice he makes.

your initial post is about denying publicly subsidized healthcare to the unvaxed. it will not stand up to the law.

that is the point I am addressing.
 
I am a tax paying citizen with equal rights

I have a right to return to pre covid status without hinderance from 10% of ill informed uneducated covidiots

Fair ?
I am talking about access to publicly subsidized healthcare which was brought up by @dredd.

you are addressing a new point which I am not concerned with.
 
I totally agree with you.

However there are those who really do not want treatment. But will be sent to hospital by family. Or if unconscious default is to bring them to hospital.

We should not torture this group. Believe me they are NOT a small group. Very significant group and I suspect almost majority among the anti vaxxers.

Hope someone sends my suggestion to OYK.

I believe doing this will appease both sides. The anti vaxxers will feel respected and that they have the right to choose not to have treatment they dont want.

Meanwhile the vaxxed will be appeased that many of the anti vaxxers will not take up ICU beds.

The HCWs will also be appeased that there will be less demand for ICU beds and also they dont have to deal with unwilling patients.

MOH will also be happy to be able to plan properly how many ICU beds they will need.
should we allow Covid positive patients to choose ivermectin as a course of treatment?
 
should we allow Covid positive patients to choose ivermectin as a course of treatment?

Yes. Patient autonomy is most important.

Patients should choose what treatment they want.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...are-exert-your-patient-autonomy-2018050713784

Take control of your health care (exert your patient autonomy)​

iStock_78445461_MEDIUM

May 7, 2018
Autonomy means being in control of your own decisions without outside influence — in other words, that you are in charge of yourself. It is considered an essential development step toward maturity. We all make decisions about how to live our lives, although sometimes we have less choice than we might like.

When it comes to your health care, how much autonomy is the right amount?​

There’s lots of interest in what the term means. Here’s a definition from MedicineNet:
Patient autonomy: The right of patients to make decisions about their medical care without their health care provider trying to influence the decision. Patient autonomy does allow for health care providers to educate the patient but does not allow the health care provider to make the decision for the patient.
This can be a hard line to navigate. In the past, physicians made all the decisions for their patients. They would plan the care, prescribe the treatment, and the patient would either comply or not. The word “comply” is itself pejorative. We have moved into a much more enlightened era of care, and many physicians seek to involve patients, to help them understand treatment options, and to work collaboratively to achieve goals of wellness.

When you and your doctor don’t see eye to eye on the best health care for you​


But what if you and your physician don’t agree on the best course of care for you? What if your doctor insists that she knows best, and that your health will be at risk if you don’t follow her advice? Maybe your physician has discouraged you from researching your medical condition yourself. From the physician’s angle, most of us want our patients to understand their illness, be educated on goals of wellness, and be active participants in their own healthcare. But here’s where it gets tricky: physicians study for years to become doctors and bring their scientific knowledge and clinical acumen to the office and the bedside. Patients may not have those skills, but they know their own bodies, tolerance for treatment, and the manner in which they are comfortable receiving care.

Finding the right doctor​

It’s sometimes hard to find a doctor you’re comfortable with, whether it’s for you or your child. Making a list of what’s important to you — whether you have a physician you like now, are uncomfortable in your current treating situation, or are in the process of looking for a new provider — can really help. Ask yourself these questions:
  • What is my style about health care? Do I want my doctor to tell me what to do, list the options but give me the final choice, or let me describe the medication and plan that I have researched first?
  • Would I like someone who is more relational or more boundaried? Do I want a physician who has the style of sharing his own life with me, asks about my life and tries to incorporate who I am as a person as well as a patient, or would I prefer a more businesslike approach? Do I want my physician to tell me if she has the same illness I do, and what it’s like for her, or would I prefer my doctor keep this to herself?
  • How much do I want my doctor to know about me as a person? Is that important in the way I want to receive my health care?
  • What might happen if I disagree with my doctor? Would that end the treating relationship right there, or could we work through a difference?

The right doctor will naturally support your patient autonomy​

Figuring out how you want your physician to work with you lets you maintain your patient autonomy, whatever that autonomy might be. Receiving the kind of care that is comfortable for you is exercising your autonomy. There will always be blips along the way. One woman told me about a primary care doctor she had worked with for years who became enraged with her at a visit, seemingly out of the blue. She felt he was attacking her health care behavior without asking appropriate questions. She offered him several opportunities during the visit to re-evaluate his comments. When he couldn’t do so, she used her autonomy to fire him. Another patient described being told that if he did not take a specific medication, the outcome could be devastating for his health. This may have been true, but perhaps a more collaborative discussion would have allowed this patient to feel less bullied into a treatment. Feeling comfortable with your right to get the answers you need to understand your treatment reflects your patient autonomy. Make sure your doctor’s style matches your own. How the treating relationship works is an essential part of the treatment. If it works, everything is enhanced. If your autonomy is not respected, your health care will suffer.



Read the above.......all this mandatory vaccine stuff is TOTALLY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF PATIENT AUTONOMY which the health care system has been telling us doctors is the way to go. Basically patients choose!

So you guys need to complain to SMC or college if you feel the doctors are trying to tell you to do something against your will!
 
it is unconstitutional to deny someone access to public goods because of a health choice he makes.

your initial post is about denying publicly subsidized healthcare to the unvaxed. it will not stand up to the law.

that is the point I am addressing.
Why not? If you were to walk into a government building today without a mask on and argue that it's a "health choice" you're making, let's see if you will get access to public goods and services. Is that denial unconstitutional? In the early days of the pandemic, if a Sinkee were to travel and come back with an infection from COVID, he or she would have been denied publicly subsidized healthcare as well. Is that denial unconstitutional?
 
I am talking about access to publicly subsidized healthcare which was brought up by @dredd.

you are addressing a new point which I am not concerned with
Nope they should not be entitled to tax funded subsidy if they choose not to vaccinate, call themselves a sovereign hero and mock the rest of us, become a menace to society and then waltz into ICU and expect us to pay for them.

Same as HIV patients previously during the AIDS epidemic. MOH says if you want to butt fuck without a condom don't expect us to pay for your meds.

90% of us should not be burdened by the arrogant ignorant 10%.
 
Last edited:
Nope they should not be entitled to tax funded subsidy if they choose not to vaccinate, call themselves a sovereign hero and mock the rest of us, become a menace to society and then waltz into ICU and expect us to pay for them.

Same as HIV patients previously during the AIDS epidemic. MOH says if you want to butt fuck without a condom don't expect us to pay for your meds.

90% of us should not be burdened by the arrogant ignorant 10%.
you are entitled to your opinion and some would agree with you but the easy flaw to spot with this thinking would be the class of people who cannot be vaxed on medical grounds.

on a more commercial basis, the cost of treating the unvaxed would be better reflected in higher insurance premiums.

but it's fundamentally unsound to deny someone access to the public health care system because of a choice they make.

so next we should restrict subsidized health care for pregnant mothers over 45, because who asked them to have babies so late in life and risk complications?
 
Why not? If you were to walk into a government building today without a mask on and argue that it's a "health choice" you're making, let's see if you will get access to public goods and services. Is that denial unconstitutional? In the early days of the pandemic, if a Sinkee were to travel and come back with an infection from COVID, he or she would have been denied publicly subsidized healthcare as well. Is that denial unconstitutional?
point taken, but I'm talking specifically about access to subsidized healthcare. it's a thin line in the sand you're drawing. I personally would rather stay on the other side on the line.

discriminate and restrict only in the most extreme cases where necessary.
 
Yes. Patient autonomy is most important.

Patients should choose what treatment they want.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...are-exert-your-patient-autonomy-2018050713784

Take control of your health care (exert your patient autonomy)​

iStock_78445461_MEDIUM

May 7, 2018
Autonomy means being in control of your own decisions without outside influence — in other words, that you are in charge of yourself. It is considered an essential development step toward maturity. We all make decisions about how to live our lives, although sometimes we have less choice than we might like.

When it comes to your health care, how much autonomy is the right amount?​

There’s lots of interest in what the term means. Here’s a definition from MedicineNet:
Patient autonomy: The right of patients to make decisions about their medical care without their health care provider trying to influence the decision. Patient autonomy does allow for health care providers to educate the patient but does not allow the health care provider to make the decision for the patient.
This can be a hard line to navigate. In the past, physicians made all the decisions for their patients. They would plan the care, prescribe the treatment, and the patient would either comply or not. The word “comply” is itself pejorative. We have moved into a much more enlightened era of care, and many physicians seek to involve patients, to help them understand treatment options, and to work collaboratively to achieve goals of wellness.

When you and your doctor don’t see eye to eye on the best health care for you​


But what if you and your physician don’t agree on the best course of care for you? What if your doctor insists that she knows best, and that your health will be at risk if you don’t follow her advice? Maybe your physician has discouraged you from researching your medical condition yourself. From the physician’s angle, most of us want our patients to understand their illness, be educated on goals of wellness, and be active participants in their own healthcare. But here’s where it gets tricky: physicians study for years to become doctors and bring their scientific knowledge and clinical acumen to the office and the bedside. Patients may not have those skills, but they know their own bodies, tolerance for treatment, and the manner in which they are comfortable receiving care.

Finding the right doctor​

It’s sometimes hard to find a doctor you’re comfortable with, whether it’s for you or your child. Making a list of what’s important to you — whether you have a physician you like now, are uncomfortable in your current treating situation, or are in the process of looking for a new provider — can really help. Ask yourself these questions:
  • What is my style about health care? Do I want my doctor to tell me what to do, list the options but give me the final choice, or let me describe the medication and plan that I have researched first?
  • Would I like someone who is more relational or more boundaried? Do I want a physician who has the style of sharing his own life with me, asks about my life and tries to incorporate who I am as a person as well as a patient, or would I prefer a more businesslike approach? Do I want my physician to tell me if she has the same illness I do, and what it’s like for her, or would I prefer my doctor keep this to herself?
  • How much do I want my doctor to know about me as a person? Is that important in the way I want to receive my health care?
  • What might happen if I disagree with my doctor? Would that end the treating relationship right there, or could we work through a difference?

The right doctor will naturally support your patient autonomy​

Figuring out how you want your physician to work with you lets you maintain your patient autonomy, whatever that autonomy might be. Receiving the kind of care that is comfortable for you is exercising your autonomy. There will always be blips along the way. One woman told me about a primary care doctor she had worked with for years who became enraged with her at a visit, seemingly out of the blue. She felt he was attacking her health care behavior without asking appropriate questions. She offered him several opportunities during the visit to re-evaluate his comments. When he couldn’t do so, she used her autonomy to fire him. Another patient described being told that if he did not take a specific medication, the outcome could be devastating for his health. This may have been true, but perhaps a more collaborative discussion would have allowed this patient to feel less bullied into a treatment. Feeling comfortable with your right to get the answers you need to understand your treatment reflects your patient autonomy. Make sure your doctor’s style matches your own. How the treating relationship works is an essential part of the treatment. If it works, everything is enhanced. If your autonomy is not respected, your health care will suffer.



Read the above.......all this mandatory vaccine stuff is TOTALLY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF PATIENT AUTONOMY which the health care system has been telling us doctors is the way to go. Basically patients choose!

So you guys need to complain to SMC or college if you feel the doctors are trying to tell you to do something against your will!

I read about some doctor who was treating autistic kids with antibiotics and anti fungals in Singapore. he was ordered to stop.

is that wrong?
 
you are entitled to your opinion and some would agree with you but the easy flaw to spot with this thinking would be the class of people who cannot be vaxed on medical grounds.

on a more commercial basis, the cost of treating the unvaxed would be better reflected in higher insurance premiums.

but it's fundamentally unsound to deny someone access to the public health care system because of a choice they make.

so next we should restrict subsidized health care for pregnant mothers over 45, because who asked them to have babies so late in life and risk complications?
I have always stated pro choice anti vaxxers

Pro choice

That means idiots who purposely reject vaccines and also actively spread fake science about them . you know who I am talking about

if you feel fine about paying for these retards I can't stop you

and to point out your easy flaw : pregnant mothers over 45 don't endanger the public or take up limited hospital resources like ICU beds.

Pro choice anti vaxxers are a public health menace and can take that ICU bed someone needs. The next dominant Covid variant will come from these idiots

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...irus-variants-heres-how#Millions-unvaccinated
 
I read about some doctor who was treating autistic kids with antibiotics and anti fungals in Singapore. he was ordered to stop.

is that wrong?
SMC says that it was experimental with no evidence etc

Although there are some studies to support the use. But I think the pediatricians say they want to be the ones prescribing not anyone else. It is the same with medical cannabis here in Alberta. Pediatricians say they are the ones who can prescribe to kids only. No one else. Not even adult pain specialists.

A better term would be to say "there is no consensus on best practice for use of XYZ"

Medical profession is political. Depends who you are. If you small GP cannot do anything different.

I had posted about that Dr before.

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/the-dangers-of-the-covid-19-“vaccine”-updated-video.307909/post-3441539

Politics.

Medicine is always evolving. Especially in conditions where there is no successful proven treatment like ASD, parents are willing to try many things. Do no harm right? According to the pediatricians it has to be proven first before you can give it not just do no harm. I am sure these parents will also try things like TCM, alternative medicine supplements, herbs etc. Is that any "safer" or "better"? Debatable.

Look at the covid vaccine. So much controversy. Any "proven" long term track record? Nope. But there is some consensus.

I wonder what will happen if patients made complaints against Drs for not respecting their autonomy. Using antifungals and antibiotics to possibly treat underlying causes for ASD is not totally unheard of as shown. Yes it is experimental. Unproven. But certainly not shown to be deadly or dangerous. And is still under review. Specialists do have a duty to discuss and respect patient autonomy as well. But as this case has shown when it comes to children, the pediatricians want to have the final say.

I would advise GPs and non pediatricians to refer complicated cases to pediatricians for management. And in Singapore, do not attempt medicine that is not based on guidelines and no one else is doing it except you. Not even if you are a specialist!
 
SMC says that it was experimental with no evidence etc

Although there are some studies to support the use. But I think the pediatricians say they want to be the ones prescribing not anyone else. It is the same with medical cannabis here in Alberta. Pediatricians say they are the ones who can prescribe to kids only. No one else. Not even adult pain specialists.

A better term would be to say "there is no consensus on best practice for use of XYZ"

Medical profession is political. Depends who you are. If you small GP cannot do anything different.

I had posted about that Dr before.

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/the-dangers-of-the-covid-19-“vaccine”-updated-video.307909/post-3441539

Politics.

Medicine is always evolving. Especially in conditions where there is no successful proven treatment like ASD, parents are willing to try many things. Do no harm right? According to the pediatricians it has to be proven first before you can give it not just do no harm. I am sure these parents will also try things like TCM, alternative medicine supplements, herbs etc. Is that any "safer" or "better"? Debatable.

Look at the covid vaccine. So much controversy. Any "proven" long term track record? Nope. But there is some consensus.

I wonder what will happen if patients made complaints against Drs for not respecting their autonomy. Using antifungals and antibiotics to possibly treat underlying causes for ASD is not totally unheard of as shown. Yes it is experimental. Unproven. But certainly not shown to be deadly or dangerous. And is still under review. Specialists do have a duty to discuss and respect patient autonomy as well. But as this case has shown when it comes to children, the pediatricians want to have the final say.

I would advise GPs and non pediatricians to refer complicated cases to pediatricians for management. And in Singapore, do not attempt medicine that is not based on guidelines and no one else is doing it except you. Not even if you are a specialist!

so no antibiotics for autism and no Ivermectin for Covid in Singapore. got it.
 
@pvtpublic

From my observations Pediatricians are some of the most conservative physicians out there when it comes to treatment for kids.\

Likely that even if the authorities approved covid vaccine for kids, the pediatricians will not recommend it

 
@pvtpublic

From my observations Pediatricians are some of the most conservative physicians out there when it comes to treatment for kids.\

Likely that even if the authorities approved covid vaccine for kids, the pediatricians will not recommend it


thanks for the link.

yes, big difference between approval and recommendation.
 
Back
Top