Psycho-Babble Social Thread 1116820

Shown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.


nz is not rule of law

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 15:57:12

because the officials don't follow the laws.

those people who have statutory duties -- don't do the things that they are supposed to do.

it is like they read the statutory duties and think that their job is to make sure that those things are not done. are not done by them, are not done by anyone.

and pretty much everything is wrongly decided. that is to say decisions are made on the basis of incorrect reasoning, or, often, no reasoning at all.

over and over and over... and over and over...

administration won't listen to academic judgement and make proper use of that in decision making.

administration won't listen to clinical judgement and make proper use of that in decision making.

administration just does whatever administration wants to do and will only hire academics and clinicians who... toe the party line... except, well, i suppose their position, uh, leaks out. constantly. over and over. the resistence.

you simply can't deny that new zealand is very very poorly administrated, indeed. they can go 'we don't see corruption' as much as they like you look at all the other measures of development... and only way we get to be anything other than resolutely last and bottom of the OECD is by pronouncing Mexico to be part of the OECD as well. Even then, it's touch and go as to who gets to be resolutely last.

we just had this guy go postal in a supermaket with a knife. government employees shot him within 60 seconds, they reckon. they'd been following him around with guns because nobody would issue a section 8A (application for him to be assessed by a mental health clinician) accompanied by a supporting certificate from a clinician.

the police had the power to issue a section 8A and detain him for up to 6 hours so that an assessment could be done.

i think that means the police could have chosen to take him (against his will) to the hospital and wait up to 6 hours for a psychiatrist (c'mon this isn't half way up the f*ck*ng mountain in the outback) to conduct an assessment... whereby because of his beliefs about ISIS and that there wasn't really anything wrong with shooting children and the like... that there was grounds to detain him under the mental health act for assessment and treatment for 5 days.

i mean... the hospital was probably too busy detaining me because i 'chose to believe in a god who loves me'. they were too busy forcing me to stay as an inpatient (awwwwwwww we like that one we will keep that one forever... best nation in the world in which to be kept a child forever) that they simply didn't have any resources left to arrangae that for a pereson who a High Court Judge had actually ordered to have a psych assessment.


the police would't takee him to the ED to have them arrange a psych assessment. they preferred to have however many armed police officers follow him around for however many days with guns... until he stabbed several innocent members of the community whereby he was shot dead by them within 60 seconds.

and so now the government wants there to be stronger anti-terrorism laws so that we can detain people who haven't actually committed a crime yet in prisons (not psych places) because we won't supply psych services in nz to...



anyone at all.


the way it goes is people ask for help.

they say 'there is no help for you. you are not bad enough / sick enough / chronic enough / florid enough yet. we are too busy treating people far far sicker than you'

so as to encourage people become sicker and sicker and sicker...

because what do you have to do to get a little help, eh?

but then when you are sick enough to be an inpatient, say... then they say you are too sick for the help or treatment you know you needed. they don't offer psychology or psychotherapy or whatever to inpatients. you need to get well or get better enough to be in the community and not in the hospitals to get the help you need.

so you improve and get out into the community. but then no, you need to be sicker. that's the problem. that's why no help for you. you need to get sicker.

or they say you need to be in the criminal system. you need to get a court order. otherwise you can't have the help you know you need. you need to get that ordered by a judge. you might need to be in prison. to get the help you need. if only you were imprisoned for a crime then you could get the hel pyou need.

so then people go to prison. they (or their families say) we thought that was required for them to get the help they needed. but when they are in prison they say nonononono none of that in the prisons. you need to be out of the prisons. that's something that people outside the prisons have. you need to get out of the prison and then you can have the help that you need.

because we won't pay clinicians to help people in nz. keeping people in conditions of deprivation and ... making the situation worse. that's all the help that will be funded at all.

that seems to be the thing of it.

how much did it cost in man-hours to have how many people (police people) follow this guy around (antagonising him) for how many months...

because they chose not to detain him (lawfully) under the mental health act. that is to say constables could have put him in the car and taken him to the ED and filled out a section 8 and the hospoital would have had up to 6 hours to have arranged for an assessment etc.

and instead of having clinicians to meet the clinical need they are going to put a bunch of beurocrats to work writing new laws under urgency etc etc etc to do with increasing power to keep people in jail when they haven't done anything wrong...

when the guy was crying out for social supports.

apparently we let him and his dad in with studnet visas and they applied to stay as refugees. and we accepted that, likely because they brought money with them. and then we likely didn't do a great deal towards... well.. what course was he doing? did we treat him like garbage like how we treat most of our studnets like garbage? such that he ended up i don't know... getting more attention online posting about joining a terrorist gang etc... what happened to the fun social experience that tertiary education is given that tertiary education isn't about adademic standards eh???

what about the 'isn't this fun????' of our education system. at least there's drunkedn fun-ness throughout orientation week -- right?

apparently the dip sh*t ideology is to keep clincial staffing levels at 75 per cent. keep the hospitals working to a deficit (that's good business apparently and you can win some stupid notion of most efficient while on the path to financial ruin and collapse and not because you are paying your clinical staff and not because you are providing the clinicla services people asked for and not because you are getting good clinical outcomes)...

the dip sh*t ideology that thinks they save $$$ with these 'intelligent triage' non clinical systems that go 'what is your home address and who is your GP and what was your last presenting complaint and on the basis of that we know (statistically in cleaning our data land) what treatment is cheapest for us. i mean... what treatment is right for you. i mean what non-treatment is cheapest for us. i mean.... how we can be the bottom of the OECD. but not really. i don't know that we are eligible to be regarded as being in the OECD at all. actually.


Roe v Wade

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 16:30:21

In reply to nz is not rule of law, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 15:57:12

I think I get what the problem is, with the abortion thing in the US. Why it is so controversial and genuinely polarising, I mean to say.

They are harvesting organs from foetuses. For science research. And they are likely removing foetuses that are... Theoretically... Not viable outside the uterus... But, well... They could even be treating the women for their cervical cancer at the same time... Removing the uterus with the foetus. I mean... Why wouldn't you if there isn't any law or whatever to prevent it?

That is the worst of it... But that is the (likely true) concern that people have. That those kinds of things are going on. That they are changing the way they are performing the abortions to try and have more viable organs or cells or whatever for scientific research purposes.

That is to say they are potentially or possibly or by the way sort of... Harming or doing things that are not clinically what is best for the woman they are performing the abortion on.. Because they are more focused on harvesting the foetus from the woman.

That is to say these poor women...

Who were.. Perhaps denied more timely access to their abortions... Because of the desire to harvest more fully formed organs... More cells... They aren't being harmed (no affront to women's rights) that they are forced to carry the foetus to full term... But they are being harmed (an affront to women's rights) that they are forced to carry the foetus for longer than they would be likely required to carry it if there wasn't incentive to harvest more cells from the embryos or harvest organs.

That is to say... It isn't that the scientists are using left-overs. It is that the procedures are being done (and women are being denied access to preventative birth control, plan B after pill birth control, oral medication to induce sponaneous abortion relatively early as a relatively non-invasive procedure a woman can do in relative solitude on her own terms birth control, very early abortion where a little suction or aspiration can be applied... in order for a much more significant or substantive late term operation, basically...

the foetal heart is one of the first (maybe the first in fact) organ to develop. that's why 'foetal heart beat' makes sense. it prevents organ harvesting of foetuses. where that provides a... perverse incentive to oppress particularly poor women in all the ways that Roe v Wade was designed to prevent.

And I haven't even considered anything about the benefit or good to the foetus (the rights of the foetus would increase with development). just from the perspective of the rights of the women who are having these operations.


i think the court is doing the right thing in holding off declaring the texas law unconstitutional. waiting for a case to come through to ask them to decide on it once they have seen it play out in a case, i mean to say.

and it is an interesting idea to have the 'bounty hunting' thing of it. i foreseee...

'have you been denied access to a TIMELY ABORTION? call 0800 999 9999 today!' sorts of cases. perhaps class actions against particular clinics. it will be interesting to see if it results in better access to timely birth control and preventative birth control. it will be interesting to see if the change has an effect on... by removing an incentive for those things to be difficult to access, i mean to say.


i get that there are also problems at the other end. but i never really thought them through properly until more recently.

i did not know you could only grow fertilised eggs for up to 14 days before you had to implant them or halt development or destroy them. becuase it would take 14 days for a relseased egg to travel to the uterus and implant.

it likely did seem to be non-sensicle, really. from an ethics point of view i mean. hard for me to see what is ethically problematic about allowing a 14 day fertilised egg to continue developing up until the organs develop (week 4, say)... hard to justify that when you are allowed to remove them once the organs have developed. the idea is that removing them will kill them -- but why think that? are there actual laws about them not being allowed to keep them alive in jars of amniotic fluid? you cannot tell me that nobody has tried.

whether or not it is still attached to the donor / mother by way of umbilical cord...

or some kind of machine to filter things as a mechanical mother. notn quite a dialysis machine but you get the idea...

you can't tell me nobody has tried...



i was reading about humanised rats. you destroy the immune system the usual way and then you implant foetal cells so the rat gets a 'humanised immune system' apparently. that is to say the cells start looking like human cells with human receptor types and so on.


do you?

what you do is you create 'franken-cells' i will call them. weird amominations of cells that would never exist in nature. and we learn all about franken-cells and try and apply those findings back and...

i see now why aspects of medical knowlege... trying to learn the immunology stuff... feels like... like i am being given a 500 piece puzzle trying to see the overall lpicture and the pieces are all pieces from different puzzles. so they don't actually fit together and there actually isn't an overall picture. what cytokines do and so on... and i think i see, now, that it is not just because we are not clear about which species our finding pertains to... but because so mjuch of the science has been diverted towards studying franken-cells.

and it is like...

there was this thing about how trying to learn about the natural social behavior of different kinds of monkeys (say) by studying ones kept in labs doesn't tell you anything about the natural social behaviour of the different kinds of monkeys. because it isn't natural for monkeys to be kept in labs. so you are studyign franken-monkeys that dno't have the... who aren't afforded the luxury of displaying any of their natural behaviour. not really.

did you see the recent picture of the panda eating it's baby? wasn't it? what human zoo keeper is going to let mummy panda eat her baby! oh my god! save the baby! take it away from it's mother! bad mother! she must have forgot her normal social behavior.

it was likely not until they managed to film mummy panda in the wild giving birth to observe natural behavior in that way that they learned to let them do that in the zoo. then we go 'oh that's how they do in fact the baby will die if we prevent it' and then we go 'gee i wonder why i wonder what that does' and likely she's giving it a mouth-bath in antibiody a. yeah.


so my point is that it turns out us 'helping' the pandas in zoos was just us helping ourselves to pandas and they were harmed at our expense. because we didn't listen to the pandas. because, you know... if a lion could talk we would not be able to understand what it says. and no panda you can't just hold your baby in your mouth and say you just want to lick it a little for some inexplicable reason and have us believe you aren't going to eat it. m'kay.

tastes like chicken. looks like baby bird. mmm hmm.


so of course they are doing gene knock out human embryos. i imagine they implant them in graduate student volunteers. there's nothing to prevent it -- right? then they can have abortions at... well... 1 week. 2 weeks. 3 weeks. 4. no? that's the way things will go now?

that's the concern now. how to regulate that.. i guess the woman are giving informed consenting decisions. some may even choose to carry to term if they can.

give birth to a single gene knock out baby. see what effect the gene has. see if there's a signle enzyme deficiency or...

it's something to do, i guess.

franken-science. helping humanity? i don't really see it...


i think Singer was right... 20+ years ago. about how most of the experiments that get through ethics boards really are of dubious value scientifically.

i think that that genuinely does make them ethically problematic.

i wouldn't want to sit on the ethics boards / committees.

but it is disturbing that with all the goverment and federal and so on research grants that there are... that they don't invest in the good research. i don't undersetand why they keep the dubious (both ethically and scientifically) in business. i don't understnd why they enable them.

in many cases science is 'fishing'. i get that. but then why not find ethically responsible ways to do that?


there is this thing about how if you love it then where is the harm?

say some rich harvard cell biologist decides to implant a gene knockout embryo she made herself to 'see what would happen' or to see if particular things... maybe short stature... maybe pointy ears... maybe intellectual handicap. maybe heart defect... could be induced. just to have a see. for the purpose of helpling people. you see. and helping science advance. adding a factoid in the science textbooks. and she promises to look after it. to feed it and hold it and so on. it will be much loved. like a pet. really. where is the harm? it will be loved and provided for and appreciated more than most babies are. right?

i still think there is something wrong or disturbing about that. why would you wish harms on something where those harms could be prevented? why wouldn't you want your baby (everybodies baby) to be the healthiest they could be? why would lyou want to create franken-babies. just to see.


I don't think that is scientific curiosity. i think that is quite something else.


Re: Roe v Wade

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 16:48:26

In reply to Roe v Wade, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 16:30:21

i think it is lawful now, i mean to say. i think that is something that has been going on. gene knock out human embryos implanted in willing volunteers. informed consenting volunteers i mean to say. they believe it is justified for scientific 'curiosity' they will call it. they have vague ideas of helping humanity. or... fame. noterierty. they could base their career on it. it could make their career. a way to have both a family and a career. right?

where is the harm?

i suppose there are considerably worse harms in the world... but that doesn't make it right. it just means there are other things that we might be better worrying about... like what is happening with the women who can't get an abortion because scientists want them to be tissue or organ donors... where those women don't have access to an abortion not becuase some guy wants to pay child support but because some clinicians want to make money or... have jobs as clinicians, i suppose... and the only way they feel they can have them... or whatever... maybe 'scientific curiosity' of their own... drives preventing working towards increasing access to birth control.

and then once the informed consent implantation has occurred... i suppose you could basically harvest it whenever by way of legal abortion. but not after the organs have developed now.

otherwise... were there laws preventing those scientists... not from implanting their knock-out baby (haha designer babies blonde hair blue eyed 'knock-out'babies) and then growing it inside their uterus incubator and... having it surgically removed... well...

now i really am imaginging grad studnents being forced to live in their supervisors dungeons for however long otherwise...

you have ONE MONTH to comploy with demands of this letter else you will NEVER RECEIVE YOUR DEGREE

and so on...


we have enough 'left over supply'

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:20:57

In reply to Re: Roe v Wade, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 16:48:26

we have enough "left over supply" they say... so that we can give the district health board immunisations without anybody else missing out.

i suppose we did that outside normal working ours. that it to say staff were not spending their working time vaccinating the DHB... they were volunteering their time. and the medical supplies? the syringes? those weren't from the public stocks either -- right?

but i thought we paid for vaccinations... by number.

i thought that our purchase agreement was that we had agreed to purchase a number of doses.

more particularly, enough doses for every eligible new zealander to have 2.

that is to say we did not purchase doses for some people to have 3.

we did not purchase doses for 12 year olds to have doses. i thought.

i thought we purchased them by number of doses. but i haven't seen the purchase agreement. they likely won't show new zealanders because they will say 'privacy'.

but i would imagine they were supposed to record how many doses per vial they were administering. so, you know, if someone finds a problem with contamination in a vial they can identify others who got their vaccination from that vial...

i don't know. we clean our data so...

we are focused, now, on our vaccination rate per number of eligible people being higher than mexico. anybody who gets one is deemed eligible so we are focused on our rate of administering them. of course. it is all about the administration.

the goal or aim is to administrater the vaccines into arms.

i think they forgot about the herd immunity thing. in terms of preventing clusters etc by widely distributing the vaccines around.

or... well... they are under-dosing people to deliver more doses. i am sure our numbers won't add up at the end of the day. we will claim to have administered at a rate that... well add up the number that were adminstered and we weren't supplied with that number of doses.

it's all just a crock.


Re: Roe v Wade

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:39:51

In reply to Re: Roe v Wade, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 16:48:26

'constitutional right to an abortion until the point the foetus can survive outside the womb, generally understood to be 24 weeks'.

the trouble is that our 'general understanding' turned out to be wrong.

they have been prevented by law from growing fertilised embryos outside the womb past 14 days. you wouldn't bother making the law if there weren't people doing something that you wanted them to stop, i would think. that it to say our 'general understanding' developed so that we understood it was scientifically possible to keep a embryo developing outside the womb (or move the womb outside the woman).

and i don't remember on what the earliest pre-term surviving infant is...

the procedure they tell us about is that lung development is limiting. they don't have alveolar sacs developed for gas diffusion. so putting them in an enriched oxygen environment isn't enough for them to live.

but that's because they still have gills. sort of. but of course they will be able to keep them in liquid.

that is to say...

if it becomes generally understood that it is possible to grow babies outside wombs and / or outside women in wombs...

then it would appear that one could plausibly maintain that Roe vs Wade means that there is no constitutional right to an abortion at all.

If it was about protecting the rights of the mother not to be forced to carry a baby she doesn't want... There are oh so many points of intervention prior to removing foetuses once their organs have developed.


Re: Roe v Wade

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:47:38

In reply to Re: Roe v Wade, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:39:51

It is disingenuous to think that the main pressure or reason preventing women from having access to abortion is the God-bother-ers.

I mean.. Ain't nobody want to be paying no child support.

Not very often. I would imagine the greatest pressure or force preventing or prohibiting or obstructing women from having earlier access to birth control or earlier abortion (particularly the chemical methods that apparently do put women at risk more than surgical procedures but would also, from a psychological point of view, be something far more... Privacy preserving for the woman.

I mean... If I ever was raped, say, and for some reason the morning after pill was prevented... I would much rather take a tablet myself, still, than have someone else perform a medical procedure 'down there' which would, to my mind, be the very same kind of trauma all over again, really.

I would imagine at least some women would feel the same way about that. Even if my risk of dying was significantly higher... I would far prefer having my own control over my own chemical means.

But access to medicines is restricted 'for our own good' and access to typically (but not always men) doing whatever they want 'down there' on their own terms... Is preserved. Seems to me.

I think the state laws are appropriate for the context of what is going on in that particular state insofar as I can see it or understand what is going on.

I don't see it as a reversal of Roe v Wade... But then I thought... To my mind... Before.. I thought that the conclusion was a good one... But I acually thought the reasoning was not so good. That is to say I thought it was wrongly decided. But toher people thought that that wasn't the case with it at all so I don't know...


Re: Roe v Wade

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:49:37

In reply to Re: Roe v Wade, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:47:38

just as dis-ingenuous as blaming the anti-vaccers on why the government administration won't get 2 doses to the people who were regarded eligible when they decided to purchase enough doses so that each of those eligible people could have 2 doses.

yeah... it's the anti-vaccers fault. the people who were eligible didn't want their doses. yeah. sure. that's plausible.

i mean if they aren't hiring studnets to spam the booking website looking for available appointments then they don't really want them -- right?


Re: Roe v Wade

Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 18:19:02

In reply to Re: Roe v Wade, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2021, at 17:49:37

if the eligible people aren't bundling themselves up in cars with spare cans of gas in the trunk to top up their car in case they run out of gas in the drive-through vaccination clinic... then they don't really want their vaccinations -- right?

so we best be giving their vaccinations to the ineligible teenagers.

tis the kiwi way. i don't think we purchased enough doses for 'ineligible teenagers' to have doses without taking anything away from the people who were eligible for 2 doses at the time the purchase agreement was signed.

and i think that giving doses in excess of that supplied by manufacterers in the purchase agreement...

is stealing.

it isn't 'preventing medical waste' anymore than providing women access to abortions (but only after the foetus has attained a certain size / weight) is 'preventing medical waste'.


best place in the world in which to train to use a handgun responsibily, you say?

does that look like 'you have no right to involuntarily detain me. let me go else 1 (one thousand) 2 (one thousand) 3 (one thousand) BANG'.

becuase that seems like a good idea to me, right now.

This is the end of the thread.

Show another thread

URL of post in thread:

Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ

[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,

Script revised: February 4, 2008
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.