[news] Death Mobile

[solypsist]

"Makers of the death vans say the vehicles, which are used for lethal-injection executions, are a civilized alternative to the firing squad, the method used in most Chinese executions."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060615075009990034&cid=2194

Note to self: when hitchhiking if the death van pulls up, just keep on walking.

[Joker85]

The first sentence jumped out at me. The kid's dad caught him stealing at 13 so he chopped off one of his fingers.:inquisitive:

[_Martyr_]

I wonder will they now send the bill for the injection to the prisoner's injection?

[InsaneApache]

Makers of the death vans say the vehicles and injections are a civilized alternative to the firing squad, ending the life of the condemned more quickly, clinically and safely. The switch from gunshots to injections is a sign that China "promotes human rights now," says Kang Zhongwen, who designed the Jinguan Automobile death van

Yes very civilized. Human rights indeed.


I wonder will they now send the bill for the injection to the prisoner's injection?

Well they used to bill the victims familes for the rounds used to execute them, so why not? After all they are civilized and promote human rights.

[Rodion Romanovich]

"Makers of the death vans say the vehicles, which are used for lethal-injection executions, are a civilized alternative to the firing squad, the method used in most Chinese executions."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060615075009990034&cid=2194

Note to self: when hitchhiking if the death van pulls up, just keep on walking.

Civilization's creativity when it comes to finding new ways of killing never ceases to amaze me

[Rodion Romanovich]

Double post

[_Martyr_]

Well they used to bill the victims familes for the rounds.

Well, yeah, thats why I said it...:book: :inquisitive:

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Why, for the love of god, why, why mobile

[InsaneApache]

It reminds my of the 'gaily' painted buses the NSDAP used before they perfected the 'art' of murder. IIRC they had pictures of smiling children, waving, painted onto the windows of the bus.

Whilst all the while, people were being suffocated by the exhaust fumes funneled, rather ingeniously, into the cab. :shame:

[Kralizec]

Reminds me of the Romans, non citizens were crucified for serious crimes. Citizens? They were privileged, and got beheaded instead.

[A.Saturnus]

I guess there are always logistics problems when killing a lot of people.

[Justiciar]

Being shot against a wall or slipping away in a van with a vew. Hmm..

It's also a nice little way of saying to bystanders "There's someone dieing in here. Still feel like breaking the law?" :2thumbsup:

[solypsist]

which raises the point of what they do with the bodies - just roll open the side door and dump it in the street when making a slow left hand turn?


I guess there are always logistics problems when killing a lot of people.

[Kralizec]

The article does deal with that, saying there is a strong indication that they use the vans to more easily extract organs from the convicts.

[rory_20_uk]

The article does deal with that, saying there is a strong indication that they use the vans to more easily extract organs from the convicts.

In principle this is a good idea. Why not use those that destroy lives to lengthen others?

But I would be wary of the "convict poor 20-something farmers for spares" that might therefore be easier to hide.

~:smoking:

[orangat]

In principle this is a good idea. Why not use those that destroy lives to lengthen others?

But I would be wary of the "convict poor 20-something farmers for spares" that might therefore be easier to hide.

~:smoking:

Not a good idea because the death penalty in China is rapaciously meted out even for minor crimes and is a scandal in itself not just those who 'destroy lives'.

Since China has a thriving black market with the collusion and fattening the pockets of courts/police/prisons/hospitals, the mobile execution unit simply facilitates the black market organ trading.

Then there is the issue of whether a persons body belongs wholly to the state or reverts back to the state upon expiration.

[rory_20_uk]

In my view, a person looses their rights as an individual when they become a criminal. They re regained after they pay for their crimes.

A person's body is otherwise their own. But I think there should be encouragement to get people to donate organs.

Yes, China's crime system is not ideal, but that affects the practice of organ donation. The principle is sound IMO.

~:smoking:

[orangat]

Any western doctor would see the practise as inhumane and abhorrent since it is simply forced on prisoners without appropriate consent. Prisoners in the US are barred from donating their organs for this reason - because they cannot be expected to give consent free from coercion".

Even forgetting the above for a moment, the Chinese organ trade serves to fatten the pockets of the court/police/prison officials and rich western 'organ' tourists instead of really helping the needy.

[rory_20_uk]

Any? Be careful with blanket statements.

I'm a western doctor!

The difference is that I think that in these cases consent is not required from the prisoners, as they are dead at the point of removal.

True, some doctors are so high and mighty on their morals that they would rather thousands die than tarnish their own self glorifying image.

~:smoking:

[orangat]

Any? Be careful with blanket statements.
I'm a western doctor!

The difference is that I think that in these cases consent is not required from the prisoners, as they are dead at the point of removal.

True, some doctors are so high and mighty on their morals that they would rather thousands die than tarnish their own self glorifying image.
~:smoking:

I was refering to medical doctors.

Actually some prisoners are operated on while they are alive before execution to harvest organs like kidneys for maximum freshness. And even if they are dead, consent is not an issue which is unethical.

High on morals? Prisoner organ donation is antiethical to informed consent.
Its the high and mighty doctors in Alder Hey and Chinese prisons who think they somehow serving instead of simply fattening their pockets at the expense of others including political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.

[rory_20_uk]

I am a medical Doctor...

~:smoking:

[orangat]

Then you should already know that voluntary informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics. Did you get your medical degree in the UK?

Everything in Chinese prisoner organ harvesting is scandalous. From the rapacious, corrupt legal system, black market system for western organ tourists to the clandestine medical operations like thieves in the dark.

[PanzerJaeger]

This would be welcome news if China had a fair and just legal system.

Although a bit macabre, there is nothing particularly wrong with the "death mobile" concept. It is simply another means to the same end. What is wrong is the fact that many of those to be killed do not deserve their unfortunate fate, and are simply victims of the Chinese government's ongoing war against its people. :shame:

[rory_20_uk]

Then you should already know that voluntary informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics. Did you get your medical degree in the UK?

Everything in Chinese prisoner organ harvesting is scandalous. From the rapacious, corrupt legal system, black market system for western organ tourists to the clandestine medical operations like thieves in the dark.

Yup trained in the London in the UK.

I am of the opinion that I am allowed to use my intellect and not become some drone that blindly follows rules. This may not be the typical doctor, as if one is to generalise they do like to follow protocols and not engage the grey stuff much.

Informed consent? An enshrined concept that we ignore all the time. I've seen people that can't read or write english sign consent papers.

And as I say, ethics is a wonderful for medico-legal lawyers in ivory spires to discuss, but closer to reality they indirectly cause the deaths of many people.

And so, given the above on the issue under discussion I am completely at odds with the UK line.

Oh, and for further interest I never said the Hippocratic oath :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[orangat]

Yup trained in the London in the UK.
I am of the opinion that I am allowed to use my intellect and not become some drone that blindly follows rules. This may not be the typical doctor, as if one is to generalise they do like to follow protocols and not engage the grey stuff much.

Informed consent? An enshrined concept that we ignore all the time. I've seen people that can't read or write english sign consent papers.

And as I say, ethics is a wonderful for medico-legal lawyers in ivory spires to discuss, but closer to reality they indirectly cause the deaths of many people.

And so, given the above on the issue under discussion I am completely at odds with the UK line.
Oh, and for further interest I never said the Hippocratic oath :thumbsup:
~:smoking:

I can't say I'm too surprised since Britain has a tradition of medical paternalism so ethics is left as an ideal for legal heads as you say.

The whole point of informed consent is for the doctor to explain and ensure the whole deal is understood to the patient (regardless of whether they read English). It is not merely a signature to for a cya.

How does informed consent indirectly cause the deaths of many people in UK?
In China, the prisoner organ harvest directly increases the death rate because it is a self-sustaining operation that needs dead bodies to fatten the wallets of the colluding parties.

And out of curiosity - What is your view on the scandals of Alder Hey and surreptitious pelvic examinations under anesthesia?

[rory_20_uk]

I prefer a system of medical paternalism than the increasing litigious system where nothing is done if it is of the slightest danger to the doctor. Sure the patient might die, but better they die according to the current treatment algorithm than think for oneself.

The time and money in ensuring informed consent would mean far less get treated, and far more would die because of it than would be saved.


And out of curiosity - What is your view on the scandals of Alder Hey and surreptitious pelvic examinations under anesthesia?

I don't know exactly to what case you refer, but as a medical student I saw other students learn to do them on patients who had not been asked when they were prepped for theatre.

It is something that needs to be learnt, and it was as good a time as any. No damage was done so I have no problems with it.

In UK healthcare there needs to be a far greater understanding that medicine is a 2 way street. We treat you, but we learn from you. Everyone expects good doctors with experience and great clinical skills. There are some that feel that these should be learnt on others and they should undergo no embarassment or discomfort.

I have heard that the best method for learning pelvic exams was for volounteer women to have one performed by an expert, and then by those learning. those women were able to offer advice as to what to do better, and the students became proficient a lot faster.

~:smoking:

[GoreBag]

Most metal car ever.

[Dooz]

Very nice. Also interesting to find out that they use the firing squad. Any other interesting methods of execution around the world anyone would care to share?

[orangat]

I prefer a system of medical paternalism than the increasing litigious system where nothing is done if it is of the slightest danger to the doctor. Sure the patient might die, but better they die according to the current treatment algorithm than think for oneself.

The time and money in ensuring informed consent would mean far less get treated, and far more would die because of it than would be saved.


Paternal medicine is just an excuse for poor clinical skills and shady ethics. Time and money in ensuring informed consent? Its another excuse for poor communication skills.

And since some MDs nowadays prefer to forgo the optional Hippocratic oath and see their profession simply like any other instead of being a vocation and a privilege, why should the public put up with such paternalistic attitudes?



I don't know exactly to what case you refer, but as a medical student I saw other students learn to do them on patients who had not been asked when they were prepped for theatre.

It is something that needs to be learnt, and it was as good a time as any. No damage was done so I have no problems with it.

In UK healthcare there needs to be a far greater understanding that medicine is a 2 way street. We treat you, but we learn from you. Everyone expects good doctors with experience and great clinical skills. There are some that feel that these should be learnt on others and they should undergo no embarassment or discomfort.

I have heard that the best method for learning pelvic exams was for volounteer women to have one performed by an expert, and then by those learning. those women were able to offer advice as to what to do better, and the students became proficient a lot faster.


The Alder Hey scandal involved around 15 doctors at the Liverpool hospital who routinely 'took' organs from thousands of post morterm children and infants without consent or even against parents instructions.

If the procedure is so harmless as you say, then why don't medical students practise on themselves? Why is it so difficult for doctors to request permission ? You neglect the fact in your 2-way street that patients are also paying customers while doctors certainly aren't working simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

Pelvic examinations (without consent under anesthesia) were common everywhere until the 'secret' became common knowledge and roundly condemned. Some doctors insist that women feel no pain under anesthesia - which is even more repugnant since it reduces those women to latex pelvic dummies which begs the question why it was done in the first place.

[rory_20_uk]

Paternal medicine is just an excuse for poor clinical skills and shady ethics. Time and money in ensuring informed consent? Its another excuse for poor communication skills.


I fail to see how paternal medicine equates por clinical skills or shady ethics.
Concerning time and money for consent is a managerial consideration, one that clinicins have long been divorced from.


And since some MDs nowadays prefer to forgo the optional Hippocratic oath and see their profession simply like any other instead of being a vocation and a privilege, why should the public put up with such paternalistic attitudes?

When one goes to the mechanic one puts up with a "paternalistic attitude". We "put up with it" as experts know more than they do.
Why is medicine anything more than a job? Privilege??!? you try doing it for a bit!


The Alder Hey scandal involved around 15 doctors at the Liverpool hospital who routinely 'took' organs from thousands of post morterm children and infants without consent or even against parents instructions.

Dieng devil's advocate: how did medicine commence? Illegal research on corpses. How many lives do we owe to those early anatomists who fought against the edicts of the Church. Of course, everyone wants the benefits of medicine, no one wants to have to suffer.


If the procedure is so harmless as you say, then why don't medical students practise on themselves? Why is it so difficult for doctors to request permission ? You neglect the fact in your 2-way street that patients are also paying customers while doctors certainly aren't working simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

Learning on one's colleagues is obviously a bad idea. We learn to take bloods on each other, and early examination. There is a limit though.
If patients' don't like bieng tested on, they can leave. They are more than able to do so. Part of the "price" in the NHS is to be tested on. The NHS is basically a charity. Compared to other professions doctors earn one hell of a lot less. We do many hours that unlike other professions that are not rewarded as in other professions.


Pelvic examinations (without consent under anesthesia) were common everywhere until the 'secret' became common knowledge and roundly condemned. Some doctors insist that women feel no pain under anesthesia - which is even more repugnant since it reduces those women to latex pelvic dummies which begs the question why it was done in the first place.

You've obviously not used a latex dummy.

~:smoking:

[orangat]

I fail to see how paternal medicine equates por clinical skills or shady ethics. Concerning time and money for consent is a managerial consideration, one that clinicins have long been divorced from.
When one goes to the mechanic one puts up with a "paternalistic attitude". We "put up with it" as experts know more than they do.
Why is medicine anything more than a job? Privilege??!? you try doing it for a bit!


Managerial consideration? Informed consent is an ethical cornerstone of modern medicine. Would you put up with a mechanic who refuses to tell you why you need a certain replacement or refuses to reveal the full details on why more repairs are needed?



Dieng devil's advocate: how did medicine commence? Illegal research on corpses. How many lives do we owe to those early anatomists who fought against the edicts of the Church. Of course, everyone wants the benefits of medicine, no one wants to have to suffer.


Are you condoning the actions of the doctors at Alder Hey? Did the organs harvested at Alder Hey advance medical knowledge by one iota? Is admitting wrongdoing so difficult?



Learning on one's colleagues is obviously a bad idea. We learn to take bloods on each other, and early examination. There is a limit though.
If patients' don't like bieng tested on, they can leave. They are more than able to do so. Part of the "price" in the NHS is to be tested on. The NHS is basically a charity. Compared to other professions doctors earn one hell of a lot less. We do many hours that unlike other professions that are not rewarded as in other professions.
You've obviously not used a latex dummy.
~:smoking:

If a pelvic is such a benign procedure, why is it such a bad idea? Some courses do it. My comment about latex dummies refers to the assertion that the anesthesia blocks out any pain a woman might feel through novice hands - as if the unknowing patient under anesthesia should be grateful for it.

The public sentiment and guidelines from medical associations are quite clear on the issue of pelvic examinations - if a doctor does not want to obtain explicit consent - he will lose his license. Since medicine is learnt through extensive apprenticeship by practising on patients, shouldn't respectfully asking for permission be the least medical students/doctors can do?

NHS is still funded by taxpayers. Despite the working conditions and lack of appreciation, no one is being forced to become a doctor.

[rory_20_uk]

So, you think that we have time to sit down and explain every proceedure to everyone into all the minute detail that the patient might conceivably want? Half an hour, an hour? There's no time. Oh, and let's not forget the ones that don't speak English. giving time to do the full review is a managerial descision. You can get on your high horse about modern ethics and the rest, but doctors are told what to do by managers who are less well trained, and to be frank thicker than we are.

Mechanics often say "you need this replaced as the other one is broken" very paternalistic. Who sits down and says "yes, but how? Where? When?" etc etc etc. There's a point the mechanic would get fed up and say take it or leave it.

Concerning harvested organs, do you know whether any advancements were made? Any that are is never a case of thanking the medics, it's merely a reason to up the expectations of what is going to happen.

They were wrong to take them without permission. I don't know why they did or what their reasoning was.

What courses teach pelvic exams on each other? Any in the UK? Would you do that to one of your colleagues? No? Then why should we?

Asking for permission is fine with me. I add the caveat that if permission is not forthcoming, treatment will be delayed.

Guidelines are written by those that have no idea of what working in a functioning hospital is like. Doctors leave late as it is. Following all dictats to the letter would probably mean no one ever would get to leave.

I agree that no one is bieng forced to be doctors. I'm getting out in 3 years time when I've registered to be a GP. Then off to industry... :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[IrishArmenian]

Dr. Kavorkian- another brilliant and kind Armenian philanthropist. We are everywhere, you just need to know how to find us. But seriously, this stuff is so stupid. I am a big religious conservative, and you got to hell for suicide, so why do it? This is the problem with the secular world, take no offense, but I think the world just seems to always take the easy way out. Absolute crap, enough said.

[orangat]

So, you think that we have time to sit down and explain every proceedure to everyone into all the minute detail that the patient might conceivably want? Half an hour, an hour? There's no time. Oh, and let's not forget the ones that don't speak English. giving time to do the full review is a managerial descision. You can get on your high horse about modern ethics and the rest, but doctors are told what to do by managers who are less well trained, and to be frank thicker than we are.

Mechanics often say "you need this replaced as the other one is broken" very paternalistic. Who sits down and says "yes, but how? Where? When?" etc etc etc. There's a point the mechanic would get fed up and say take it or leave it.

Concerning harvested organs, do you know whether any advancements were made? Any that are is never a case of thanking the medics, it's merely a reason to up the expectations of what is going to happen.

They were wrong to take them without permission. I don't know why they did or what their reasoning was.

What courses teach pelvic exams on each other? Any in the UK? Would you do that to one of your colleagues? No? Then why should we?

Asking for permission is fine with me. I add the caveat that if permission is not forthcoming, treatment will be delayed.

Guidelines are written by those that have no idea of what working in a functioning hospital is like. Doctors leave late as it is. Following all dictats to the letter would probably mean no one ever would get to leave.

I agree that no one is bieng forced to be doctors. I'm getting out in 3 years time when I've registered to be a GP. Then off to industry... :thumbsup:
~:smoking:

Informed consent is not going into the detail over every procedure with every patient since they obviously do not have the medical background to understand the nitty gritty. Its about getting a general overview with full disclosure of the risks of the procedure, other choices of alternative treatment and what would happen if nothing is done.

Concerning the Alder Hey scandal. Why should I prove anything? Shouldn't it all be on the doctors to justify themselves? 'Expections of what is going to happen'? You sound like doctors have a special status and should be afforded special dispensation when they get exposed especially for something as egregious as Alder Hey.

It was a while back when I saw a chart with the breakdown on pelvics. A minute number (probably about 4%) were student or instructors who were the subjects. My point is that if it is so benign then what is the problem about medical students practising upon themselves?
Your reply on the issue was 'it was as good a time as any. No damage was done so I have no problems with it'. Would consent be necessary for a 'harmless' pelvic if the subject happens to be a resident or attending instead of a poor medicaid patient?

The underlying issue in the scandals of Alder Hey, Chinese prisoner organ harvest and surreptitious pelvic examinations is one of _deception_ not about saving lives and advancing medical knowledge.

Is it common for a medical student in UK to refer to themselves as 'doctor' before finishing their internship (housemanship?)?