Primum Non Nocere

In the world of the ancient Greek, the ill would fall asleep in temples dedicated to the god Hippocrates, hoping that he would visit them in dreams and cure whatever ailed them. This is the origin of the organized medical practice, and created the Hippocratic Oath. This oath is still said, in some form or another, by every medical professional that's passed through a university. It basically outlines that the doctor will act humanely, professionally, and put the patients best interests before anything else. One of the biggest parts of that oath is the phrase "Primum Non Nocere", which in the English version reads "above all, do no harm". This is basically what medicine is, putting the most benefit for the patient above all else. Since it is impossible to do anything without harming anyone, this is typically taken to mean minimizing the harm done as much as possible.

Many people don't understand what this means. They confuse the word "harm" with the word "pain". A procedure may cause a lot of pain, but if it is for the best, then it is the doctor's duty to perform it. Take, for instance, the case of abortion. I've heard the Oath used against doctors practicing abortions many, many times over, but is it with cause? Is it harming the patient to have an abortion? Of course, there is significant emotional trauma. But let's face it, it is for the best in the end. If you are getting an abortion, then you have a pretty good reason. So is it professionally ethical to perform them? The answer is yes.

The same question applies to basically every other procedure, from cold sores to assisted suicide. It is worth reiterating the single fact that it is a physician's position to find the situation of the least harm, not no harm, because it is impossible to do something without harming someone. This is crucial, because I am sick of the so called "moral guardians" tying the hands of our doctors and scientists in the name of their misguided morals. Are there some unscrupulous doctors in the world? Yes. Could there be quite a few? Yes. But does that mean that the government should tie the hands of the people trying to make the world better just because some idiots with no scientific training think they know what they speak of?

Here's a tip, people. Yes, there are corrupt scientists, and corrupt physicians. But until you get a degree in the field, let alone a PhD, stop bitching about it. You don't know what you're saying, and your opinion is only effective on the other idiots like yourself. Alas, many of those idiots are also politicians, but that's for another day.

Love always,
Grimm

Faux News

Today I came across a television that was showing a certain news station, Fox News. Now, while I do accept the fact that all news stations have their own bias, noticeably along party lines, but at least most stations have the good taste to try and hide theirs. Fox News seems funded solely by the Republican Party, it's bias is so strong and so obvious. They use the world "liberal" freely and treat it like one would use the term "Nazi". Seriously, Fox, can't you learn to be at least a little tactful? Journalists are supposed to be neutral parties that work on the part of the public to factually report news, not to be puppets of a party (liberal or conservative, mind you). And, of course, Obama, our resident lame duck, is a mixture of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini according to Fox News. As I've said before, the president has no real power. So lay off and focus on people who actually are able to change the country (many of whom are conservatives... don't want to get too close to your fanbase?) and able to make a difference. Or at least learn to pretend you're real journalists, like all the other stations do.

Love,
Grimm

The Virtual Friend

Not too long ago many of my personal friends moved to so-called "greener pastures", leaving me to converse with them in a virtual sense. While this is certainly a change, I've found that although speaking through the net, actual conversations still happen, the passage of ideas still occurs. Perhaps the conversation is enhanced, because of the cornucopia of information that is instantly accessible over the internet. It's not a diluted, sad version of conversation, just... different. Is the fact that one speaks over a device or interfaces with a computer instead of speaking face to face important to the point where we should struggle against the tide to force physical nearness? No, you see. The entire reason for conversation is the transfer of ideas, not physical contact. Will I go so far as to say that verbal communication is antiquated? Of course not. I simply say that it's not the only real way to converse.

Now, this raises some interesting ideas about net users that one may meet while online. Take, for instance, me, Grimm. You probably don't know me, in the sense that people who have met me face-to-face do. But you know me better in some aspects than they do, for you know my mind. On the net there are no censors, no public pressure obscuring and moderating ideas. Out here, we are anonymous, and in that anonymity there is power, allowing anyone to say what they want (much to the chagrin of so many forum moderators). So when you meet someone online, whether in a forum, chat room, video game, and so on and so forth, are you actually meeting them? Do you need to see someone to know them? The answer, as always, is no. You can still share ideas, hold conversation, make jokes, tell stories, love, laugh, cry, etc., etc., ad nausea. It's still conversation, and you can still make friends. And yet, the world has a stigma against this kind of relationship, a world that seems stuck in the ages of newspapers that one bought from shouting street urchins. While the idea that people who think that the ability to "tweet" makes them technologically adept should be expected to understand virtual relationships is somewhat ridiculous, it seems that the (for lack of better word) geeks among them would correct their misconceptions. Why don't they? They're afraid of public opinion. It's hard being a geek, to be ostracized simply for knowing too much. Most people try to avoid being too against the herd. Where do they go to be themselves, readers? That's right! The internet! It's a conundrum, my friends. And it isn't going to change quickly, it's going to be something like the phasing out of racism. It gets better with each generation.

With love,
Grimm