Beloved character actor Osama bin Laden, star of TV's "Fox News", dies age 54

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm suspicious that the two of you were in cahoots to set that one up

Either way, well done

Nah, just an example of what happens when intellectual brilliance is unleashed and allowed to run free...

[Bertuzzied]

Wow. Vlad does standup?

[Yasa]

He used to until people realized his name wasn't just a fun moniker which they quickly found out after his first bomb performance.

[VladtheImpaler]

As George Costanza said... that's it - I am walking away on top.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I was just reading this and came to post the link. What a great article.

I have to wonder about its accuracy, though. Obviously the operation was (and is) highly classified, and I doubt any of the people in the know are that willing to discuss accurate details with a reporter. Do you think the exact details of the operation like mission briefings, AARs, helmet cam footage (if it actually exists), etc. will ever be released publicly in our lifetimes?

The Pentagon and the White House have a tendancy to only insist on the top secret part when operations eff up.

[metallicat]

Snapped on my vacation to San Diego. The USS Carl Vinson that took bin Laden out to sea. I sort of thought it was neat to see this particular aircraft carrier.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Snapped on my vacation to San Diego. The USS Carl Vinson that took bin Laden out to sea. I sort of thought it was neat to see this particular aircraft carrier.

You'll se a lot of it in November when Michigan State plays North Carolina on the deck of it. AMERICA!!

[pylon]

Originally Posted by valo403

You'll se a lot of it in November when Michigan State plays North Carolina on the deck of it. AMERICA!!

Pfffffft, big deal.

TSN is going to have the Pins game semifinals in the belly of a diesel powered sub, in West Edmonton Mall. No word yet if Frank Sissons is available.

[NuclearFart]

The part about the doctor administering vaccinations as a subterfuge to steal DNA is disturbing. That's clearly unethical and against the Hippocratic Oath - how shameful to the profession

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

The part about the doctor administering vaccinations as a subterfuge to steal DNA is disturbing. That's clearly unethical and against the Hippocratic Oath - how shameful to the profession

What exactly is the problem? People who otherwise might not have been vaccinated received legitimate vaccines, not placebos, right? Might that little bit of intelligence-gathering (which didn't even yield the hoped-for DNA sample) have saved some lives?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What exactly is the problem? People who otherwise might not have been vaccinated received legitimate vaccines, not placebos, right? Might that little bit of intelligence-gathering (which didn't even yield the hoped-for DNA sample) have saved some lives?

Because it's a baited trap under the false pretense of promoting health, and the farthest thing from benevolence. Vaccinations should never be used as a tool of deception, especially in health care where people are trusting their lives to a physician. And were true vaccines even being properly administered? To efficiently get DNA for screening you'd probably have to get some blood, something that is tough to do when a vaccine is given appropriately ie. Not injected into a vessel, through a tiny bore needle, and without aspiration.

Medical ethics is quintessentially about doing no harm; A physician employing medicine as a weapon of war is reminiscent of Nazi physicians.

And before someone says it: the notion of "saving future lives by killing the murderer" is BS - we don't let known gang members die on the trauma table, and we sure as hell wouldn't consciously do something that would expedite their demise. We treat them the same as we would treat our own siblings/parents/etc. Judgements about one's past or future actions has no role in dictating healthcare.

[MarchHare]

Here's the text of the modern Hippocratic Oath:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

I don't see which part the doctors were violating. If anything, they were actually following the part about preventing disease by administering vaccinations to people who otherwise might not have receive them (again, this assumes that the vaccination program was legitimate with the DNA-gathering mission occurring on the side).

Medical ethics is quintessentially about doing no harm; A physician employing medicine as a weapon of war is reminiscent of Nazi physicians.

How was this used as a weapon of war? If they had special poison vaccines they were covertly injecting into known bin Laden associates, I'd agree with you, but they were just trying to get a DNA sample from one of Osama's family members so they could later confirm his identity with genetic evidence. I'm still failing to see how this was harmful, unethical, or a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

[oilyfan]

This is an ethical question that goes beyond the hippocratic oath in my mind. The New Yorker article details this well, the US could have dropped a massive load of ordanance on the house and proabably killed many civilians, a lot of them unconnected innocents, or they could have chosen to send in a team of professionals to "surgically" find and destroy.

Now to find out if they have the right house they hired a doctor to give out vaccinations and take DNA samples at the same for the ultimate goal of reducing collateral damage.

The doctor had two choices:

1. Say no, and at least increase the possibility of increasing the chance of collateral damage

2. Say yes and contribute to an effort to reduce innocent deaths.

I would take no. 2 any day

[metallicat]

I don't know that the CIA is all that concerned about the hippocratic oath when it comes to hunting bin Laden. I know I'm sort of glad it was ignored...if it was. I really don't give a damn. I realize that opinion of mine is probably tantamount to strangling puppies or something, but oh well.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Here's the text of the modern Hippocratic Oath:



I don't see which part the doctors were violating. If anything, they were actually following the part about preventing disease by administering vaccinations to people who otherwise might not have receive them (again, this assumes that the vaccination program was legitimate with the DNA-gathering mission occurring on the side).



How was this used as a weapon of war? If they had special poison vaccines they were covertly injecting into known bin Laden associates, I'd agree with you, but they were just trying to get a DNA sample from one of Osama's family members so they could later confirm his identity with genetic evidence. I'm still failing to see how this was harmful, unethical, or a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

There are multiple literal versions of the oath spanning millennia. I won't dissect them for you in detail, but you should know there are also additional phrases that have been layered into its concept, leading to the encompassing term of medical ethics. Perhaps you've heard of "first, do no harm"?

The first problem here is the intent. These vaccines were never given for benevolent reasons, but to uncover Bin Laden, with the strict intent to kill him. Which leads to the second problem in that this is a direct violation of non-maleficence. Even if you try to reconcile the act because people are getting vaccinations, you can never justify intentional malevolence because it is offset by benevolence, let alone when the malevolence is unnecessary. Additional, lesser, medical ethical violations that have occurred here include non-disclosure (the patients are being treated under false auspices) lack of consent (would the patient have agreed to this, knowing the truth?) and breech of confidentiality (sent off your identifying data & genetic defects to someone you did not agree to).

And they weren't trying to get a DNA sample for postmortem identification, as they already had that (how do you think they confirmed his DNA identity on the ship?). They were hoping to screen the regional population for a DNA match, thus confirming that his blood lineage was in town. And the goal of identification? His assassination. A physician and the practice of medicine, were consciously being used here towards an assassination (ie. harm). I would define a weapon of war as any tool employed towards the purposeful harm of an enemy, and this is also the exact opposite of what medicine stands for.

I have also previously addressed why I don't think these people actually got effective vaccines, as the techniques are at odds to each other.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I don't know that the CIA is all that concerned about the hippocratic oath when it comes to hunting bin Laden. I know I'm sort of glad it was ignored...if it was. I really don't give a damn. I realize that opinion of mine is probably tantamount to strangling puppies or something, but oh well.

My beef is not with the CIA, it is with the ethical conduct of my profession.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

This is an ethical question that goes beyond the hippocratic oath in my mind. The New Yorker article details this well, the US could have dropped a massive load of ordanance on the house and proabably killed many civilians, a lot of them unconnected innocents, or they could have chosen to send in a team of professionals to "surgically" find and destroy.

Now to find out if they have the right house they hired a doctor to give out vaccinations and take DNA samples at the same for the ultimate goal of reducing collateral damage.

The doctor had two choices:

1. Say no, and at least increase the possibility of increasing the chance of collateral damage

2. Say yes and contribute to an effort to reduce innocent deaths.

I would take no. 2 any day

Well, as proven by what actually happened, your argument is flawed. And where can you draw the line with this sort of circular logic? The role of a physician has never been about preemptively reducing US bombing casualties, that's ridiculous.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by fotze

Hey look over there, its Glaxo with a 'conference' in Hawaii.

That Glaxo Hawaii conference intentionally killed Derek Boogaard!

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Well, as proven by what actually happened, your argument is flawed. And where can you draw the line with this sort of circular logic? The role of a physician has never been about preemptively reducing US bombing casualties, that's ridiculous.

I am not sure how it is circular logic? He would been given information related to why he needed to collect the DNA, to what extent i am not sure, he then made the decision based on that.

I would argue that his role is do his part where possible to reduce suffering, how is that ridiculous? Do you also find the role of a physician in new drug human clinical trials ridiculous? How about the role of a combat medic?

[4X4]

Woah. I'm getting a Picard/Prime Directive deja vu here.