Funny stuff.

Dear HT Doctors, HT patients and HT prospective patients

Patients rights are part of human rights and have been defined as 'basic moral guarantees that people allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees "rights" suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than Discretionary.

Patients rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented

Patient's rights aim to secure for individuals the necessary conditions for getting a minimally acceptable care.
Commonly authorities, that are identified as typically best placed to secure these conditions traditionally were Medical Boards of the States and the Justice system/Courts where the doctrine of patients rights has become, for many, a first port of moral call for determining the basic moral guarantees all of us have a right to expect, primarily, of those capable of directly affecting our most important interests, getting medical care.

The distinction drawn between moral rights of patients and legal rights of patients as two separate categories of rights is of fundamental importance to understanding the basis and potential application of human rights.

Legal rights refer to all those rights found within existing legal codes. A legal right is a right that enjoys the recognition and protection of the law.
Questions as to its existence can be resolved by simply locating the relevant legal instrument or piece of legislation. A legal right cannot be said to exist prior to its passing into law and the limits of its validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed the relevant legislation. An example of a legal right would be my right as a patient not to be abandoned by the surgeon in midle of surgery

For the existence or not of rights action no more complicated than locating the relevant legal statute or precedent is needed.

If one proceeds to consider the different categories of substantive human rights one delves into all of the various documents that together form the codified body of human rights, and one can identify and distinguish between five different categories of substantive human rights.

These are as follows: rights to life; rights to freedom; rights to political participation; rights to the protection of the rule of law; rights to fundamental social, economic, and cultural goods.
These rights span the so-called three generations of rights and involve a complex combination of both liberty and claim rights.
Some rights, such as for example the right to life, consist of both liberty and claim rights in roughly equal measure. Thus, the adequate protection of the right to life requires the existence of liberty rights against others trespassing against one's person and the existence of claim rights to have access to basic prerequisites to sustaining one's life, such as an adequate diet and health-care??¦(for example you received lethal dosage of anesthetic by 'surgical technician' during HT surgery and you die, as it happened already, two rights of yours were violated, rights to life and rights to the protection of the rule of law, because 'surgical technician' administering anesthesia is forbidden )

Other rights, such as social, economic, and cultural rights, for example, are weighted more heavily towards the existence of various claim rights, which requires the positive provision of the objects of such rights. The making of substantive distinctions between human rights can have controversial, but important, consequences.
Human rights are typically understood to be of equal value, each right is conceived of as equally important as every other. On this view, there can exist no potential for conflict between fundamental human rights. One is simply meant to attach equal moral weight to each and every human right. This prohibits arranging human rights in order of importance.
However, conflict between rights can and does occur (like for example someone here said , to take donor strip below the safety zone of a patient is violation of patients claim rights derived from social, economic, and cultural rights of getting COMPETENT health care and medical service, although, that right 'conflicts' with the Liberty rights of the doctor to do as he pleases to you, delegating that to non qualified personnel to generate more profit, because he thinks liberty right is a multi-millionaire and a penniless vagrant both possess an equal liberty right to holiday in the Caribbean each year.)
Treating all human rights as of equal importance prohibits any attempts to address or resolve such conflict when it arises.
This country is capable of providing the resources for realizing all of the human rights for all of its citizens it is committed to doing so. In the meantime, government officials wish to know which human rights are more absolute than others, which fundamental human rights should it immediately prioritize and seek to provide for? This question, of course, cannot be answered if one sticks to the position that all rights are of equal importance. It can only be addressed if one allows for the possibility that some human rights are more fundamental than others and that the morally correct action for the government to take would be to prioritize these rights. A refusal to do so, no matter how consistent it may be philosophically would be tantamount to dogmatically sticking one's head in the metaphorical sands.
What remains to be addressed is the questions of what adequately implementing human rights generally requires, and upon whom does this task fall; who has responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights and what is required of them to do so?

For that purpose lets focus to the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

If we define a claim right as consisting of being owed a duty, claim right is a right one holds against another person or persons who owe a corresponding duty to the right holder. Example, patient's right to receive an adequate education before committing to HT surgery is a claim right held against the HT doctor, which has a corresponding duty of HT doctor to provide patient with the object of the right.
Further necessary distinctions within the concept of a claim right is when one distinguishes between a positive claim right and a negative claim right.

Patient's claim right to education (informed consent) is therefore a positive claim right. Negative claim rights, in contrast, are rights one holds against others' interfering in or trespassing upon one's life or property in some way. Patient could be said to possess a negative claim right against HT doctor is when that doctor steal patient's right to receive medical care from MEDICAL PERSONEL, for example.
Indeed, such examples lead on to the final distinction within the concept of claim rights: rights held 'in personam' and rights held 'in rem'.
Rights held in personam are rights one holds against some specifically identified duty holder, such as the authority of HT surgeon. In contrast, rights held in rem are rights held against no one in particular, but apply to everyone. Thus, patient's right to an education (informed consent) would be practically useless were it not held against some identifiable, relevant, and competent body (specific HT surgeon).
Equally, patient's right against his right of receiving medical care by medical personnel being stolen from him/her would be highly limited if it did not apply to all those capable of potentially performing such an act. Claim rights, then, can be of either a positive or a negative character and they can be held either in personam or in rem.

There will always be people or groups who will take advantage of the lack of legislation and enforcement and VIOLATE someone's rights.

The people who considered and consider HT are still people most having total confidence in the doctors practicing in that field of medicine.

The state of nature of man is naturally peaceful not belligerent,but not masohistic either.

Due notice must be given and indeed had been given to conceptions of justice and morality that involve both individuals and groups in this HT 'Industry'.
Predominantly in individual form of expressing grief, disbelief, by abused patients by this HT 'Industry', and so far, never as a collective endeavor of alliance of such abused patients that engage a co-ordinated activity in which not only the ethical questions of HT field ,responsibility, obedience and delegation of doctors duty are legally challenged, but questions concerning the nature of that Industry (so too should) are.
Such endeavor of alliance of such abused patients could and should begin with an assessment of the moral and ethical criteria for justifying the initiation on appropriate level (defensive or aggressive), although, note that the justice of self defense is already presumed in just theory: all that is being outlined before that HT 'industry' and falls upon deaf ears, unwilling to hear moral criteria for justice.
Few things could be done.Pressure on the Supreme Court by challenging the affidavit of merit as unconstitutional and strike down unconstitutional law.
Pressure the legislator (Senate/Congress) to change the law
Or Medical negligence attorneys to file res ipsa in every case where violation of the law occurred ....
Everything in the world is created and endowed with a certain nature that defines what each sort of being is in its essence.

A thing's nature is detectable not only in its external appearance, but also and more importantly through the natural inclinations, which guide it to behave in conformity with the particular nature it has. Sometimes, such nature, such the nature of HT 'Industry' causes harm to people.

We all COULD take active role in prescribing, sustaining and CHANGING the various natures included in that creation .

After defining law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by someone who has care of the community, and promulgated."

There is such thing called natural law which guides human beings through their fundamental inclinations toward the natural perfection .
As we have seen, however, the human subjugation to the eternal law (called the natural law) is always concomitant with a certain awareness the human subject has of the law binding him (the existing law, the codified law, the common law etc)

Since one of the essential components of law is to be promulgated, the natural law would lose its legal character if human beings did not have the principles of that law instilled in their minds

For this reason man considers the natural law to be a habit, not in itself, but because the principles (or precepts) of the natural law are naturally held in our minds by means of an intellectual habit, a natural knowledge held by all people instructing them as to the fundamental moral requirements of their human nature.

Therefore, abused, disfigured, abandoned patients by HT doctors and Ht 'Industry' should not surrender to the reality. Man has duty not to define the reality, but to improve the reality.

im with you john..... whatever happens i hope you dont give up.... SOME want you to take responsibilty for your choices.. i say you have, and you are doing much, more as well... no matter what happens to your posting privliges on this site or any i hope you keep going, there will be MANY posters who say we overreact to all this stuff... we do not..... this industry IS THIS SICK. people dont wanna believe it thats fine... people wanna stuff the REALTIES deep down thats fine to.. IMO not only have you dont NOTHING wrong, but your doing things right... we have a history in this country of letting power and greed SILENCE those with pure intentions...

its funny to me how those who try to make a POSTIVE ripple in this world are often shot down by those in 'control'..... the lesson ive learned is this..... you can SPEAK UP, u can get loud, just dont get to loud or your gone.... its sick, its WRONG, but its true.... your not in control john.. but i hope that does not stop your from KNOCKING DOWN DOORS ANY WAY YOU CAN IN THE HT INDUSRTY..... you want to take the bad that happened to you and turn it into GOOD FOR MANY.... there is NOTHING MORE NOBLE than that john.. i dont CARE if people dont agree with your methods... F**K 'em john.... do what you do......

EDIT--- and that sucks that your last post seems to have been removed... i read it though.

Lost my swagger,

As I have conveyed a number of times, I feel for John and wish he would spend his energy on considering his options for repair rather than seek revenge against the entire hair transplant industry due to a bad personal experience. I also like his passion to want to continue to better the hair transplant industry as a whole. After all, there are still some surgeons out there who continue to use outdated techniques and more interested in filling their wallet than working for the best interest of patients.

However, John has made it a mission in his anger to discredit the entire hair transplant industry, despite the fact that leading surgeons in the field are regularly producing consistent and excellent results and meet our high standards for recommendation. Though he's made some valid points, his view of the hair transplant industry is warped and clouded by his personal experience.

To date, I've received a number of private messages from patients and physicians alike complaining that this poster is polluting our community's purpose with senseless negativity. But rather than suspend him, I've sent him numerous public and private warnings about creating posts attempting to discredit the entire hair transplant industry and misquoting doctors unfairly. But instead of taking my warnings seriously, he's attempted to make a public spectacle out of them, which is why his last post was removed.

For John's sake, I truly hope that he finds peace with his situation and is able to move on with life, regardless of whether or not he selects a first-rate surgeon who can repair him. However, it's not fair to leading surgeons recommended by this community who have proven to be "the good guys" for anyone to continually misquote and vilify them.

I wish John the best of luck in his endeavor, but since he's ignored my public and private warnings, he is no longer a fit here. Some of you may consider this to be unfair because his personal story is touching. However, when a poster refuses to ignore indisputable evidence and develops a harmful agenda, we can't allow our personal feelings to cloud our decisions to do what is best for this online collaboration of educated patients and leading physicians who work hard to meet our high standards of patient care.

Let's all wish John the best and hope that he finds peace and liberation from a vengeful heart.

Bill

__________________
Managing Publisher of the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog and the Hair Loss Forum and Social Community

View our hair loss articles on EZineArticles.com

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Subscribe to our Newsletters | How We Recommend Physicians

-----

To learn about how I restored my hair, view my my hair loss website.

Remember, true beauty radiates from within, not from the skin.

I am not a medical professional and my words should not be taken as medical advice. All opinions and views shared are my own.