So if only 25 doctors, or 15 or 5 are prosecuted, Leah, you win? Or if they are charged but the charges are eventually dropped, after putting them through Hell and destroying their careers, you win? Or if they are neither convicted or charged, but fired,sending a message to other doctors, you win? There is something so blithe and heartless about this bet. Women have ALREADY died or been terribly injured because they've been denied medical care. How many before you take in what is happening in this country? When abortion was illegal in Ireland, SOME women, I'm told, got life-saving care regardless, but Savita Halappanavar was allowed to die of sepsis because her fetus still had a heartbeat. And the "Pro-lifers" never admitted that the law had anything to do with it.
I think we disagree about the purpose of betting here, since you see it as heartless. We put a low dollar amount on the bet because the point isn't to make money, but to clarify where our anticipations about the shape of the future differ, and to have a reason to check in about what actually happened + what we should learn from being right or wrong.
I make bets to clarify disagreements on non-abortion related topics. I'm almost certainly losing one on AI-related unemployment to Lyman Stone at the end of the year. Taking different sides of the bet on that topic doesn't mean either of us are rooting for the side we took or will celebrate being right, but that we disagree about what's happening next and want to get better at thinking about our diagreement.
Do you think it's helpful to clearly express how your expectations of the future differ as long as there's no money at stake?
Part of what bets do that I value is force you to come up with a prediction precise enough that you could both appeal to a neutral arbiter to resolve it. (Versus "I expect things to get worse" which is fuzzy enough that it's hard to resolve).
Yes, it's the money at stake that rubs me the wrong way. It seems like two smart people, each acting in good faith, could take care to be precise without needing to make a game of it.
I usually stake a nominal amount on these kinds of bets, because it gives a clear way the bet gets "closed" and requires you to get back in touch if you've fallen out of it, versus a gentleman's bet where there's no pressure to meet and settle back up.
I appreciate your logic, and I know you put thought into what you do. To me, the whole idea of a bet/game just seems more lighthearted than the subject permits.
Well, Katha, you have made Leah's day, recognition from a world renowned feminist on abortion! However, Leah has gone on to simply not hear what you and a few others have said. Leah, you are a professional facilitator who works with people who disagree on a range of issue, yet in response to Katha and others on the matter of what they see as a crass, unsensitive use of a bet, you moved immediately and repeatedly to defend the betting. Defending never helps fix even a benigh misunderstandingI think there was things you could have learned if you used your professional skills. Take a deep beath and just listen with a goal of figuring out where you might have gone wrong; where in such a charged issue, with deep polarization betting was not helpful to anyone. Perhaps an apology is in order.
It’s a different question, and I agree I wouldn’t want to bet on it. But I think it’s also the true metric of the laws—do they protect patients, both women and children, rather than do they protect doctors?
I think you might be asking the wrong question. A better one would be, will women die or suffer serious injury because doctors are afraid to provide genuine emergency care? Healthcare should be about the patients, not the doctors. Obviously charges filed against doctors who DO provide emergency care would be cause for the kind of fear that would prevent others from doing the same, but a question that focuses on doctors rather than patients is looking at the question backwards.
I believe abortion bans are a moral good. I also believe there are plenty of doctors who care more about legalities and perceived legalities than patients, who may make bad choices out of fear, even if charges filed against other doctors are for egregious misconduct (not covered by your bet) than for an emergency judgment call. The key is clarity, education, and transparency about what the laws actually say, for the sake of all involved.
I think that's a different question than the one that Martha and I differ on—It was really helpful to clarify that one reason Martha disagrees with me about these laws is because she believes pro-life legislatures are falsely reassuring doctors while planning to wait and then prosecute them in the near future.
I'd have a lot more trouble setting up a bet on the chilling effect around emergency care, because it would require access to information that would be very hard to get, while charges and arrests wind up public. Bets can also be a useful tool to point to what we're going have trouble learning, even when we make a good faith effort to investigate.
Politics is pop culture, pop culture valorizes public dissent, this is the way to achieve honor and respect among your progressive peers, and there are more than 3000 progressive doctors in the United States.
If there were any meaningful culture in the United States, aside from pop culture and politics, there would be some other way to achieve cultural credibility. The main limiting factor, if Leah wins the bet, will not have been laws, but finding some alternative and safer means to win the notoriety and respect of your peers.
But working against that will be up-and-comer political actors in the attorney general's office of various states looking to at least charge doctors to win public credibility. As the public shifts right, this will be a predictable attempt. So which is the greatest force here? Personal notoriety? Personal safety? Public notoriety?
You did not say convicted. You only said charged. I might have swung your way if you had said convicted.
So if only 25 doctors, or 15 or 5 are prosecuted, Leah, you win? Or if they are charged but the charges are eventually dropped, after putting them through Hell and destroying their careers, you win? Or if they are neither convicted or charged, but fired,sending a message to other doctors, you win? There is something so blithe and heartless about this bet. Women have ALREADY died or been terribly injured because they've been denied medical care. How many before you take in what is happening in this country? When abortion was illegal in Ireland, SOME women, I'm told, got life-saving care regardless, but Savita Halappanavar was allowed to die of sepsis because her fetus still had a heartbeat. And the "Pro-lifers" never admitted that the law had anything to do with it.
I think we disagree about the purpose of betting here, since you see it as heartless. We put a low dollar amount on the bet because the point isn't to make money, but to clarify where our anticipations about the shape of the future differ, and to have a reason to check in about what actually happened + what we should learn from being right or wrong.
I make bets to clarify disagreements on non-abortion related topics. I'm almost certainly losing one on AI-related unemployment to Lyman Stone at the end of the year. Taking different sides of the bet on that topic doesn't mean either of us are rooting for the side we took or will celebrate being right, but that we disagree about what's happening next and want to get better at thinking about our diagreement.
I also find this a very insensitive way to express different expectations. This isn’t a game. I am sorry to see it.
Do you think it's helpful to clearly express how your expectations of the future differ as long as there's no money at stake?
Part of what bets do that I value is force you to come up with a prediction precise enough that you could both appeal to a neutral arbiter to resolve it. (Versus "I expect things to get worse" which is fuzzy enough that it's hard to resolve).
Yes, it's the money at stake that rubs me the wrong way. It seems like two smart people, each acting in good faith, could take care to be precise without needing to make a game of it.
I usually stake a nominal amount on these kinds of bets, because it gives a clear way the bet gets "closed" and requires you to get back in touch if you've fallen out of it, versus a gentleman's bet where there's no pressure to meet and settle back up.
I appreciate your logic, and I know you put thought into what you do. To me, the whole idea of a bet/game just seems more lighthearted than the subject permits.
Well, Katha, you have made Leah's day, recognition from a world renowned feminist on abortion! However, Leah has gone on to simply not hear what you and a few others have said. Leah, you are a professional facilitator who works with people who disagree on a range of issue, yet in response to Katha and others on the matter of what they see as a crass, unsensitive use of a bet, you moved immediately and repeatedly to defend the betting. Defending never helps fix even a benigh misunderstandingI think there was things you could have learned if you used your professional skills. Take a deep beath and just listen with a goal of figuring out where you might have gone wrong; where in such a charged issue, with deep polarization betting was not helpful to anyone. Perhaps an apology is in order.
How sweet it is to be an MD jumping for criminal code books before protocols and guidelines
It’s a different question, and I agree I wouldn’t want to bet on it. But I think it’s also the true metric of the laws—do they protect patients, both women and children, rather than do they protect doctors?
I think you might be asking the wrong question. A better one would be, will women die or suffer serious injury because doctors are afraid to provide genuine emergency care? Healthcare should be about the patients, not the doctors. Obviously charges filed against doctors who DO provide emergency care would be cause for the kind of fear that would prevent others from doing the same, but a question that focuses on doctors rather than patients is looking at the question backwards.
I believe abortion bans are a moral good. I also believe there are plenty of doctors who care more about legalities and perceived legalities than patients, who may make bad choices out of fear, even if charges filed against other doctors are for egregious misconduct (not covered by your bet) than for an emergency judgment call. The key is clarity, education, and transparency about what the laws actually say, for the sake of all involved.
I think that's a different question than the one that Martha and I differ on—It was really helpful to clarify that one reason Martha disagrees with me about these laws is because she believes pro-life legislatures are falsely reassuring doctors while planning to wait and then prosecute them in the near future.
I'd have a lot more trouble setting up a bet on the chilling effect around emergency care, because it would require access to information that would be very hard to get, while charges and arrests wind up public. Bets can also be a useful tool to point to what we're going have trouble learning, even when we make a good faith effort to investigate.
My recent New Atlantis article covers some hospitals that have excelled at giving their doctors clarity and some that have failed: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/who-decides-on-emergency-abortions-after-roe
Politics is pop culture, pop culture valorizes public dissent, this is the way to achieve honor and respect among your progressive peers, and there are more than 3000 progressive doctors in the United States.
If there were any meaningful culture in the United States, aside from pop culture and politics, there would be some other way to achieve cultural credibility. The main limiting factor, if Leah wins the bet, will not have been laws, but finding some alternative and safer means to win the notoriety and respect of your peers.
But working against that will be up-and-comer political actors in the attorney general's office of various states looking to at least charge doctors to win public credibility. As the public shifts right, this will be a predictable attempt. So which is the greatest force here? Personal notoriety? Personal safety? Public notoriety?
You did not say convicted. You only said charged. I might have swung your way if you had said convicted.
Long time pro-lifer here.