Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament

[animatic]

Nick Noltisz(?) has been writing his anti-PAD blog for ages, why would anyone assume that his latest piece is impartial? He has never been impartial, sometimes even comical in his relentless attempts to paint two sides in Nick's designated colors.

There were reports of NO warnings given. Or at least those warnings didn't reach any of the journalists covering the story.

Same predictable response from a PAD ideologue.Don't like the message.Blame the messenger.

Of course if YOU don't liek the message you call them a 'PAD ideolog."

So if we find someone biased for the government blatantly, we suddenly become PAD ideologs,

even if in reality we are interested observers. It is because of attitudes like this that we are

at such a divide socially.

Nothing is grey, it is ONLY black or white n'est pas?

'Either like Thaksins crew and be for democracy

or dislike Thaksin's crew and be for PAD and anarchy.'

No grey areas allowed you can't have shaded opinions,

or support PART of the aims, or PARTS of the ideas of one side,

without being LUMPED in as an IDEOLOG 100% for the opposition.

A ridiculous premise.

Nothing in this world is black and white except the colors themselves.

[animatic]

Non-emergency work is not mandatory. No doctor MUST take every patient that shows up.Emergency work yes, if severe or life threatening.They are within their rights. You may not like that.But if they refused PAD members for the same reasons

several here would applaud LOUDLY.I can feel the flames gathering now.

Wrong. Very wrong. The issue was addressed 40 years ago during the communist insurgencies and the position adopted was that medical care should not be denied.

This isn't an issue of accepting an outpatient, but is one of overt discrimination. Almost all civilized countries use the same language in their respective code of ethics. As well, if any of the implicated physicians hold licenses outside of Thailand they have probably violated their respective order or college code of ethics. For example, The American College of Physicians' Ethics Manual states that "A physician may not discriminate against a class or category of patients. I was told that similar language is used in Thailand. (I'd check but my Thai reading skills are poor )

Guess what? The medical associations in almost every EU member nation, Aus, NZ, UK, CDA have similar language. For example, Principle VI of the The American Medical Association, which borrows from the BMA, does not recognize political disagreements as suitable grounds for the denial of care. Simply put, a physician's personal or sociopolitical prejudices are not grounds for the denial of care. The Thai medical code of ethics is supposed to express the same sentiments. That is why there were some very fast statements made by Thailand's hospitals and senior medical officials to distance themselves from the statements made by some diploma holders.

Here's the definitive position;

The depth of the surgeon's passion does not confer ethical authorization upon unethical action. Indeed, refusal to treat a patient is vicious, not virtuous...............

Deliberate deprivation of "a third and innocent party" in order to apply pressure on someone else is a bizarre ethic indeed," because it treats the patient only as a means to an end that cannot be supported by appeals to either professional or individual conscience. When we encounter variations on this sort of behavior in the daily news we call it "terrorism."

Ethics of refusal to treat patients as a social statement - James W. Jones MD, PhD, MHA , Laurence B. McCullough PhD and Bruce W. Richman MA / The Center for Health Policy and Medical Ethics, Baylor College of Medicine Department of Psychiatry, University of Missouri

Of course the people at issue he can hardly be called innocent, since as a group they bear responsability.

Again putting American western medical ethics into Thailand without KNOWING if they are relevant.

If they ARE then I will gladly be corrected.

I have been told 'no we won't take you as a patient' from American MD's, European MD's, and Thai MD's.

Not because of my politics, they had no idea about that.

But because they have the right to choose who they work on and what cases to take. Simple as that.

If they think they are so biased against some person for his stance, actions or potential future actions that

they think they MIGHT NOT DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY, then they are very right in refusing to take that patient.

Doctors are humans too, not automatons.

One of the priniciples is physician do no harm.

If by his actions he creates a greater harm, what should he do.

Which ETHICS trumps the other?

Edited October 12, 2008 by animatic

[younghusband]

YH, don't be naive. Where have you been in the past ten-twenty years? Ever heard of a word "spin"?

The "messenger" in this case creates the message. Nick himself goes out with his camera and he himself selects and edits the pictures and he himself writes a commentary.

And I don't see any extraordinary angles, either. All these pix have been posted here already, it's the same people, same injuries, same events. It's his comments that turn everything around, like they did in his previous blog entries, and some of them were truly god awful, like when he showed a pic that looked like a snapshot form a bad Thai movie, featuring a mafia boss hugging with his henchmen, complete with ridiculous sunglasses, and calls it "poor masses rising against tyranny of elites" or some such shit.

I do have to agree with Plus, regarding "spin." I have read some of Nick's other posts on the website provided by Camerta. I have noticed a very one-sided view in regards to the UDD and PAD. It is very obvious from his writings he is pro-UDD, which is fine. Some of his blogs include the Udon clashes where he describes UDD as a smaller group of peaceful Bangkokians, and PAD as being violent and confrontational (http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/07/31/pad-ready-for-violence/). I did notice that in regards to the actual attack on the PAD protestors by the UDD, he had nothing to say at all, which is strange considering he seems to be writing or commenting about other protests. (http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/07/26/thuggery-and-madness/). The attack on Prem's residence from the UDD was downplayed, and in many instances he referred to them as being a very "controlled" group, and portrays the UDD as innocent victims.

As far as Nick being trustworthy in his journalism, he is very partial in what he decides to write about. Not good journalism at all and I take what he writes with a grain of salt.

But your own posts on Thai Visa show you to be a most partisan PAD zealot as with others who have such strong opinions on Nick's blogging.I don't have any issues with that but spare us the lectures on "not good journalism".As George Orwell once commented the left wing coterie who dominated London literary life in the late 1940's tended to criticise him for his writing style rather than his anti-Stalinist message.

First, I never claimed to be a journalist, and I can decide for myself what is and what is not good journalism. Second, please show me anywhere on TV where I have claimed I am a "partisan PAD zealot." I bet you can't, but I have never made that claim. Do I support PAD's overtaking of government house? No, I don't. Do I agree the riots last week were handled in am improper way? Yes. Regarding the medical situation, while many others on the forum were jumping up and down screaming about the lack of professionalism by doctors, I merely pointed out by comparison, that it was a two way street, and the police were just as guilty for not allowing medical personal to treat or transport patients. As expected, not to many people really cared about that. I have countered this current governments claim that no police offficer had any lethal weapon by providing pictures that they are not being honest in what they say. There is a huge difference between countering misstatements and false claims and saying I support one group or the other.

I don't think many burglars wear berets and carry sacks with SWAG written on them so I doubt whether many zealots proclaim their faith openly.However your posts make the picture very clear including your argument that the Hippocratic oath doesn't apply to Thai doctors.

[camerata]

I thought it was interesting, that Nick Nostitz spotted someone known to him as "a friend of mine - a Special Branch Agent under cover with the PAD" at the scene. This rather suggests that the PAD are not being paranoid, when they claim, there are non-PAD-supporters infiltrated amongst them.

However, police infiltration is normal when they are facing an armed group intent on overthrowing an elected government. It happens in the developed democracies and it happens even with unarmed and relatively harmless groups. It would be surprising if the police did not have undercover agents in the PAD.

[camerata]

Has anyone seen Chamlong talking about ahimsa, the Buddhist (also Hindu and Jain) concept of harmlessness and nonviolence during the current protests? He cited it frequently when he brought his "Dharma Army" to the 2006 protests. His role in the current campaign hardly seems like ahimsa to me - unless he thinks anything goes as long as he himself doesn't pull the trigger.

[Thai at Heart]

To those who can read Thai better than me, I am wondering if there is an ethics statement on here. It might finally stop this ridiculous discussion about whether physicians in Thailand can practice selective treatment on the basis of political affiliation.

http://www.tmc.or.th/index.php

Being as he has apologised for the statements, and there have been statements from the Medical Council of Thailand I think he understands he committed a massive boo boo. Hopefully, all doctors in future will keep their political beliefs out of the work place.

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6711

The Medical Council issued the statement in response to moves by some doctors who vowed not to treat injured police officers to protest the use of force against protesters.

Dr. Suthep Koncharnwit, a physician at Chulalongkorn Hospital, said on Wednesday that medical teams from the hospital would not give medical assistance to police who were injured in the clashes with PAD supporters to show that the doctors opposed the use of violence.

Medical council chairman Dr. Somsak said the council would investigate the issue.

Meanwhile, Thai Red Cross Society secretary-general Dr. Phan Wannamethee and executives of Chulalongkorn Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society and Chulalongkorn's Faculty of Medicine together issued a statement affirming their stance to treat patients regardless of political belief, race, nationality and religion.

Meanwhile, Dr. Suthep from Chulalongkorn apologised for having announced a boycott of medical service to the police, and the emotional remarks he had made at a press conference said he was sorry to have made statements that may have had a negative impact against the hospital.

[animatic]

The Hippocratic Oath

ÅEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art.

I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

Source: Hippocrates, Works trans., Francis Adams (New York; Loeb) vol. I, 299-301.

There is aparts of this oath that has long fallen by the wayside,

like no fees for teaching medicine.

You will not give away a patients secrets,

but it says nothing about not taking a patient.

TWICE it says according to my ability and judgment.

This to me indicates the Dr. can use 'his judgment'

to determine if his acts will cause further harm.

If the doctor feels his EXISTING patients will be harmed

by taking another new troublesome patient he can use his judgment.

As an entity the hospital can say what it politically chooses to say

or be split between two waring factions, the hospital hasn't taken an oath..

And the donations to hospital causes that come from both sides might dry up if the pick...

As an individual Dr. it is up to HIS or HER judgment.

Clearly the Chulalongkorn managment leaned on him to recant.

For many logical reasons, I DOUBT it changed his mind any,

just his public stance on the issue.

Edited October 12, 2008 by animatic

[animatic]

I thought it was interesting, that Nick Nostitz spotted someone known to him as "a friend of mine - a Special Branch Agent under cover with the PAD" at the scene. This rather suggests that the PAD are not being paranoid, when they claim, there are non-PAD-supporters infiltrated amongst them.

However, police infiltration is normal when they are facing an armed group intent on overthrowing an elected government. It happens in the developed democracies and it happens even with unarmed and relatively harmless groups. It would be surprising if the police did not have undercover agents in the PAD.

Of course Nick being a personal friend of the undercover cop,

doesn't exactly speak well for his impartiality does it?

[Bangyai]

Has anyone seen Chamlong talking about ahimsa, the Buddhist (also Hindu and Jain) concept of harmlessness and nonviolence during the current protests? He cited it frequently when he brought his "Dharma Army" to the 2006 protests. His role in the current campaign hardly seems like ahimsa to me - unless he thinks anything goes as long as he himself doesn't pull the trigger.

Yes, considering his avowed devotion to religion his actions don't seem consistent with his beliefs. Perhaps he should retreat to somewhere quiet with a copy of the Dhamma Phadda and try to absorb the spirit of Bhuddism rather than its outer forms.

For an interesting article on what others think of Chamlong :

www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=648

Not a news article but the word is part of the address.

[catmac]

I thought it was interesting, that Nick Nostitz spotted someone known to him as "a friend of mine - a Special Branch Agent under cover with the PAD" at the scene. This rather suggests that the PAD are not being paranoid, when they claim, there are non-PAD-supporters infiltrated amongst them.

However, police infiltration is normal when they are facing an armed group intent on overthrowing an elected government. It happens in the developed democracies and it happens even with unarmed and relatively harmless groups. It would be surprising if the police did not have undercover agents in the PAD.

Of course Nick being a personal friend of the undercover cop,

doesn't exactly speak well for his impartiality does it?

Doesn't speak well for his impartiality?

On the contrary, I think it was quite commendable for Nostitz to not only state clearly that PAD had been infiltrated by the Special Branch (obvious though that should be to anyone with some savvy about these things), but that one of those agents was a friend of his. If he was trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and give us a purely one-sided pro-police view he would have "forgotten" to mention these facts, as so many journalists seem to have "forgotten" to mention the warnings given by the police before using the tear-gas.

[catmac]

I for one would definitely not cheer if doctors claimed they didn't want to treat PAD members.

Doctor's should stick to being doctors, and should keep their political affiliations out of medical decisions. Decision making like that is a very short distance away from apartheid.

Nor would I. I don't know on what grounds Animatic feels entitled to slur the anti-PAD contributors in this way, but I can think of no-one who has even remotely suggested that injured PAD protesters should be denied treatment.

[h90]

Has anyone seen Chamlong talking about ahimsa, the Buddhist (also Hindu and Jain) concept of harmlessness and nonviolence during the current protests? He cited it frequently when he brought his "Dharma Army" to the 2006 protests. His role in the current campaign hardly seems like ahimsa to me - unless he thinks anything goes as long as he himself doesn't pull the trigger.

Any evidence of violence started from PAD.

(beside that on the 7th October he in jail and could not caused anything)

[Plus]

Has anyone seen Chamlong talking about ahimsa, the Buddhist (also Hindu and Jain) concept of harmlessness and nonviolence during the current protests? He cited it frequently when he brought his "Dharma Army" to the 2006 protests. His role in the current campaign hardly seems like ahimsa to me - unless he thinks anything goes as long as he himself doesn't pull the trigger.

Chamlong is only one of PAD leaders, and PAD is a much larger movement than Santi Asoke.

Similarly, you don't expect every PAD demonstrator to be a vegetarian.

I suppose his input is to make PAD a lot less violent than it would have been otherwise.

>>>>

Nick's journalistic efforts are too one-sided to be taken seriously. Comments aside, thanks for the pictures, but, as i said, we've seen it all already.

ASTV puts its own spin, no one would deny that, and you don't see anyone trying to present it as an impartial and trustworthy source. Similarly Nick should be taken for what it really is. In my opinion he is a misguided leftist sympathiser who can't see the plot until it hits him on the head, like that young doctor from Idi Amin movie, Last King of Scotland.

[cmsally]

Has anyone seen Chamlong talking about ahimsa, the Buddhist (also Hindu and Jain) concept of harmlessness and nonviolence during the current protests? He cited it frequently when he brought his "Dharma Army" to the 2006 protests. His role in the current campaign hardly seems like ahimsa to me - unless he thinks anything goes as long as he himself doesn't pull the trigger.

Any evidence of violence started from PAD.

(beside that on the 7th October he in jail and could not caused anything)

The moment Chamlong went to jail it became rather obvious something was going to happen.

Street protests with blood being spilled and Chamlong have become rather synonomous.

But then again Chamlong's past hardly expouses the virtues he tries to preach.

My guess is that Chamlong is there more along the lines of anti establishment and is a slightly sweeter pill than his other military cohorts who are behind the scenes. The likes of Panlop and Saprang in a mahom outfit don't quite cut it.

[sjaak327]

It is nothing short of amazing, that there are still members on here, that seem to approve of the statements made by that doctor and subsequent approvals from other hospitals.

It is equally amazing, that the hatret for "the other side" is clouding their judgement.

[citizen33]

To those who can read Thai better than me, I am wondering if there is an ethics statement on here. It might finally stop this ridiculous discussion about whether physicians in Thailand can practice selective treatment on the basis of political affiliation.

I had a look around and, though I didn't find what you wanted, I came across an interesting report in the 2004 Journal of the Thai Medical Association by some of Dr K's colleagues from Chula.

Sukhit Phaosavasdi MD, Surasak Taneepanichskul MD, Yuen Tannirandorn MD, Boonchai Uerpairojkit MD, Chumsak Pruksapong MD, Aurchart Kanjanapitak MD. 'Finnish Medical Ethics'

http://www.medassocthai.org/journal/index....4&selids=37

The authors report on the 2004 annual meeting of the World Medical Association and quote approvingly from the 1988 Finnish code of practice, saying that members should note the content.

Article 3 is:

3. A physician shall treat patients as equals and not allow race, religion, political views or social status to have any effect on his actions towards them.

[Bangyai]

It is nothing short of amazing, that there are still members on here, that seem to approve of the statements made by that doctor and subsequent approvals from other hospitals.

It is equally amazing, that the hatret for "the other side" is clouding their judgement.

Yes, what was it Tony Clifton used to say ( ad nauseum ) ' monkey see, monkey do ' . See how the Pad leadership talk and do likewise.

[Gonzo the Face]

I will admit to not reading each and every post on this thread, but I have a question or two.

There were obviously thousands of people involved in these incidents. Many shots were fired [alledgedly]

Were there any reports filed on gunshot wounds?

I've read of being run over by a truck.

I've read of a person being speared with a flag pole.

I've read of legs, arms, fingers, being blown off.

But I don't recall any report of any person of either side being treated for gunshot wounds. If there were, I would be interested in knowing if any has any infor on the ballistics report like what cal. etc.

It sounds incredulous that with thousands of people in the area, any gunshot could not find a target in someone or something.

[animatic]

I thought it was interesting, that Nick Nostitz spotted someone known to him as "a friend of mine - a Special Branch Agent under cover with the PAD" at the scene. This rather suggests that the PAD are not being paranoid, when they claim, there are non-PAD-supporters infiltrated amongst them.

However, police infiltration is normal when they are facing an armed group intent on overthrowing an elected government. It happens in the developed democracies and it happens even with unarmed and relatively harmless groups. It would be surprising if the police did not have undercover agents in the PAD.

Of course Nick being a personal friend of the undercover cop,

doesn't exactly speak well for his impartiality does it?

Doesn't speak well for his impartiality?

On the contrary, I think it was quite commendable for Nostitz to not only state clearly that PAD had been infiltrated by the Special Branch (obvious though that should be to anyone with some savvy about these things), but that one of those agents was a friend of his. If he was trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and give us a purely one-sided pro-police view he would have "forgotten" to mention these facts, as so many journalists seem to have "forgotten" to mention the warnings given by the police before using the tear-gas.

Just because he notes that he is not pulling the wool over our eyes,

doesn't in any way mean he isn't biased.

[animatic]

To those who can read Thai better than me, I am wondering if there is an ethics statement on here. It might finally stop this ridiculous discussion about whether physicians in Thailand can practice selective treatment on the basis of political affiliation.

I had a look around and, though I didn't find what you wanted, I came across an interesting report in the 2004 Journal of the Thai Medical Association by some of Dr K's colleagues from Chula.

Sukhit Phaosavasdi MD, Surasak Taneepanichskul MD, Yuen Tannirandorn MD, Boonchai Uerpairojkit MD, Chumsak Pruksapong MD, Aurchart Kanjanapitak MD. 'Finnish Medical Ethics'

http://www.medassocthai.org/journal/index....4&selids=37

The authors report on the 2004 annual meeting of the World Medical Association and quote approvingly from the 1988 Finnish code of practice, saying that members should note the content.

Article 3 is:

3. A physician shall treat patients as equals and not allow race, religion, political views or social status to have any effect on his actions towards them.

Yes to political views. No problem.

But in this case what the doctors are protesting is actual physical violence beyond the necessary.

Not the VIEWS of either side. They protested the extreme violence of the police

not the fact PPP was controling them or PPP's political platofrm, there IS a difference.

[Thai at Heart]

To those who can read Thai better than me, I am wondering if there is an ethics statement on here. It might finally stop this ridiculous discussion about whether physicians in Thailand can practice selective treatment on the basis of political affiliation.

I had a look around and, though I didn't find what you wanted, I came across an interesting report in the 2004 Journal of the Thai Medical Association by some of Dr K's colleagues from Chula.

Sukhit Phaosavasdi MD, Surasak Taneepanichskul MD, Yuen Tannirandorn MD, Boonchai Uerpairojkit MD, Chumsak Pruksapong MD, Aurchart Kanjanapitak MD. 'Finnish Medical Ethics'

http://www.medassocthai.org/journal/index....4&selids=37

The authors report on the 2004 annual meeting of the World Medical Association and quote approvingly from the 1988 Finnish code of practice, saying that members should note the content.

Article 3 is:

3. A physician shall treat patients as equals and not allow race, religion, political views or social status to have any effect on his actions towards them.

Yes to political views. No problem.

But in this case what the doctors are protesting is actual physical violence beyond the necessary.

Not the VIEWS of either side. They protested the extreme violence of the police

not the fact PPP was controling them or PPP's political platofrm, there IS a difference.

And would the given doctor want to know whether the given policeman was in the front line, reserve, had been acting under orders in the event or tripped and cracked his head open on the sidewalk?

This defence of this situation is getting ridiculous.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Thai at Heart

[animatic]

I for one would definitely not cheer if doctors claimed they didn't want to treat PAD members.

Doctor's should stick to being doctors, and should keep their political affiliations out of medical decisions. Decision making like that is a very short distance away from apartheid.

Nor would I. I don't know on what grounds Animatic feels entitled to slur the anti-PAD contributors in this way, but I can think of no-one who has even remotely suggested that injured PAD protesters should be denied treatment.

So you think injured PAD should be treated, good for you.

And you think a cop bashing a protestors head in and then getting injured too,

deserves the same medical treatment, even if his 'protect and serve' the people is way out the window.

Which one do your think should get treated first in the MD's attentions?

You see there you go, you lump ALL anti-PAD in one bunch and all Pro-PAD in another.

No degrees of severity of action or motivations.

Black and white, no grey area's at all.

No people hating PPP, but wanting democratic functioning.

No people liking PPP, but thinking they are gone overboard or impotent.

No people not liking many of PAD's actions, but liking many of the end goals.

It isn't black and white us against them...

But you have verbaly treated ME like and enemy of your state for using words...

So you take that as a specific slur on ALL anti-PAD posters.

Where did I say ALL? I said several. But you make no distinctions, no fineses..

Most who feel that way will stay quiet now,

a few will feel attacked and speak out or lash out.

A few will give reasoned arguments.

I have found this anti-Protesting MD stance counter to many of

the anti-PAD sides stated pronouncements.

Where are the ones screaming 'smash the muppets' now that they HAVE done that

and many people are APPALLED at it.

Still want the muppets bashed now that you have seen it happen?

I have made a few of you stand up and be counted by arguments.

Maybe they were theoretical arguments... can you tell?

You have blythly assumed I am 100% behind them and so attacked me.

I have been called immoral for even making the arguments.

PAD has been called the same for making public discussions of things.

Of course some of my posts have incensed a few,

whether or not that is because they struck too close to home remains to be seen.

I have seen amazing levels of hypocracy to justfy a political point of view.

There have been times playing the devils advocate seemed quite logical,

just to see how deeply held several nasty and spurious views were being

held by some.

[jdinasia]

Why would it matter? You want to treat Dr's as automatons that just treat people. they are people and many have a highly developed sense of morality.

Your sense of right and wrong does not have to be accounted for in their personal set of morals. Moral triage' perhaps? As in I'd will treat any person that doesn't shoot people and will not treat people that do? But the point is pretty much moot, not only is there the police hospital 2 blocks away, there are also no reports of a single case being rejected at Chula.

I still have found no case law for the 'Hippocratic Oath' being required to be a Dr in Thailand.

I also do not doubt that at the police hospital down the street that police would be given priority over non-police patients.

[sjaak327]

you think injured PAD should be treated, good for you.

And you think a cop bashing a protestors head in and then getting injured too,

deserves the same medical treatment, even if his 'protect and serve' the people is way out the window.

Which one do your think should get treated first in the MD's attentions?

The one that needs the attention the most based upon medical criteria, not based on anything else. Excactly these considerations have been taught at medical school.

All else is of no concern.

As we have seen, the same could be said of some of the PAD protestors, that have also used excessive violence, againt law officers, and I for one would find it equally unjustified, if a doctor would deny treatment of one of those people. (or announce his intentsions to do so, not to mention persuade others to do the same).

Edited October 12, 2008 by sjaak327

[yadetout]

I'm sorry then. It's just much easier for me to write in french ^^

So I'll try in English

I well noticed Thaksin lost his PM seat during the Putsh while he was away in UK. I also understood his TRT party was dissolve and then recreate into the PPP. then PPP won the election even if they had big prosecution for election rigging.

Regading the current situation, I would like to know why the PAD is acting like this for the past few months. Many countries, including France, already runned or run the politics by a coalition governement. So I would like to really know what the PAD is expecting (basically).

I am really not an expert in poliitics so please, could someone explain me, simply and have a bias point of view, what is really going on in Thailand and what is coming up.

Thank you very much ()

[Splatter]

There's a good account of what happened on October 7th by a Western news photograher here. Plenty of photos too.

This is indeed a good report. I think I saw him a few times when I was there.

I was standing at the U Thong Nai intersection with Ratchawiti around 5.00pm,

and moved back to the new entrance of the Dusit Zoo as soon as tear gas cannisters came closer.

After I stood next to the EMS crews.

I'd say most / nearly all of what he said about the elements he and I saw correlate.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11401580@N03/...57607842648157/

(Remember, he is a photographer, I'm simply interested in not relying on

internet forums and armchair anecdotes.)

However, I saw NO EVIDENCE of the riot police advancing down Ratchawiti

having an effective crowd control and containment

strategy - nor the tactics / resources to enforce it.

It could have all been over by 5.30pm when the police advanced down Ratchawiti Road at

the side of the Parliament Building and around the front of Parliament House.

As well as Nick's account I also think the editorial in the Bangkok Post on Tuesday

still remains valid.

[jdinasia]

plenty for you to read here to get caught up as for what is next ... watch here next week

[Splatter]

plenty for you to read here to get caught up as for what is next ... watch here next week

...or rather watch here when the Royal Funeral Ceremonies are completed.

[catmac]

I for one would definitely not cheer if doctors claimed they didn't want to treat PAD members.

Doctor's should stick to being doctors, and should keep their political affiliations out of medical decisions. Decision making like that is a very short distance away from apartheid.

Nor would I. I don't know on what grounds Animatic feels entitled to slur the anti-PAD contributors in this way, but I can think of no-one who has even remotely suggested that injured PAD protesters should be denied treatment.

So you think injured PAD should be treated, good for you.

And you think a cop bashing a protestors head in and then getting injured too,

deserves the same medical treatment, even if his 'protect and serve' the people is way out the window.

Which one do your think should get treated first in the MD's attentions?

Answer is simple and obvious to anyone who isn't grinding his political axe, the Doctor will use his professional judgment to treat the most seriously injured patient first. Note please, I said professional judgment to treat all patients as equals. You, Sir, are the one dragging all sorts of totally irrelevent twaddle into the casualty ward, not me.

[jdinasia]

I for one would definitely not cheer if doctors claimed they didn't want to treat PAD members.

Doctor's should stick to being doctors, and should keep their political affiliations out of medical decisions. Decision making like that is a very short distance away from apartheid.

Nor would I. I don't know on what grounds Animatic feels entitled to slur the anti-PAD contributors in this way, but I can think of no-one who has even remotely suggested that injured PAD protesters should be denied treatment.

So you think injured PAD should be treated, good for you.

And you think a cop bashing a protestors head in and then getting injured too,

deserves the same medical treatment, even if his 'protect and serve' the people is way out the window.

Which one do your think should get treated first in the MD's attentions?

Answer is simple and obvious to anyone who isn't grinding his political axe, the Doctor will use his professional judgment to treat the most seriously injured patient first. Note please, I said professional judgment to treat all patients as equals. You, Sir, are the one dragging all sorts of totally irrelevent twaddle into the casualty ward, not me.

1) not an accurate assessment of emergency triage and 2) if it is not a real emergency then dr's are not required to treat.