You are childishly naive.1Some doctors are simply not willing to take any possible liability from a patient who has taken drugs outside their realm (brand name abusables/ alcohol/tobacco), especially with the increasing prosecutions of doctors. These doctors do not give a flying fuck about you because they want to keep their livelihoods. 2 Some follow what you say because have great wisdom and insight, they are the best type.3 However, there is another kind of doctor that truly believes propaganda who will see it as their duty to report that you have abused drugs. 4 A final type of doctor will simply not ever prescribe you abusable drugs ever again once you have ignored his directions for using said drugs because he believes you would harm yourself or get addicted and may or may not flag you. All four of these doctor subtypes truly think that they are behaving ethically with the possible exemption of the first, who has an excuse.
Older doctors are better because they were educated at a time of less criminalization and hype over drugs.
I know these types from a vast array of personal experiences, anecdotal reports and documentaries. You seem to think doctors are benevolent demi-gods or something.
All right, let's address this part then. Before I said "Fuck it, I've already scanned it and don't see anything pertinent."
Now, I say fuck it, let's pick apart a blob of text that says nothing. So just as you informally enumerated the different types of doctors, I've actually labeled them 1, 2, 3, and 4. Now I'll quote each case, so I don't have to scroll back and forth, and for your reading pleasure.
The 'first type' of doctor:
"Some doctors are simply not willing to take any possible liability from a patient who has taken drugs outside their realm (brand name abusables/ alcohol/tobacco), especially with the increasing prosecutions of doctors. These doctors do not give a flying fuck about you because they want to keep their livelihoods."
Some is an ambiguous word. "Simply not willing" is filler and can be substituted with 'unwilling.' "Any possible liability" is redundant. "A patient who has taken drugs outside their realm": How would the doctor know what drugs the patient has taken? Did the patient disclose this to the doctor? I'm very familiar with the style of writing that you use. It omits important details so as to strip the claims of any context that would allow them (the claims) to be scrutinized as to their veracity.
"who has taken drugs outside their realm (brand name abusables/ alcohol/tobacco)": What does outside their realm mean, besides being opaque? Are those things in parentheses exhaustive? Are those things in parentheses examples? What does brand name mean? Does it mean illicit drugs that are commonly abused ("brand name") or does it mean legal, pharmaceutical drugs that are subject to abuse (??), because for your information they're not always brand name. Using a / mark enhances nebulousness. For example, and/or means it could be and or it could be or; but it can't be both. The mark can also signal that terms can be used interchangeably; both terms are suitable. It's certainly misused in your writing; whether it's to obfuscate your claims, to divert scrutiny, or it's an unintended error in trying to convey what you mean remains a mystery.
"especially with the increasing prosecutions of doctors": This part is irksome. It may well have an element of truth with reality, but it's devoid of restrictive detail or constraints which are needed to clarify the context. What are these doctors being prosecuted for? Not giving this bit of context is asinine. Given the passage of time, you would expect an increase in things that are byproducts of primary growth trends such as population growth or, say, an increasing number of practicing physicians. But that's also not to say it couldn't be zealous lawyers looking to make a fast buck who are responsible for "the increasing prosecutions." See, "the" is a definite article. It refers to something specific. So don't use "the" unless you're referring to something specific.
I would have said something like "especially with doctors being more cautious due to the rise in claims of xyz and with the increasing prosecutions associated therewith." This is still a tenuous construction because "the" remains almost superfluous. So what does that say about your original construction. You added a word that did not fit for the sole purpose of making insinuations and causing confusion. To elaborate, your whole objective is to throw out loaded words here and there without really committing to anything specific. Again, this is a dubious style of writing. So, let's recap. Why would the doctors take liability? Is it related to actions that are tortious? Is it related to actions that are illegal? Well then, why not specify those actions? If doctors aren't willing to take any liability (from patients who have taken drugs outside of ones that are within their realm, so to speak), then they would avoid all misconduct that would subject them to liability.
Clearly, what you're insinuating by any B]
possible[/B] liability is that they would also avoid general conduct that could potentially subject them to liability. Well if that is the case, they would have to stop practicing because it necessarily entails the risk of liability. Do you see how this works? You don't even specify what the nature of the liability is. Your whole description of the so called first type of doctor is a joke. Your portrayal of the circumstance as one involving "a patient who has taken drugs..." is not only problematic for the reasons I specified above, but it also does nothing to exculpate you from the claim that the blurb I purposely omitted is irrelevant. Gotta cut it short here. I'll try to make time for the other three types of doctors, but I can't promise it.
