liberty medical school <facepalm>

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by karate134

Also, answer this: many people say that osteopathic medicine isn't based on evidence. Be honest, doesn't that sound like it does more harm than if a physician believes in evolution? Shouldn't we close down all these D.O. schools that can't produce evidence for OMM? (Btw, I am all for DOs and OMM!!!!)

Osteopathic philosophy is NOT based on OMM. It has historical roots dating back to 100+ years ago when other practitioners were prescribing cyanide for common cold and some guy came along and said maybe we shouldn't do that. Also nobody in their right mind argues with tenants of Osteopathy (structure and function/self-healing/body being a unit/rational treatment). But as a premed you obviously don't know that because most of your information regarding osteopathy came from SDN.

Furthermore, there has been multiple studies on OMM proving its effectiveness in treating musculoskeletal dysfunction as well as few other pediatric conditions in addition to its effectiveness in providing symptomatic relief in some conditions. As you can imagine, it is very difficult/impossible to do double blind studies on manipulation. Having said that, I would have the same opinion regarding anyone who claims that OMM does anything else without solid evidence. Also, there is almost ZERO side effects to OMM, if done correctly, so I don't know where the danger that you are referring to comes from.

This thread is NOT about osteopathy so don't change the subject unless you are trolling.

Originally Posted by karate134

Great, if you want to say that atheism is not a religion, then I agree. However, please notice that I never said it was. I said it was a belief system. Sure, the word belief is perhaps the exact same thing as religion to you, but if you are wanting to play semantics, then at least take the time and argue something I actually said. Your "evidence" in that video refers to atheism not being a religion.

I love how these conversations also start with "religion (or whatever)... where's your evidence in your arguments" only to be followed by a comic routine. One can't say back your arguments with logic and then fall back to Bill Maher. But I'm sure you'll say he makes all the perfect points and he's schooling us all.

You can't counter any of Bill Maher's main/underlying points (ignoring the satire) so you are just attacking Bill. Also, Bill's video is NOT my evidence. My evidence is the dictionary. That video was a tool to help you better understand my point through satire.

Originally Posted by karate134

I, according to your post, said that creationism and evolution are equals or should be accepted as equals. The point I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is that because evolution is scientific, then all should consider it as fact, end of story. Thus a school that denounces, for religious beliefs, it should not be allowed to be opened. So, what if the school wasn't faith based and still denounced evolution? Should they be allowed to be opened? Only if they have evidence I'm sure? How much evidence? What kind? Only the kind that would influence you? As long as it's not faith based?

If you'd read the entire discussion you would realize that no one is saying evolution is 100% fact. This is science and we go by theories. Evolution is the BEST scientific theory we currently have and it works pretty da** well for our purposes. Unlike religion, it can be proven wrong based on scientific knowledge/evidence. It has stood the test of time for the past 100+ years but tomorrow someone can come along with a better theory. There are no absolutes. That's the difference between evolution and religious stories/creationism. One can be proven wrong the other can't. Hence, one is science and the other is not and therefore, they should not be equated to one another.

Any school (faith based or otherwise) that doesn't teach evolution (or whatever the scientific belief of the day is) should not be allowed to have a medical school.

Originally Posted by karate134

So, I'm willing to have a discussion or whatever, but take the time and address my post properly (it was really about tolerance). If you want to change it, then provide some text other than Bill Maher's quotes (well quotations if I need to be correct). Also, let's be without bias here, how is this different than the above paragraph?

Just because you used the word "tolerance" doesn't mean everyone should clap for you regardless of what you say. There is no tolerance in science. You may be right until proven wrong; and once proven wrong then that's it; your ideas would be considered ridiculous and people move on with NO tolerance for the wrong ideas.

Originally Posted by gdfernan

There is a significant correlation with a liberal political philosophy and an atheist religion

See the video above to help you with better understand the word.

Originally Posted by bala565

But as a premed you obviously don't know that because most of your information regarding osteopathy came from SDN.

See this is awesome. I'd be glad for you to say "you're wrong, and here's why", but instead this was a personal attack with assumptions built in. Yes, you are right, osteopathic philosophy isn't based on OMM. However, as you are quite familiar with, I'm sure, that many would argue that OMM is just voodoo magic. If we pretend for a moment that the critics are right, then why would schools that teach that be allowed to continue?

By the way, just because you are a med student (according to the mini profile) does not mean that you are somehow this science deity and that I'm some premed 21 year old that is clueless. Now notice that I didn't say you weren't a science deity, as I am not going to make some assumption as you have.

In fact, I'm working in the research lab on a significant project as a graduate student. If you would like to make assumptions, by all means, but they will largely be untrue.

I am willing to have a civilized conversation with us attempting to use logic and respect to better understand our world and how we should approach it. If there's an ax to grind or an ego to boost, then this conversation will largely fail. Again, note I said "if". In no way am I saying that it is the case.

Furthermore, there has been multiple studies on OMM proving its effectiveness...

Agreed, there are studies showing that OMM is effective, however, there is some debate on the validity of those studies. As you mentioned, it's hard to run trials on it. Overall, agreed.

This thread is NOT about osteopathy so don't change the subject unless you are trolling.

You're right, it's not about osteopathy... why was there a post about how atheism isn't a religion/belief system, etc (a change of subject)? The point was that some consider OMM, for lack of better words, a "religion". The attempt was a parallel to that.
My intent behind my original post, as mentioned in the second post, was that we should consider having more tolerance, as in the case of this potential school. That being said, my attempt at steering the conversation back towards the OP was anti-trolling.

You can't counter any of Bill Maher's main/underlying points (ignoring the satire) so you are just attacking Bill.

I can't counter it? Why not? Am I not allowed to? Is it because he makes such a great point that there is no human capable of making a better point? Even if it's not possible, am I not allowed to try? Or is it considered an attack merely because I disagreed with a completely different topic?

That video was a tool to help you better understand my point through satire.

I do appreciate the tool to help see your point. And I would agree that atheism is not a religion, and furthermore I will conform to your point that it is not a belief system for the sake of respect of those wishing it to be considered as such.

And for the dictionary:

Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Give me scientific proof that god doesn't exist. Just because you can prove a book is wrong, doesn't discount (or prove) that a god exists.

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So using your reference/evidence, aka dictionary, atheism is a belief.
I guess I just did counter his point. However, again, I will for the sake of those that have asked, will consider atheism for this thread to be belief-less (not in dictionary).

Any school (faith based or otherwise) that doesn't teach evolution (or whatever the scientific belief of the day is) should not be allowed to have a medical school.

So pretend for a second that I have no religious beliefs (not that i have stated anywhere that I do or don't, but I'm sure some readers have assumed such) and I am a pure scientist (whatever that means). And also pretend that I disagree with evolution, in a scientific manner of course. Then pretend that I start a medical school and teach just that. Should that school be barred as well? What if I had reasonable evidence that evolution just might be wrong?

Naturally, this is different than faith based reasoning in your opinion I'm sure, but it does bring up an interesting discussion.

Consider this my attempt to bring the thread back on topic.

Just because you used the word "tolerance" doesn't mean everyone should clap for you regardless of what you say. There is no tolerance in science. You may be right until proven wrong; and once proven wrong then that's it; your ideas would be considered ridiculous and people move on with NO tolerance for the wrong ideas.

Really? Clap? I was hoping for a pat on the back. Seriously, I never said that you have to like or promote other people's ideas or thank them. While there isn't tolerance in science, there's tolerance in life. Sounds cute I know, but it's true.

And I very much disagree that once something is proven wrong then that's it. That makes an assumption that the evidence that proved something wrong is infallible. Is it likely? Probably not, but still. In science is anything ever truly proven 100%? Nah, but that's actually the best part about it. I guess it's constantly evolving...

Just out of curiosity, do you agree with any of the above?

Originally Posted by dntke1518

Anyways, very good post karate

Sorry, I missed this at first. Thanks for that.
But all in all, people on both sides of the argument are making some good points in the thread, whether we agree with them or not. Unfortunately, there's other stuff in this thread as well.

I shadowed a doctor (well, a pediatrician, but close enough ) and he is an ardent creationist. However, unlike many of the creationist crazies, he is willing to hear the "other side" of the issue. I didn't feel comfortable telling him that there is only one side of the issue, and that's evolution. He does believe in microevolution, of course.

I would speculate that creationist doctors pretty much ignore the mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (Also, don't forget that not a SINGLE piece of evidence has ever been found that disproves evolution. That is pretty impressive.) A lot of this evidence they witness firsthand each and every day as they examine the cluster*uck that is the human body. Down syndrome and other randomly occurring genetic deformities? Prolapsed uteruses? Male-pattern baldness? Huge infant heads that have killed millions of women in childbirth? "Intelligent" design, yup.

Oh, not to mention:
-Our eyes see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. Also, our brains did not evolve in a world of mirrors and therefore are easily tricked by mirror images.
-In a sphere with r = 1,250 light years and earth at the center, there are perhaps 30 x 10^6 planets. We can survive on perhaps three of those.
-On our own planet, 70% of the surface area is water and thus effectively uninhabitable. A competent designer would have made us be marine mammals.
-Much of the earth is also desert (Sahara, Sonoma, Antarctica, etc.), mountains, or otherwise not suitable to human life.
-97.5% of the Earth's water is saltwater and therefore not drinkable. Of the remaining 2.5%, the vast majority is in glaciers and aquifers. Only 0.007% of the earth's water can easily consumed by humans.

Again, great design.

I'm christian AND believe in evolution. Mind blown? Pure creationists...I'm talking creation in literally 7 days, earth is close to 6k years old, etc...make my head spin.

Those that outright reject all facets of evolution=idiots. Contending that all life descended from a virus in the middle of a swamp...I can see that.

I did my undergrad at a private religious based university and the church only has 2 classes that it requires be taught no matter what; a religious topic and evolution.

Oh, to stay on topic. I think Liberty's 'philosophy' is a little ridiculous. Absolutism has very little place in science let alone medicine. I fear them pumping out a bunch of uppity Westboro Bapist-like doctors that alienate any patient that doesn't share their morals (yes, extreme and farfetched, but still a fear). Honestly though, most schools seem to blow a bunch of smoke up their butts on their webpages about how different they are and then seem to be not much different from the next.

Love the posts, these topics really make you think.

Originally Posted by dreamweaver1988

I shadowed a doctor (well, a pediatrician, but close enough ) and he is an ardent creationist. However, unlike many of the creationist crazies, he is willing to hear the "other side" of the issue. I didn't feel comfortable telling him that there is only one side of the issue, and that's evolution. He does believe in microevolution, of course.

I would speculate that creationist doctors pretty much ignore the mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (Also, don't forget that not a SINGLE piece of evidence has ever been found that disproves evolution. That is pretty impressive.) A lot of this evidence they witness firsthand each and every day as they examine the cluster*uck that is the human body. Down syndrome and other randomly occurring genetic deformities? Prolapsed uteruses? Male-pattern baldness? Huge infant heads that have killed millions of women in childbirth? "Intelligent" design, yup.

Oh, not to mention:
-Our eyes see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. Also, our brains did not evolve in a world of mirrors and therefore are easily tricked by mirror images.
-In a sphere with r = 1,250 light years and earth at the center, there are perhaps 30 x 10^6 planets. We can survive on perhaps three of those.
-On our own planet, 70% of the surface area is water and thus effectively uninhabitable. A competent designer would have made us be marine mammals.
-Much of the earth is also desert (Sahara, Sonoma, Antarctica, etc.), mountains, or otherwise not suitable to human life.
-97.5% of the Earth's water is saltwater and therefore not drinkable. Of the remaining 2.5%, the vast majority is in glaciers and aquifers. Only 0.007% of the earth's water can easily consumed by humans.

Again, great design.

This is baffling. Thread about med school turns into creationism. A true "evolution" of this thread.

Originally Posted by karate134

See this is awesome. I'd be glad for you to say "you're wrong, and here's why", but instead this was a personal attack with assumptions built in. Yes, you are right, osteopathic philosophy isn't based on OMM. However, as you are quite familiar with, I'm sure, that many would argue that OMM is just voodoo magic. If we pretend for a moment that the critics are right, then why would schools that teach that be allowed to continue?

By the way, just because you are a med student (according to the mini profile) does not mean that you are somehow this science deity and that I'm some premed 21 year old that is clueless. Now notice that I didn't say you weren't a science deity, as I am not going to make some assumption as you have.

In fact, I'm working in the research lab on a significant project as a graduate student. If you would like to make assumptions, by all means, but they will largely be untrue.

There are some people who also believe evolution is voodoo as evident from this discussion. I responded to your post regarding OMM and what "some" people believe is irrelevant. You also asked about studies and I responded to that as well. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) believes OMM is a valid modality for treatment and reimburses physicians as such. So until someone can prove to the government that they are wrong about OMM, I can care less what "some" people think or don't think.

I told you why you were wrong and you agreed with my reason (i.e. Osteopathic philosophy is not based on OMM, therefore even if OMM is debunked, DO schools can exist which was the central point of your argument). I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that as a pre-med you don't know much about Osteopathy (as I didn't when I was in your shoes) and your agreement with my statement proved that you were misinformed. I also can guarantee you that I am not a science (or any other kind of) deity.

Also, I am sure (or hope that) you are very competent in what you do... Calling someone a premed doesn't mean they are dumb/stupid....

Originally Posted by karate134

Agreed, there are studies showing that OMM is effective, however, there is some debate on the validity of those studies. As you mentioned, it's hard to run trials on it. Overall, agreed.

You're right, it's not about osteopathy... why was there a post about how atheism isn't a religion/belief system, etc (a change of subject)? The point was that some consider OMM, for lack of better words, a "religion". The attempt was a parallel to that.
My intent behind my original post, as mentioned in the second post, was that we should consider having more tolerance, as in the case of this potential school. That being said, my attempt at steering the conversation back towards the OP was anti-trolling.

There is always debate about everything... Again this is not religion; you can debate it and debate is ALWAYS a good/positive approach to everything.

Anyone who considers OMM as a religion is as big of an idiot as someone who believes in creationism over evolution.

Originally Posted by karate134

I can't counter it? Why not? Am I not allowed to? Is it because he makes such a great point that there is no human capable of making a better point? Even if it's not possible, am I not allowed to try? Or is it considered an attack merely because I disagreed with a completely different topic?

I do appreciate the tool to help see your point. And I would agree that atheism is not a religion, and furthermore I will conform to your point that it is not a belief system for the sake of respect of those wishing it to be considered as such.

It's an attack because instead of providing counter-points/arguments you dismissed his whole monologue on Bill Maher being Bill Maher. Therefore, I assumed that since you didn't provide any counter arguments you are unable to do so... If you have counter arguments on his central arguments (not the satire part), I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).

Originally Posted by karate134

And for the dictionary:

Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Give me scientific proof that god doesn't exist. Just because you can prove a book is wrong, doesn't discount (or prove) that a god exists.

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So using your reference/evidence, aka dictionary, atheism is a belief.
I guess I just did counter his point. However, again, I will for the sake of those that have asked, will consider atheism for this thread to be belief-less (not in dictionary).

I never explicitly said whether I'm an atheist or not (I may or may not be); Either way, what I believe in is irrelevant to the discussion. I also don't have any proof that god doesn't exist (and never did I say that in my posts)... However, based on my understanding of the physical world, the likelihood that god(s) exist is minute to very close to zero. Nevertheless, if you can scientifically prove its existence, I am open to that (btw, even Bill Maher, an atheist, mentioned that in the posted video). Furthermore, the burden of proof is on people who say there is/are god(s).

All we are saying is what the word "atheist" means; no one is saying they are right or wrong. Also a "belief" is different than a "belief system" which is what you posted in your original post; Let me give you an example to help you out: I believe that I'm going to match to my 1st choice in 2 weeks (very unlikely but nonetheless a belief); That is NOT a belief system as there is no system; It is just a single belief (same as atheism).

Originally Posted by karate134

So pretend for a second that I have no religious beliefs (not that i have stated anywhere that I do or don't, but I'm sure some readers have assumed such) and I am a pure scientist (whatever that means). And also pretend that I disagree with evolution, in a scientific manner of course. Then pretend that I start a medical school and teach just that. Should that school be barred as well? What if I had reasonable evidence that evolution just might be wrong?

Naturally, this is different than faith based reasoning in your opinion I'm sure, but it does bring up an interesting discussion.

Consider this my attempt to bring the thread back on topic.

There are lot of legit scientists with legit theories in various aspects of medicine (they are called researchers). They have theories based on their research which has not been widely accepted by the scientific community (at least not yet). They should also NOT teach their research findings as part of the medical school's standard curriculum until it has been accepted by the scientific community. If they want to have an optional noon lecture describing their ideas/research I would have no problem. Same goes for religious people/creationism which many schools do/have. But that's different than teaching something that is not widely accepted by the scientific community as part of the medical school's basic curriculum as it is feared in schools such as Liberty.

Originally Posted by karate134

Really? Clap? I was hoping for a pat on the back. Seriously, I never said that you have to like or promote other people's ideas or thank them. While there isn't tolerance in science, there's tolerance in life. Sounds cute I know, but it's true.

And I very much disagree that once something is proven wrong then that's it. That makes an assumption that the evidence that proved something wrong is infallible. Is it likely? Probably not, but still. In science is anything ever truly proven 100%? Nah, but that's actually the best part about it. I guess it's constantly evolving...

Just out of curiosity, do you agree with any of the above?

Tolerance is a wonderful thing in life and I would personally fight very hard to defend creationists or any other wacky person's right to free speech... However, we are talking about starting a medical school which is based on science.

And once something is proven wrong, it is dismissed until you can prove what proved it wrong, wrong... Until then, the scientific community will be vey intolerable of that idea. But as you correctly pointed out, that is the most beautiful thing about science which is lacking in religion.

Originally Posted by bala565

Tolerance is a wonderful thing in life and I would personally fight very hard to defend creationists or any other wacky person's right to free speech... However, we are talking about starting a medical school which is based on science.

And once something is proven wrong, it is dismissed until you can prove what proved it wrong, wrong... Until then, the scientific community will be vey intolerable of that idea. But as you correctly pointed out, that is the most beautiful thing about science which is lacking in religion.

I will give you the props you deserve, I found this post to directly address my points without any negatives.

So, since we got a great topic to discuss, should medical school be based solely on science? (yea i know...) Or should we allow some other aspects of life into it? It does seem that there's such a huge push more so to produce more well rounded doctors, doctors that can relate to patients, etc.

Another thread mentioned that the disproportionate number of African Americans that get accepted in lower gpa/lower mcat ranges was to ensure that there is a group of doctors that are culturally similar to patients (it was worded better in the thread). Could there be an argument for something similar with a "religious med school"? Or do we feel it infringes on the medicine too much? Does it have to be mutually exclusive?

.

Originally Posted by bala565

I would love to argue with you about FDA, but that has nothing to do with this thread. I still stand by my argument regarding the FDA and its role in healthcare.

Oh, so different standards for different religions.... Interesting... Who's discriminating now.... I didn't realize the 1st amendment had a time requirement before providing protection for your religion.... Maybe we are reading different constitutions. BTW, something that sounds reasonable to you (not providing basic/preventive healthcare for women) may sound just as ridiculous and crazy to others that my hypothetical religion did to you. The Mormon baptism discussion on this very thread is a great example.

Also, nobody is infringing on a catholic's right to practice their religion (nobody is forcing BC down people's throat; it is just giving them the option). However, if the Catholic church wants to be a source of employment, it must follow our labor laws like any other religious/non-religious organization with no exemptions. Nobody is forcing them to be employers but once you become an employer then you can't use the religion card to exempt yourself from employment laws. If catholics get to do it, then any and all religions (regardless of how ridiculous they may sound) should have equal rights.

You missed my whole point regarding the non-christian family example. My point was that the mother could be saved in accordance with the ethical practice of medicine. However, the Catholic church can interpret such treatment (leading to loss of fetus) as against its teachings and refuse to pay which I said they are not allowed to do so. It had NOTHING to do with monetary cost of care (let's say for our argument it would cost $1.00 to save the mother).

In regards to religious standards, there is no time requirement per so but the courts have a litmus test to determine religion where time is a factor among many others. The point I'm trying to make is we have a system to determine what is a religion. And free expression rights only apply to what is deemed a legal religion. But you are correct, all religions, regardless of the craziness, should get equal rights. The issue is determining what a religion is but in this specific case, we can agree Catholicism is a religion. In your hypothetical, we may need some sort of litmus test.

Second, I want to reiterate that all of this sounds crazy to me. I'm as pro choice as they come. But I'm just as radical in my views on tolerance as I am on reproductive choice.

In regards to labor laws and right to practice religion, I think our key disagreement is whether forcing a religious group to actively provide, for other non religious people, an item that is anathema to it's teaching, prevents free expression of that religion, and whether labor laws inherently trump free expression of religion. I believe and hope to have shown providing this item does go against free expression of religion. Engaging others to commit a "mortal sin" isn't exactly Catholic. And while I can't show the following as it is entirely subjective, imo, free expression of religion, by virtue of being a protected right in the bill of rights, trumps any sort of federal law. It's in the text.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

In a perfect world, would religion trump labor laws? Probably not. But I'm not going to trample the Bill of Rights, either by ignoring it or interpreting it in a weird way, so that we can have a better society.

I'm sure we both can point out different reading of what is or isn't freedom of expression and what does or doesn't entail a legitimate law trumping religion (I'd argue zero), but if we're still at a disagreement after this, let's agree to disagree.

Finally, I apologize for not getting your mother/fetus healthcare example. I'm not sure that is specifically against Catholic teachings as to my knowledge one can kill a fetus if it saves the mother but I'm no expert on any religion. I also think, and correct me if I'm wrong, insurance works by listing covered services and one cannot deny coverage after that service has been performed. But, let's assume this is a scenario where something covered by insurance goes against the church. The doc should perform the procedure. sucks to be the church but they shouldn't have covered something anathema to their religion. And if the church tries to back out later, I'd take them to court as the procedure was covered. If this is a scenario where something is not covered by church insurance, sucks for the mother, but hopefully some sort of charity will help pay for it. If I missed something in your scenario, feel free to reiterate it.

Originally Posted by Whiskeypunch

Obviously, religion is false.

Also, obviously, evolution is the best explanation of the facts.

Completely pointless to argue about, though. You aren't going to convince anyone who believes otherwise, especially not over the internet.

Life is tough, and religion is a coping mechanism. Trying to take that away from people is generally ineffective unless they already have doubts. Recommend they go read Jesus Interrupted and move on.

Plenty of physicians are both religious and good clinicians (most of my extended family, for example, much to my atheist chagrin).

I really hope they don't give Liberty a DO school.

Completely pointless... Yet people keep going.

Originally Posted by dntke1518

Completely pointless... Yet people keep going.

You are drinking the koolaid. And to that i say:

Originally Posted by Whiskeypunch

Obviously, religion is false.

Also, obviously, evolution is the best explanation of the facts.

Completely pointless to argue about, though. You aren't going to convince anyone who believes otherwise, especially not over the internet.

Life is tough, and religion is a coping mechanism. Trying to take n'that away from people is generally ineffective unless they already have doubts. Recommend they go read Jesus Interrupted and move on.

Plenty of physicians are both religious and good clinicians (most of my extended family, for example, much to my atheist chagrin).

I really hope they don't give Liberty a DO school.

Perfectly on topic... The whole point is about the opening of a school, not whether you think religion is true or not.

So on topic - if you believe your family can be good physicians with "obviously false" beliefs, then why cant other people fall into the same catagory, a la liberty?

Im not saying I agree or not, but at least stay on topic and support your statements to some degree.

Sent from my PG86100 using SDN Mobile

Originally Posted by Kevin Baker

In regards to religious standards, there is no time requirement per so but the courts have a litmus test to determine religion where time is a factor among many others. The point I'm trying to make is we have a system to determine what is a religion. And free expression rights only apply to what is deemed a legal religion. But you are correct, all religions, regardless of the craziness, should get equal rights. The issue is determining what a religion is but in this specific case, we can agree Catholicism is a religion. In your hypothetical, we may need some sort of litmus test.

Second, I want to reiterate that all of this sounds crazy to me. I'm as pro choice as they come. But I'm just as radical in my views on tolerance as I am on reproductive choice.

In regards to labor laws and right to practice religion, I think our key disagreement is whether forcing a religious group to actively provide, for other non religious people, an item that is anathema to it's teaching, prevents free expression of that religion, and whether labor laws inherently trump free expression of religion. I believe and hope to have shown providing this item does go against free expression of religion. Engaging others to commit a "mortal sin" isn't exactly Catholic. And while I can't show the following as it is entirely subjective, imo, free expression of religion, by virtue of being a protected right in the bill of rights, trumps any sort of federal law. It's in the text.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

In a perfect world, would religion trump labor laws? Probably not. But I'm not going to trample the Bill of Rights, either by ignoring it or interpreting it in a weird way, so that we can have a better society.

I'm sure we both can point out different reading of what is or isn't freedom of expression and what does or doesn't entail a legitimate law trumping religion (I'd argue zero), but if we're still at a disagreement after this, let's agree to disagree.

Finally, I apologize for not getting your mother/fetus healthcare example. I'm not sure that is specifically against Catholic teachings as to my knowledge one can kill a fetus if it saves the mother but I'm no expert on any religion. I also think, and correct me if I'm wrong, insurance works by listing covered services and one cannot deny coverage after that service has been performed. But, let's assume this is a scenario where something covered by insurance goes against the church. The doc should perform the procedure. sucks to be the church but they shouldn't have covered something anathema to their religion. And if the church tries to back out later, I'd take them to court as the procedure was covered. If this is a scenario where something is not covered by church insurance, sucks for the mother, but hopefully some sort of charity will help pay for it. If I missed something in your scenario, feel free to reiterate it.

My point about my hypothetical religion was that let's assume for the sake of this argument that my hypothetical religion passed all litmus tests and it was considered on equal grounds with catholicism. Now, if my hypothetical religion happened to believe that safety equipment was a mortal sin, should they be exempt from OSHA's safety regulations? If the answer is no, then the same applies to the BC argument; if your answer is yes, then we probably live in different universes...

My understanding is that at least at some level the Catholic church believes that you can't abort the fetus to save the mother which violates medical ethics and federal law in this country. Again, the point is not whether the "services" are covered or not, the point is that they have to cover it; it is not an option and if it is OK for the law to trump religious beliefs in that situation then it is OK for BC as well.

But let me give you a better/easier example which I wished I'd came up with it but the credit goes to NPR on this one.... (I know, liberal blah blah blah).... So should the church be allowed to deny coverage for prenatal care for unmarried mothers? Following your argument, the church objects to intercourse prior to marriage and they should be allowed to deny coverage for prenatal care for unmarried mothers if they choose to do so... Obviously that's not acceptable in 2012... and if we can force the church to cover that through labor laws, then labor laws supersede religious beliefs of an organization, which in my opinion they should.... Again, nobody is infringing on a religious organization or individual's right to practice their religion, the problem arises when they become employers and as such they have to follow labor laws like everyone else.

But as you suggested, if you are still not satisfied, maybe it would be best for us to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by bala565

My point about my hypothetical religion was that let's assume for the sake of this argument that my hypothetical religion passed all litmus tests and it was considered on equal grounds with catholicism. Now, if my hypothetical religion happened to believe that safety equipment was a mortal sin, should they be exempt from OSHA's safety regulations? If the answer is no, then the same applies to the BC argument; if your answer is yes, then we probably live in different universes...

My understanding is that at least at some level the Catholic church believes that you can't abort the fetus to save the mother which violates medical ethics and federal law in this country. Again, the point is not whether the "services" are covered or not, the point is that they have to cover it; it is not an option and if it is OK for the law to trump religious beliefs in that situation then it is OK for BC as well.

But let me give you a better/easier example which I wished I'd came up with it but the credit goes to NPR on this one.... (I know, liberal blah blah blah).... So should the church be allowed to deny coverage for prenatal care for unmarried mothers? Following your argument, the church objects to intercourse prior to marriage and they should be allowed to deny coverage for prenatal care for unmarried mothers if they choose to do so... Obviously that's not acceptable in 2012... and if we can force the church to cover that through labor laws, then labor laws supersede religious beliefs of an organization, which in my opinion they should.... Again, nobody is infringing on a religious organization or individual's right to practice their religion, the problem arises when they become employers and as such they have to follow labor laws like everyone else.

But as you suggested, if you are still not satisfied, maybe it would be best for us to agree to disagree.

I think we live in different universes then

My answer to your questions would be, if OSHA regulations infringe against a certain religion, that religion shouldn't be made to follow OSHA, if saving the mother and killing the fetus is against a religion, they should not be mandated to cover that, and if prenatal care infringes on a religion's beliefs, that religion should not be mandated to cover prenatal care.

No need to apologize for NPR. It's miles ahead of any other mainstream program. But the constitutional (textualist) progressive libertarian in me often conflicts with liberals in these types of matters, conservatives in most matters, and classic libertarians when it comes to things like sin taxes. Thanks for hearing me out

Originally Posted by FrkyBgStok

You are drinking the koolaid. And to that i say:

If drinking the koolaid refers to the fact that I am posting kitty pictures... then I drink the sh!t out of the koolaid

http://youtu.be/G-3T51kC61Y

See what happens?

This is downright deplorable. It's making a joke of Osteopathic Medicine if this school was to exist. Can we really say DO is better than Carib. MD if schools like this start popping up?

Originally Posted by Crown Chakra

This is downright deplorable. It's making a joke of Osteopathic Medicine if this school was to exist. Can we really say DO is better than Carib. MD if schools like this start popping up?

Yes... No matter what happens we can continue to say that!

Originally Posted by bala565

Yes... No matter what happens we can continue to say that!

Really? Liberty would be better than SGU? I mean, be serious.

Right...we have to feel superior to some group or another. There's always Chiropractors to stomp down.

Originally Posted by Crown Chakra

Really? Liberty would be better than SGU? I mean, be serious.

Right...we have to feel superior to some group or another. There's always Chiropractors to stomp down.

1) You asked about DO schools in general vs. SGU and not specifically about Liberty (go back re-read you own post)...

2) What I said had nothing to do with "feeling superior" to anyone; It had to do with DO residency placement/attrition rates (aka becoming a physician)...

.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...%99s%E2%80%9D/

''AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." - Jerry Falwell, LU founder

The whole creationism debate is salient but given the broader attitudes of intolerance at LU, it should take a back seat on questions of worthiness to educate. Liberty university's ethics are appalling and would provide for abhorrently unprincipled physicians. Not only is homosexuality likened to a willingly evil and pedophilic "lifestyle" in multiple courses, the university's official stance is that aiding and abetting kidnapping across international borders is perfectly ok if the court sanctioned custodian is gay.

In short, why should anyone in this board show tolerance to a university that only accepts the narrowest interpretation of Christianity and rejects violently any other viewpoint?

Originally Posted by galifray

http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...%99s%E2%80%9D/

''AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." - Jerry Falwell, LU founder

The whole creationism debate is salient but given the broader attitudes of intolerance at LU, it should take a back seat on questions of worthiness to educate. Liberty university's ethics are appalling and would provide for abhorrently unprincipled physicians. Not only is homosexuality likened to a willingly evil and pedophilic "lifestyle" in multiple courses, the university's official stance is that aiding and abetting kidnapping across international borders is perfectly ok if the court sanctioned custodian is gay.

In short, why should anyone in this board show tolerance to a university that only accepts the narrowest interpretation of Christianity and rejects violently any other viewpoint?

Quoting the founder of a school has minimal bearings on what the school actually teaches. LU has plenty of programs and grad schools (education, law, MPH) that are accredited and have produced competent individuals without the crazy jesus bias of Falwell. But who cares about that bias if they can do their jobs?

The viewpoint you espouse above is in essence the same type of propaganda and bias Falwell spouts. People can have a radically different worldview than you or I or Falwell and still be competent.

Case in point. Loma Linda is regarded as a good school and they're seventh day adventist anti drug crusaders. RVU looks to have had a decent match and they're anti-establishment with their for profit domestic status.

Originally Posted by Kevin Baker

Quoting the founder of a school has minimal bearings on what the school actually teaches. LU has plenty of programs and grad schools (education, law, MPH) that are accredited and have produced competent individuals without the crazy jesus bias of Falwell. But who cares about that bias if they can do their jobs?

The viewpoint you espouse above is in essence the same type of propaganda and bias Falwell spouts. People can have a radically different worldview than you or I or Falwell and still be competent.

Case in point. Loma Linda is regarded as a good school and they're seventh day adventist anti drug crusaders. RVU looks to have had a decent match and they're anti-establishment with their for profit domestic status.

Except that we have evidence that they teach creationism, have a creation degree and deny evolution in the classroom. These people are incapable of teaching basic science. You flunk out if you get the answers right. They should not be handed a medical school. They will make a mockery out of Osteopathic Medicine.

I'm definitely not trying to bring back some of the more passionate comments from earlier in this thread, because it got way too nasty, but I found this link from Liberty University itself. It was published in "Spring 2012" (so, fairly recent, I believe). The following is the most important issue in my opinion - although I think the entire thing is worth a read:

"The School of Osteopathic Medicine is expecting 140 students in its first year, growing to 600. The School of Health Sciences may eventually accommodate 5,000 students."

I'm pretty sure this issue trumps everything from the previous pages... and now they've hired a dean to help get accreditation for this. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education/AOA Residency positions MUST increase with this sort of plan........... right?

I'm genuinely concerned, as I am an incoming OMS-1. This can't be allowed, or can it?

Someone else has mentioned that atheism has a spectrum of people. So do religions. There are fanatics everywhere, in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism. It's absolutely retarded to compare both achievements and mistakes of these religions/belief systems/whatever with each other because they're all made up of people and are therefore flawed. Similarly, the profession of science has umbrella'd good scientists and corrupt/evil people that have brought horrible suffering on others. If this thread can stop discussing who is more evil it might actually become constructive.

I would personally argue against a Christian "liberty medical school" even though I am Christian myself because medical school teaches nothing about theology and curriculum depends on the certificates (MD or DO) and shouldn't have a religious background. What is equally worrying is the Virginia Tobacco Commission's involvement. Medicine & Tobacco is pretty much very contradictory. I hope the AOA does the right thing for once.

Originally Posted by valkener

Someone else has mentioned that atheism has a spectrum of people. So do religions. There are fanatics everywhere, in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism. It's absolutely retarded to compare both achievements and mistakes of these religions/belief systems/whatever with each other because they're all made up of people and are therefore flawed. Similarly, the profession of science has umbrella'd good scientists and corrupt/evil people that have brought horrible suffering on others. If this thread can stop discussing who is more evil it might actually become constructive.

I would personally argue against a Christian "liberty medical school" even though I am Christian myself because medical school teaches nothing about theology and curriculum depends on the certificates (MD or DO) and shouldn't have a religious background. What is equally worrying is the Virginia Tobacco Commission's involvement. Medicine & Tobacco is pretty much very contradictory. I hope the AOA does the right thing for once.

for a second there I thought SDN glitched and I had posted through your account.
good stuff everything said here +1

Originally Posted by Jumbles

I'm definitely not trying to bring back some of the more passionate comments from earlier in this thread, because it got way too nasty, but I found this link from Liberty University itself. It was published in "Spring 2012" (so, fairly recent, I believe). The following is the most important issue in my opinion - although I think the entire thing is worth a read:

"The School of Osteopathic Medicine is expecting 140 students in its first year, growing to 600. The School of Health Sciences may eventually accommodate 5,000 students."

I'm pretty sure this issue trumps everything from the previous pages... and now they've hired a dean to help get accreditation for this. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education/AOA Residency positions MUST increase with this sort of plan........... right?

I'm genuinely concerned, as I am an incoming OMS-1. This can't be allowed, or can it?

I believe you're misreading it. They are saying that they intend to have a starting class size of 140 and eventually raise it to 150 (600/4 = 150). The "school of health sciences" includes PAs, Nurses, and Biology PhD's. They expect all of those degrees combined with the DOs to = roughly 5,000 students.

out of curiosity, do you guys know why the new for-profits in the USA are opting to confer the DO degree and not the MD degree?

Does the AAMC have rights over the MD degree or something?

Originally Posted by Old Grunt

out of curiosity, do you guys know why the new for-profits in the USA are opting to confer the DO degree and not the MD degree?

Does the AAMC have rights over the MD degree or something?

LCME accreditation is strongly against for-profit schools. As such it will prevent their formation, this as opposed to Coca, which is more interested in walmart style expansion.

Originally Posted by serenade

LCME accreditation is strongly against for-profit schools. As such it will prevent their formation, this as opposed to Coca, which is more interested in walmart style expansion.

Thanks. In that regard, I don't blame those with/in persuit of the DO degree from being upset. Their professional organization should be trying to protect their "trademark".

Originally Posted by Old Grunt

Thanks. In that regard, I don't blame those with/in persuit of the DO degree from being upset. Their professional organization should be trying to protect their "trademark".

if we're talking trademark then the MD degree is so ubiquitous these days. as a healthcare professional one can get an MD online after passing a few courses. its not really an issue of trademark, its more of medical education in the U.S being opened up to private for-profit-corporations. there are 2 for-profit US MD schools waiting in the wings for accreditation...

it all comes back to the citizen's united case lol corporations are people

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

if we're talking trademark then the MD degree is so ubiquitous these days. as a healthcare professional one can get an MD online after passing a few courses. its not really an issue of trademark, its more of medical education in the U.S being opened up to private for-profit-corporations. there are 2 for-profit US MD schools waiting in the wings for accreditation...

it all comes back to the citizen's united case lol corporations are people

Yeah, but as it stands, there are no for profit MD schools in the continental United States and, per the previous poster, it remains to be seen if the LCME will give them accreditation.

Originally Posted by Old Grunt

Yeah, but as it stands, there are no for profit MD schools in the continental United States and, per the previous poster, it remains to be seen if the LCME will give them accreditation.

Yea those two schools are, as its been explained to me, playing chicken with the lcme. Lcme says (unofficially through members individually) it won't accredit them. The schools are going forward since they have provisional status and its a test to see who blinks first come enrollment time. Can the board of directors bit have safety for the students, or keep the money and hope your argument for accreditation is compelling or else students suffer.

Unfortunately for-profit schools are only going to increase in numbers because anything else (including gov funding) is communism/socialism by evil comrades and czars. As someone else said, in the US corprations are people and wealth trickles down .

Originally Posted by DocEspana

Yea those two schools are, as its been explained to me, playing chicken with the lcme. Lcme says (unofficially through members individually) it won't accredit them. The schools are going forward since they have provisional status and its a test to see who blinks first come enrollment time. Can the board of directors bit have safety for the students, or keep the money and hope your argument for accreditation is compelling or else students suffer.

Why does the LCME have any obligation too give accreditation to any school? They have no duty to a small group of investors, and the investors in the for profit schools should know the risks as should students that enroll in a non-accredited school.

At any rate, accreditation for the DO degree seems to be much easier than the MD degree and I am curious as to why that is?

Originally Posted by Old Grunt

Why does the LCME have any obligation too give accreditation to any school? They have no duty to a small group of investors, and the investors in the for profit schools should know the risks as should students that enroll in a non-accredited school.

At any rate, accreditation for the DO degree seems to be much easier than the MD degree and I am curious as to why that is?

well its not really "easier". the accreditation terms are basically the same for lcme and coca..except unfortunately for the bit more for-profit leniency. if you look at the history of the DO profession, you'll find that we are currently in a boom period (for a VARIETY of reasons), hence why more schools are opening up than ever before

small note here is that there are more US MD schools set to open in a few years than US DO.

Originally Posted by Old Grunt

Why does the LCME have any obligation too give accreditation to any school? They have no duty to a small group of investors, and the investors in the for profit schools should know the risks as should students that enroll in a non-accredited school.

At any rate, accreditation for the DO degree seems to be much easier than the MD degree and I am curious as to why that is?

Federal government empowered them to do so. Additionally the groups that make up thr lcme also make up the acgme. So yea. They control the residency supply.

Edit: I should note that the acgme takes no stance on profit. But the parts that make up bothgroups are the same. There is a suspected overlap of bias.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

well its not really "easier". the accreditation terms are basically the same for lcme and coca..except unfortunately for the bit more for-profit leniency. if you look at the history of the DO profession, you'll find that we are currently in a boom period (for a VARIETY of reasons), hence why more schools are opening up than ever before

small note here is that there are more US MD schools set to open in a few years than US DO.

This is all 100% true.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

well its not really "easier". the accreditation terms are basically the same for lcme and coca..except unfortunately for the bit more for-profit leniency. if you look at the history of the DO profession, you'll find that we are currently in a boom period (for a VARIETY of reasons), hence why more schools are opening up than ever before

small note here is that there are more US MD schools set to open in a few years than US DO.

Easier was the wrong word. Perhaps more accommodating would have been a better choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35ymLxox0k

Originally Posted by wanna_be_do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35ymLxox0k

Awesome clip.

So, question: why is everyone concerned about Liberty being super conservative and getting a med school, but nobody cares about Loma Linda? Is it because it is already a med school?

For me, the concerns are 1) Liberty being presumptuous about getting accreditation, and 2) being a Christian school and getting funded by a tobacco company. They are being hypocritical here.

Loma Linda University Endowment: $436.7 million

Liberty University: $50.6 million

PCOM: $244.1 million

UC Davis: $766 million

figures represent university as a whole