Doctivism---Is it the new normal?

[Doctorphilic]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I thought the pictures from the following site caught my attention. These are pictures put together from Twitter and Huffpost was nice enough to post it on their site. Look through the pictures and see what you think. My question is this: do medical students or doctors for that matter have a duty to engage in activism? Many of you have heard about police brutality and the systemic discrimination that people of color and other minorities face in this country and this is highlighted by recent police killings. I admire the courage of those who stand for justice regardless of one's background. But I am just interested to know what you think regarding the role of students in engaging in this kind of activism which I call "Doctivism". Any thoughts? Please keep it civil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/whitecoats4blacklives_n_6304736.html

 

[mehc012]

I thought the pictures from the following site caught my attention. These are pictures put together from Twitter and Huffpost was nice enough to post it on their site. Look through the pictures and see what you think. My question is this: do medical students or doctors for that matter have a duty to engage in activism? Many of you have heard about police brutality and the systemic discrimination that people of color and other minorities face in this country and this is highlighted by recent police killings. I admire the courage of those who stand for justice regardless of one's background. But I am just interested to know what you think regarding the role of students in engaging in this kind of activism which I call "Doctivism". Any thoughts? Please keep it civil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/whitecoats4blacklives_n_6304736.html

Do they have a duty to do so? No, not particularly, not beyond the responsibility that all people have to fight for what they believe in and support their fellow humans.

However, is it so surprising that a pool of people which was specifically culled to include a large number of people who were proactive in supporting causes which they found meaningful would continue to have a high level of activism moving forward?

 

[karayaa]

Some doctors are are not satisfied with mere healthcare, fixing problems after they develop, and want to promote health, which is closely tied to (although not determined by) social conditions (poverty, education, discrimination, etc). So advocacy, activism and policy naturally result.
Notice that this event was
endorsed by Students for a National Health Program, an affiliate of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of more than 19,000 medical students and professionals that advocates for improved universal Medicare.
So it wasn't just normal med students.

As for

My question is this: do medical students or doctors for that matter have a duty to engage in activism? But I am just interested to know what you think regarding the role of students in engaging in this kind of activism which I call "Doctivism". Any thoughts? Please keep it civil.

I understand why doctors would be activists, because it's a reasonable result of a desire to help people, but I don't think everyone should feel obligated to do it. Kind of like research - it's obviously a good thing and beneficial for patients, but it's not for everyone.

 

[gyngyn]

Being a voice for the voiceless is a traditional part of the triad of the physician/citizen/scientist.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

They didn't show a picture from Pritzker, but I know for a fact that Pritzker also participated because of my friends' fb shares. I'm proud of all my fellow WUSTL graduates both at WUSM and Pritzker for participating. I think it's good that med students are aware of these issues and standing up for the right causes.

 

[mehc012]

They didn't show a picture from Pritzker, but I know for a fact that Pritzker also participated because of my friends' fb shares. I'm proud of all my fellow WUSTL graduates both at WUSM and Pritzker for participating. I think it's good that med students are aware of these issues and standing up for the right causes.

Harvard med school also did, judging by my friends' pics and posts. I was definitely proud, though it took a surprising amount of digging to figure out what the heck they all meant by 'die-in'. I still think it's an odd name for it, but hey...whatever spreads and gets people involved, eh?

 

[DrBowtie]

It's amazing how much of this stuff stops in residency and beyond.

CV padding at its finest.

 

[mehc012]

It's amazing how much of this stuff stops in residency and beyond.

CV padding at its finest.

Or, you know, 80+hr workweeks taking their toll, and no longer being in an environment of young, idealistic classmates who are all at the same stage in life with the same schedule and environment and are therefore often easier to rally together and get moving.

 

[allantois]

Waiting for Dermviser to comment about how little "overprivileged" students at all those institutions know about racial discrimination in America 🙄

To be fair, I'm sure that there were students from those schools who did not take part in those demonstrations.

In all honesty I feel bad for police, because most of them are good people and the public completely turned against them. What a bad time to be a cop!

 

[C.S. Peirce]

There are plenty of obligations that arise from a person's position in society that we would otherwise consider 'optional' or 'exceptional.' Politicians are expected to release their tax returns to their constituencies, police officers are expected to put themselves at risk to stop violent crimes (even when off-duty), military officers are expected to refrain from political discourse, etc.

Physicians are in a profession whose goal is to treat illness and alleviate suffering, and so it seems pretty reasonable to me that they would have an obligation to engage in activities they had reason to believe could lead to less suffering. This doesn't necessarily require that they engage in public protest, though.

Also, 'doctivism' is an icky neologism, and I'm hoping to put a stop to the use of that word right here and now.

 

[mehc012]

Also, 'doctivism' is an icky neologism, and I'm hoping to put a stop to the use of that word right here and now.

Ah, yes...we should stick to classier words such as 'icky' 😛

 

[C.S. Peirce]

Hey! I think that 'icky' is one of the most versatile non-profane adjectives in the English language...

 

[ski89]

I know I shouldn't open this can of worms, but what are these protests suppose to accomplish? Are police officers that are put in difficult situations really the main source of plight in black America? Are they protesting the lack if indictment of these individuals despite the fact that there is no legal ground to do so? Or is it just a general feeling of prejudice against aa's that may or may not have played a role in these recent deaths? To me, the only valid reason is the latter - and even still, I find these protests somewhat disrespectful to police officers that put their life at risk on a daily basis. I don't think it makes me racist to say that..

 

[Doctorphilic]

Do they have a duty to do so? No, not particularly, not beyond the responsibility that all people have to fight for what they believe in and support their fellow humans.

However, is it so surprising that a pool of people which was specifically culled to include a large number of people who were proactive in supporting causes which they found meaningful would continue to have a high level of activism moving forward?

Great points! Probably it is the rise in awareness about the issues and the idea of "group think" playing a role too. Still, I agree with what you are saying in general about fighting for important causes. It gets murky when one is a doctor ---a role society has already defined as being a care giver of a patient.

 

[mehc012]

I know I shouldn't open this can of worms, but what are these protests suppose to accomplish? Are police officers that are put in difficult situations really the main source of plight in black America? Are they protesting the lack if indictment of these individuals despite the fact that there is no legal ground to do so? Or is it just a general feeling of prejudice against aa's that may or may not have played a role in these recent deaths? To me, the only valid reason is the latter - and even still, I find these protests somewhat disrespectful to police officers that put their life at risk on a daily basis. I don't think it makes me racist to say that..

No, that's a legitimate concern. I have always liked this quote:
"A riot is the language of the unheard."
which I have always seen attributed to MLK, though I confess that I have nothing more than a few brief confirmatory internet searches to back that up. Regardless of who said it, though, I think that it touches on the heart of the matter.

Protest isn't about accomplishing some discrete thing directly. It is about demanding to be heard, because without that first step, nothing further can/will happen. I do not think that it is a mistake that our history books are littered with acts of protest throughout the centuries. No, the Boston Tea Party didn't accomplish anything beyond destroying some merchandise, but the story persists as a demonstration of the sort of unrest and opinion which spurred real change (albeit through avenues other than looting and destroying property). The sit-ins and race riots again did nothing but make voices heard and demonstrate the extent of people's commitment to the causes...but change did eventually follow, and the incidents were deemed worthy of documenting.

Is it disrespectful to the police? Damn straight it is...it's entire purpose is to demonstrate the extent of the distrust and lost respect which people have for the police. Perhaps you disagree with that, or don't share the emotion. However, you have taken notice. In apathetic America, few things are as eye-catching as people making a concerted, sustained effort to be vocal about something.

 

[JPA178]

I'm fine with people standing up for causes they believe in and advocating on behalf of their communities. In fact, it's great that they are so passionate. However, the thing that scares me (a little) is the potential for being unfairly labeled for not wanting to participate in activism. Regardless of my own position/opinions and whether or not I agree with the causes, I just don't have a desire to get out in the street and protest or be involved in advocating for causes on social media. Of course I'll vote and hold my own opinions, but I just don't want to get involved in other people's activism. I feel like activist types have a very "you're with us or you're against us" mentality, trying to lump other people into groups, when there are some of us who just prefer to focus our time and energy on other things.

As far as the present issue goes (police violence and ongoing unrest) my fear would be that my classmates and colleagues would label me a "racist" for not wanting to get involved, attend protests, sign their petitions, etc. Maybe they won't say it, but I would feel unfairly judged for simply declining their invitations.

 

[Doctorphilic]

Some doctors are are not satisfied with mere healthcare, fixing problems after they develop, and want to promote health, which is closely tied to (although not determined by) social conditions (poverty, education, discrimination, etc). So advocacy, activism and policy naturally result.
Notice that this event was
endorsed by Students for a National Health Program, an affiliate of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of more than 19,000 medical students and professionals that advocates for improved universal Medicare.
So it wasn't just normal med students.

As for

I understand why doctors would be activists, because it's a reasonable result of a desire to help people, but I don't think everyone should feel obligated to do it. Kind of like research - it's obviously a good thing and beneficial for patients, but it's not for everyone.

Interesting because you are exactly describing me (not even in med school yet) but I want to be a doctor that talks about issues like social and biological determinants of health! I definitely agree with your point about the gray area where one is assumed to be impartial care giver versus being involved in activism (which involves politics).

 

[Doctorphilic]

Being a voice for the voiceless is a traditional part of the triad of the physician/citizen/scientist.

Points well taken. But it is a bit complicated because now you have a vocal doctor who not only treats cancer but also talks about stop and frisk!

 

[Doctorphilic]

There are plenty of obligations that arise from a person's position in society that we would otherwise consider 'optional' or 'exceptional.' Politicians are expected to release their tax returns to their constituencies, police officers are expected to put themselves at risk to stop violent crimes (even when off-duty), military officers are expected to refrain from political discourse, etc.

Physicians are in a profession whose goal is to treat illness and alleviate suffering, and so it seems pretty reasonable to me that they would have an obligation to engage in activities they had reason to believe could lead to less suffering. This doesn't necessarily require that they engage in public protest, though.

Also, 'doctivism' is an icky neologism, and I'm hoping to put a stop to the use of that word right here and now.

Great commentary! I threw the word in there because I just could not reconcile the fact that med students were protesting about a police killing (two completely different issues). I guess once someone is shot, it becomes a medical problem. The question is where do you draw the line?

 

[mehc012]

I'm fine with people standing up for causes they believe in and advocating on behalf of their communities. In fact, it's great that they are so passionate. However, the thing that scares me (a little) is the potential for being unfairly labeled for not wanting to participate in activism. Regardless of my own position/opinions and whether or not I agree with the causes, I just don't have a desire to get out in the street and protest or be involved in advocating for causes on social media. Of course I'll vote and hold my own opinions, but I just don't want to get involved in other people's activism. I feel like activist types have a very "you're with us or you're against us" mentality, trying to lump other people into groups, when there are some of us who just prefer to focus our time and energy on other things.

As far as the present issue goes (police violence and ongoing unrest) my fear would be that my classmates and colleagues would label me a "racist" for not wanting to get involved, attend protests, sign their petitions, etc. Maybe they won't say it, but I would feel unfairly judged for declining their invitations.

You probably will be judged by some. Others will be less militant about the whole thing. At the end of the day, whether or not it is 'unfair' is a bizarre thing to assess - to some, apathy is worse than active opposition, and it's not hard to see why. 'If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem' rings particularly true in a situation like this, where the entire issue is that people are overwhelmingly content to allow inequalities to persist. So, yeah...people can and will judge for apathy as much as for dissent. Now, you may not actually feel indifferent, but it is difficult for people to know that without discussing it with you.

That's OK, though...your beliefs are your beliefs, and you should stick to them. If it's not important to you, then it's just...not. And while the above describes why some people do judge a lack of action pretty harshly, the reality is that the default in the US is disinterest, so most people just take it at face value (i.e. 'just not that into politics' vs 'racist bastard'). The fact is, while there are enough people invested to sustain protests, the vast majority of US citizens aren't participating. You don't stick out; you're normal. There's no reason for you to be branded a racist except by those who consider 'everyone who is not out here right now' to be the enemy. There are plenty of vocal dissenters out there to focus on without people chasing down the large majority of the population who aren't involved. And remember - judgement goes both ways. Sure, some few may consider you a de facto racist for not participating in the protests...but you (and most others) are also free to judge those people for being ridiculously aggressive on the matter.

 

[Doctorphilic]

No, that's a legitimate concern. I have always liked this quote:
"A riot is the language of the unheard."
which I have always seen attributed to MLK, though I confess that I have nothing more than a few brief confirmatory internet searches to back that up. Regardless of who said it, though, I think that it touches on the heart of the matter.

Protest isn't about accomplishing some discrete thing directly. It is about demanding to be heard, because without that first step, nothing further can/will happen. I do not think that it is a mistake that our history books are littered with acts of protest throughout the centuries. No, the Boston Tea Party didn't accomplish anything beyond destroying some merchandise, but the story persists as a demonstration of the sort of unrest and opinion which spurred real change (albeit through avenues other than looting and destroying property). The sit-ins and race riots again did nothing but make voices heard and demonstrate the extent of people's commitment to the causes...but change did eventually follow, and the incidents were deemed worthy of documenting.

Is it disrespectful to the police? Damn straight it is...it's entire purpose is to demonstrate the extent of the distrust and lost respect which people have for the police. Perhaps you disagree with that, or don't share the emotion. However, you have taken notice. In apathetic America, few things are as eye-catching as people making a concerted, sustained effort to be vocal about something.

Eloquently written! I am sure you will make an excellent doc! As to the OP, the problem is not whether we should respect or disrespect the police. I would argue that society has already determined that having a police in our community is a good thing. But, as public servants the police also need to respect the community they serve. It goes both ways. And when unarmed human being (in this case a black person but could be Mexican, Italian, or any other) is killed and the killer is acquitted in a number of cases, it begs the question. I know these types of topics are dynamites but my goal was to just debate the role of a physician and whether a physician can engage in activism without compromising his ideals, goals, and responsibilities.

 

[Doctorphilic]

I'm fine with people standing up for causes they believe in and advocating on behalf of their communities. In fact, it's great that they are so passionate. However, the thing that scares me (a little) is the potential for being unfairly labeled for not wanting to participate in activism. Regardless of my own position/opinions and whether or not I agree with the causes, I just don't have a desire to get out in the street and protest or be involved in advocating for causes on social media. Of course I'll vote and hold my own opinions, but I just don't want to get involved in other people's activism. I feel like activist types have a very "you're with us or you're against us" mentality, trying to lump other people into groups, when there are some of us who just prefer to focus our time and energy on other things.

As far as the present issue goes (police violence and ongoing unrest) my fear would be that my classmates and colleagues would label me a "racist" for not wanting to get involved, attend protests, sign their petitions, etc. Maybe they won't say it, but I would feel unfairly judged for simply declining their invitations.

I definitely get your concerns! It is not fair to label others and people should have the freedom to participate in any activity they deem important. Even though you are not in it, it seems like you are supportive of others taking the initiative, which is also a good thing.

 

[NoDakDok]

Normally I wouldn't comment on things like this, but with all the support for it here (and anti-support in the allopathic forum) I figured I'd chime in.

I fully support social causes, and I understand that minorities go through exceptional difficulties that as a white individual I cannot understand. However, I find it discouraging that the cause is tagged WhiteCoatsForBlackLives. What about Hispanics, Asians, people from the Middle East? Hell, what about Whites?

We're all healthcare professionals or aspiring healthcare professionals: physicians, medical students, premedical students, etc. Our profession should, beyond predispositions, be blind to the race of individuals. We should care for those in need, regardless of skin color or inherent biases. To me, this tag line represents something that gives the connotation of a belief I disagree with - that an individual's race makes them of different value.

It is for this reason I find something inherently wrong about that tagline. It should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives, or some other tagline that doesn't continue to propagate a mentality of this being a "White Cop vs The Black Man" situation. We're all in this together, folks. Let's come together, not further divide.

 

[ski89]

No, that's a legitimate concern. I have always liked this quote:
"A riot is the language of the unheard."
which I have always seen attributed to MLK, though I confess that I have nothing more than a few brief confirmatory internet searches to back that up. Regardless of who said it, though, I think that it touches on the heart of the matter.

Protest isn't about accomplishing some discrete thing directly. It is about demanding to be heard, because without that first step, nothing further can/will happen. I do not think that it is a mistake that our history books are littered with acts of protest throughout the centuries. No, the Boston Tea Party didn't accomplish anything beyond destroying some merchandise, but the story persists as a demonstration of the sort of unrest and opinion which spurred real change (albeit through avenues other than looting and destroying property). The sit-ins and race riots again did nothing but make voices heard and demonstrate the extent of people's commitment to the causes...but change did eventually follow, and the incidents were deemed worthy of documenting.

Is it disrespectful to the police? Damn straight it is...it's entire purpose is to demonstrate the extent of the distrust and lost respect which people have for the police. Perhaps you disagree with that, or don't share the emotion. However, you have taken notice. In apathetic America, few things are as eye-catching as people making a concerted, sustained effort to be vocal about
something.

Point taken, but my problem is that this whole situation has so many angles and nuances that I find these protests to be more divisive than anything, precisely d/t the complexity of the situation. In other words, without a clear purpose (for lack of a better term) that is not muddied in controversy, these protests do not unite, they divide.

And in the topic of purpose. The Boston Tea Party absolutely had a purpose. To voice their disapproval of the crown's taxation policies. Yet I don't know what these protests are for? Partly because I don't agree with the premise of their argument. That the two deaths in question were the result of race relations (I'm not saying they were not, but it's absolutely impossible to say).

Forgive my spelling errors while typing on my iPhone

 

[Narmerguy]

Eloquently written! I am sure you will make an excellent doc! As to the OP, the problem is not whether we should respect or disrespect the police. I would argue that society has already determined that having a police in our community is a good thing. But, as public servants the police also need to respect the community they serve. It goes both ways. And when unarmed human being (in this case a black person but could be Mexican, Italian, or any other) is killed and the killer is acquitted in a number of cases, it begs the question. I know these types of topics are dynamites but my goal was to just debate the role of a physician and whether a physician can engage in activism without compromising his ideals, goals, and responsibilities.

Physicians are members of the community, and it is clear that this role can no longer stay shut up inside a hospital untouched by the activities happening outside. If physicians can be politicians, businessmen, scientists, and educators, they can be activists.

Normally I wouldn't comment on things like this, but with all the support for it here (and anti-support in the allopathic forum) I figured I'd chime in.

I fully support social causes, and I understand that minorities go through exceptional difficulties that as a white individual I cannot understand. However, I find it discouraging that the cause is tagged WhiteCoatsForBlackLives. What about Hispanics, Asians, people from the Middle East? Hell, what about Whites?

We're all healthcare professionals or aspiring healthcare professionals: physicians, medical students, premedical students, etc. Our profession should, beyond predispositions, be blind to the race of individuals. We should care for those in need, regardless of skin color or inherent biases.

It is for this reason I find something inherently wrong about that tagline. It should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives, or some other tagline that doesn't continue to propagate a mentality of this being a "White Cop vs The Black Man" situation. We're all in this together, folks. Let's come together, not further divide.

I understand your point, but the reality is that race does matter. It shouldn't, but pretending it doesn't won't make it go away and has more often allowed problems to be swept under the rug. Making the point that we are explicitly aware and counter to these sorts of disparate outcomes is far more powerful for promoting accountability than merely saying we're for world peace broadly speaking.

 

[mehc012]

Normally I wouldn't comment on things like this, but with all the support for it here (and anti-support in the allopathic forum) I figured I'd chime in.

I fully support social causes, and I understand that minorities go through exceptional difficulties that as a white individual I cannot understand. However, I find it discouraging that the cause is tagged WhiteCoatsForBlackLives. What about Hispanics, Asians, people from the Middle East? Hell, what about Whites?

We're all healthcare professionals or aspiring healthcare professionals: physicians, medical students, premedical students, etc. Our profession should, beyond predispositions, be blind to the race of individuals. We should care for those in need, regardless of skin color or inherent biases. To me, this tag line represents something that gives the connotation of a belief I disagree with - that an individual's race makes them of different value.

It is for this reason I find something inherently wrong about that tagline. It should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives, or some other tagline that doesn't continue to propagate a mentality of this being a "White Cop vs The Black Man" situation. We're all in this together, folks. Let's come together, not further divide.

Just because this current protest concerns one group of individuals who feel they are being discriminated against doesn't mean that to support them is to be against everyone else. Or, in Twitter-speak:

 

[Narmerguy]

Point taken, but my problem is that this whole situation has so many angles and nuances that I find these protests to be more divisive than anything, precisely d/t the complexity of the situation. In other words, without a clear purpose (for lack of a better term) that is not muddied in controversy, these protests do not unite, they divide.

And in the topic of purpose. The Boston Tea Party absolutely had a purpose. To voice their disapproval of the crown's taxation policies. Yet I don't know what these protests are for? Partly because I don't agree with the premise of their argument. That the two deaths in question were the result of race relations (I'm not saying they were not, but it's absolutely impossible to say).

Forgive my spelling errors while typing on my iPhone

The Boston Tea Party was not unanimously supported by any means, and many Americans wished the "rebels" would just shut up and pay their taxes like everyone else.

These protests were catalyzed by the two deaths that have gotten much attention, but clearly are rooted in a far greater reality that has persisted across many years and many cases, some high profile and others merely par for the course at this point. Every case has angles and nuance, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good. Things can and should be done even if it is not the utopic approach. That starts with accepting that the status quo is flawed.

 

[Ismet]

They didn't show a picture from Pritzker, but I know for a fact that Pritzker also participated because of my friends' fb shares. I'm proud of all my fellow WUSTL graduates both at WUSM and Pritzker for participating. I think it's good that med students are aware of these issues and standing up for the right causes.

Harvard med school also did, judging by my friends' pics and posts. I was definitely proud, though it took a surprising amount of digging to figure out what the heck they all meant by 'die-in'. I still think it's an odd name for it, but hey...whatever spreads and gets people involved, eh?

Over 70 medical schools participated today. There's an article with a link to the schools in a thread over in allo. I'm lazy.

Edit: Jk found some energy. Here's the link: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/decem...‘die-ins’-and-protests-wednesday-because-blac

 

[Doctorphilic]

Normally I wouldn't comment on things like this, but with all the support for it here (and anti-support in the allopathic forum) I figured I'd chime in.

I fully support social causes, and I understand that minorities go through exceptional difficulties that as a white individual I cannot understand. However, I find it discouraging that the cause is tagged WhiteCoatsForBlackLives. What about Hispanics, Asians, people from the Middle East? Hell, what about Whites?

We're all healthcare professionals or aspiring healthcare professionals: physicians, medical students, premedical students, etc. Our profession should, beyond predispositions, be blind to the race of individuals. We should care for those in need, regardless of skin color or inherent biases.

It is for this reason I find something inherently wrong about that tagline. It should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives, or some other tagline that doesn't continue to propagate a mentality of this being a "White Cop vs The Black Man" situation. We're all in this together, folks. Let's come together, not further divide.

Beautifully said! I definitely get your point about looking at issues of discrimination holistically, i.e. for this to be meaningful and enduring, the messaging should have been more inclusive. However, I also understand that some minorities like Middle Eastern or Asian do not face the type of injustice that is inflicted on blacks. This is partly because of the unique history of blacks in this country and some of that historical fall outs are still reverberating in our society. WE have made enormous progress and we still have a long road ahead. So, the messaging is tailored toward the recent events from Ferguson and Staten Island which showed us the uneven relationship between some cops and black men. Thus, it is not surprising that they chose that tag (I am not an expert on tweets!).

 

[mehc012]

The Boston Tea Party was not unanimously supported by any means, and many Americans wished the "rebels" would just shut up and pay their taxes like everyone else.

These protests were catalyzed by the two deaths that have gotten much attention, but clearly are rooted in a far greater reality that has persisted across many years and many cases, some high profile and others merely par for the course at this point. Every case has angles and nuance, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good. Things can and should be done even if it is not the utopic approach. That starts with accepting that the status quo is flawed.

Exactly...at some point, saying that Ferguson unrest and everything that follows is really about Mike Brown and his death is akin to saying that WWI was about the death of the Archduke Ferdinand. Sure, the widely publicized death catalyzed action, but it really just ignited preexisting tensions (in both cases). Those tensions and emotions are what really matter, and what are being exposed by protest.

 

[NoDakDok]

I understand your point, but the reality is that race does matter. It shouldn't, but pretending it doesn't won't make it go away and has more often allowed problems to be swept under the rug. Making the point that we are explicitly aware and counter to these sorts of disparate outcomes is far more powerful for promoting accountability than merely saying we're for world peace broadly speaking.

Yes, I understand. My point is not simply protesting for "world peace." My point is that we need to acknowledge racial divides and cultivate a culture of equality for all races, not just for black individuals. I understand the black community protesting in support of a BlackLivesMatter because that directly links to their cause. But I find supporting solely one race based on a recent fad to be rather shortsighted of individuals entering a profession based upon knowledge, foresight, and introspection.

Just because this current protest concerns one group of individuals who feel they are being discriminated against doesn't mean that to support them is to be against everyone else. Or, in Twitter-speak:

I haven't been following this, and this is my first comment ever on this issue. I wasn't aware this point had even been made before.

Regardless, his argument doesn't stand in the case that I am presenting. We're professionals, the general public is not. It is our duty to promote social rights for all, not just one specific group. And me saying that the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives is not diminishing to the BlackLivesMatter initiative in any way. Whereas going into a funeral or cancer meeting and saying essentially "it's not so bad" or "we should allocate funding to other diseases" is directly detracting from the situation and demeaning the causes. Social activism is at no loss by generalization, in fact it is beneficial to all groups involved as it garners support from additional constituencies that initially may not have been invested. See: LGBT... Rights.

 

[Lucca]

You guys should check out the "white coats for black lives" thread in allopathic. Nearly gave myself an ulcer trying to defend the right to be angry about the things going on in our country today.

 

[Doctorphilic]

The Boston Tea Party was not unanimously supported by any means, and many Americans wished the "rebels" would just shut up and pay their taxes like everyone else.

These protests were catalyzed by the two deaths that have gotten much attention, but clearly are rooted in a far greater reality that has persisted across many years and many cases, some high profile and others merely par for the course at this point. Every case has angles and nuance, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good. Things can and should be done even if it is not the utopic approach. That starts with accepting that the status quo is flawed.

Great points there! Also, I was just making the point about how the weight of history is so hard to shake off. And the fact that future doctors are participating in the protest against the killing of unarmed black men shows that we are making some progress. It is a good start even if it does not lead to tangible reforms. Overall, I agree that docs should be aware of the society they live in and to respond to injustice in a way that advances the common good of that society.

 

[ski89]

Exactly...at some point, saying that Ferguson unrest and everything that follows is really about Mike Brown and his death is akin to saying that WWI was about the death of the Archduke Ferdinand. Sure, the widely publicized death catalyzed action, but it really just ignited preexisting tensions (in both cases). Those tensions and emotions are what really matter, and what are being exposed by protest.

Yes and the slogan for WWI was 'please don't assassinate me'.. I guess that's my problem, it's not that the deaths of these people just catalyzed the protest, they are actually the face of the protest, it's distracting and counterproductive

 

[mehc012]

Yes, I understand. My point is not simply protesting for "world peace." My point is that we need to acknowledge racial divides and cultivate a culture of equality for all races, not just for black individuals. I understand the black community protesting in support of a BlackLivesMatter because that directly links to their cause. But I find supporting solely one race based on a recent fad to be rather shortsighted of individuals entering a profession based upon knowledge, foresight, and introspection.



I haven't been following this, and this is my first comment ever on this issue. I wasn't aware this point had even been made before.

Regardless, his argument doesn't stand in the case that I am presenting. We're professionals, the general public is not. It is our duty to promote social rights for all, not just one specific group. And me saying that the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives is not diminishing to the BlackLivesMatter initiative in any way. Whereas going into a funeral or cancer meeting and saying essentially "it's not so bad" or "we should allocate funding to other diseases." Social activism is at no loss by generalization, in fact it is beneficial to all groups involved as it garners support from additional constituencies that initially may not have been invested. See: LGBT... Rights.

No, the analogy really really does fit. Sitting there saying 'hey, we should not focus on the struggle of one group even though they have been hit hard lately and are running this event' fits exactly in with the narrative in those stories. Neither of those said "it's not so bad" or said anything about funding...the point was to demonstrate that you cannot simply take something which is happening and redirect the movement towards all of the things that you care about too.
It should not just be black people protesting BlackLivesMatter, as you say, and everyone else going AllLivesMatter - that's even more divisive.

These students may treat all people professionally when at work, but when participating in a movement about the inequalities facing black people in America (which is one of the two main narratives of this movement, the other being police brutality in general), they are participating in that movement. If they had gone out there and said 'hey Ferguson, we support you guys but I just wanna say, the hispanics and asians and middle-easterners and even white people need equality this year', that would have been disrespectful and they would not have been joining the protests, they'd have been doing their own thing and distracting/detracting from it.

 

[gapyearguppy]

Normally I wouldn't comment on things like this, but with all the support for it here (and anti-support in the allopathic forum) I figured I'd chime in.

I fully support social causes, and I understand that minorities go through exceptional difficulties that as a white individual I cannot understand. However, I find it discouraging that the cause is tagged WhiteCoatsForBlackLives. What about Hispanics, Asians, people from the Middle East? Hell, what about Whites?

We're all healthcare professionals or aspiring healthcare professionals: physicians, medical students, premedical students, etc. Our profession should, beyond predispositions, be blind to the race of individuals. We should care for those in need, regardless of skin color or inherent biases. To me, this tag line represents something that gives the connotation of a belief I disagree with - that an individual's race makes them of different value.

It is for this reason I find something inherently wrong about that tagline. It should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives, or some other tagline that doesn't continue to propagate a mentality of this being a "White Cop vs The Black Man" situation. We're all in this together, folks. Let's come together, not further divide.

I totally get what you're saying, but the protests are to bring awareness surrounding police brutality, and police brutality is a very racialized phenomenon, as the victims are usually black and brown people. Yes, there are police killings of other communities (white, asian etc), but it is heavily enacted upon by police against black and brown communities. When you want to change #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter, you're derailing the conversation.

 

[Doctorphilic]

Great points there! Also, I was just making the point about how the weight of history is so hard to shake off. And the fact that future doctors are participating in the protest against the killing of unarmed black men shows that we are making some progress. It is a good start even if it does not lead to tangible reforms. Overall, I agree that docs should be aware of the society they live in and to respond to injustice in a way that advances the common good of that society.

 

[Lucca]

Yes, I understand. My point is not simply protesting for "world peace." My point is that we need to acknowledge racial divides and cultivate a culture of equality for all races, not just for black individuals. I understand the black community protesting in support of a BlackLivesMatter because that directly links to their cause. But I find supporting solely one race based on a recent fad to be rather shortsighted of individuals entering a profession based upon knowledge, foresight, and introspection.



I haven't been following this, and this is my first comment ever on this issue. I wasn't aware this point had even been made before.

Regardless, his argument doesn't stand in the case that I am presenting. We're professionals, the general public is not. It is our duty to promote social rights for all, not just one specific group. And me saying that the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives is not diminishing to the BlackLivesMatter initiative in any way. Whereas going into a funeral or cancer meeting and saying essentially "it's not so bad" or "we should allocate funding to other diseases" is directly detracting from the situation and demeaning the causes. Social activism is at no loss by generalization, in fact it is beneficial to all groups involved as it garners support from additional constituencies that initially may not have been invested. See: LGBT... Rights.

Activism has to be specific. As long as the victims of the problem at hand are pre-dominantly of one race then that's the way it is going to be. Are asians victims of police brutality and racism? Sure, yes. Do asians comprise 75% of the prison population in spite of being a much smaller portion of the general population? No, they don't. It doesn't matter if you can relate to other people's suffering. Furthermore, talking about one race specifically does not diminish the value or importance of other races. It is just that this issue is very focused because of the nature of the problems being discussed, police brutality/bias within the judicial system. Generalizing problems often takes arguments away from the actionable issue into other avenues. Generalizing also ends up in the "let's all be friends and be decent human beings" camp which while being an end goal of activism is not the main point. The main point is to create dialogue and to shed light on problems that would otherwise be ignored. It is important for activism to stay focused for political reasons.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm just going to throw this out there: this is a very real issue, but the ways many physicians and medical students have been handling it have been straight up ******ed and facepalm inducing.

As an aside, we should really apply some of that "doctivism" toward our own profession so that our autonomy and income stops being eroded.

 

[mehc012]

Activism has to be specific. As long as the victims of the problem at hand are pre-dominantly of one race then that's the way it is going to be. Are asians victims of police brutality and racism? Sure, yes. Do asians comprise 75% of the prison population in spite of being a much smaller portion of the general population? No, they don't. It doesn't matter if you can relate to other people's suffering. Furthermore, talking about one race specifically does not diminish the value or importance of other races. It is just that this issue is very focused because of the nature of the problems being discussed, police brutality/bias within the judicial system. Generalizing problems often takes arguments away from the actionable issue into other avenues. Generalizing also ends up in the "let's all be friends and be decent human beings" camp which while being an end goal of activism is not the main point. The main point is to create dialogue and to shed light on problems that would otherwise be ignored. It is important for activism to stay focused for political reasons.

Exactly. Once you move things to #AllLivesMatter, you are no longer discussing the fact that there is a very real issue facing America right now. You are simply reiterating the same tired idealism which we have always painted on the surface. One brings attention to an area of reality which needs to be addressed; the other talks about a reality which does not exist.

 

[Doctorphilic]

Yes, I understand. My point is not simply protesting for "world peace." My point is that we need to acknowledge racial divides and cultivate a culture of equality for all races, not just for black individuals. I understand the black community protesting in support of a BlackLivesMatter because that directly links to their cause. But I find supporting solely one race based on a recent fad to be rather shortsighted of individuals entering a profession based upon knowledge, foresight, and introspection.



I haven't been following this, and this is my first comment ever on this issue. I wasn't aware this point had even been made before.

Regardless, his argument doesn't stand in the case that I am presenting. We're professionals, the general public is not. It is our duty to promote social rights for all, not just one specific group. And me saying that the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives should be WhiteCoatsForAllLives is not diminishing to the BlackLivesMatter initiative in any way. Whereas going into a funeral or cancer meeting and saying essentially "it's not so bad" or "we should allocate funding to other diseases" is directly detracting from the situation and demeaning the causes. Social activism is at no loss by generalization, in fact it is beneficial to all groups involved as it garners support from additional constituencies that initially may not have been invested. See: LGBT... Rights.

I think the problem is that it is not just protesting against injustice in general. In this case, future docs and other young activists are protesting against cop violence against black men. If it was happening to Chinese men disproportionately and frequently, then "ChineseLivesMatter" would be an appropriate tag. And others could join in and say gee I agree with that. This is a more focused naming than just saying all lives matter. Hope that helps!

 

[ski89]

The Boston Tea Party was not unanimously supported by any means, and many Americans wished the "rebels" would just shut up and pay their taxes like everyone else.

These protests were catalyzed by the two deaths that have gotten much attention, but clearly are rooted in a far greater reality that has persisted across many years and many cases, some high profile and others merely par for the course at this point. Every case has angles and nuance, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good. Things can and should be done even if it is not the utopic approach. That starts with accepting that the status quo is flawed.

I hear you. But when I see medical students that are suppose to be grounded in reason and evidence based practice that are using Mr. Brown as a poster child of their cause, I have a difficult time reconciling their credibility. Michael Brown was not disadvantaged in the legal system, he was given an unprecedented amount of attention to make sure that if there was the possibility of an indictment out there, it would happen. However, the facts of the case were overwhelmingly in favor of the officer's testimony.

 

[mehc012]

I think the problem is that it is not just protesting against injustice in general. In this case, future docs and other young activists are protesting against cop violence against black men. If it was happening to Chinese men disproportionately and frequently, then "ChineseLivesMatter" would be an appropriate tag. And others could join in and say gee I agree with that. This is a more focused naming than just saying all lives matter. Hope that helps!

👍
There have been deaths of people of other ethnicities in encounters with the police. Those didn't spark widespread protest because the underlying tensions discussed earlier were not present (or at least strong enough). A catalyst is only a catalyst - there still has to be fuel for the reaction.

 

[mehc012]

I hear you. But when I see medical students that are suppose to be grounded in reason and evidence based practice that are using Mr. Brown as a poster child of their cause, I have a difficult time reconciling their credibility. Michael Brown was not disadvantaged in the legal system, he was given an unprecedented amount of attention to make sure that if there was the possibility of an indictment out there, it would happen. However, the facts of the case were overwhelmingly in favor of the officer's testimony.

Michael Brown is irrelevant to the matters at hand.
We're agreeing on this point - I don't think he should be the focus anymore - but then let's stop focusing on him. Him being included (though I think it's worth making sure that everyone is aware of the differences between indictment and conviction) does not invalidate the cause, just as it does not strengthen it. It's a meaningless symbol to rally around.

Eric Garner, on the other hand, is a perfect poster child for this.

 

[Doctorphilic]

Activism has to be specific. As long as the victims of the problem at hand are pre-dominantly of one race then that's the way it is going to be. Are asians victims of police brutality and racism? Sure, yes. Do asians comprise 75% of the prison population in spite of being a much smaller portion of the general population? No, they don't. It doesn't matter if you can relate to other people's suffering. Furthermore, talking about one race specifically does not diminish the value or importance of other races. It is just that this issue is very focused because of the nature of the problems being discussed, police brutality/bias within the judicial system. Generalizing problems often takes arguments away from the actionable issue into other avenues. Generalizing also ends up in the "let's all be friends and be decent human beings" camp which while being an end goal of activism is not the main point. The main point is to create dialogue and to shed light on problems that would otherwise be ignored. It is important for activism to stay focused for political reasons.

Great post! You make excellent points because even though the point of this protest focuses on the issues of black men vis a vis American justice, it speaks to the larger issues of fairness, equality under the law, a more perfect union etc. These are values that could also help all communities. If it was not for the civil rights movement, we would not have a the kind of forward looking society that we have today. Protests and movements start somewhere and they start small but if they are successful, the could change society and history. Thus, we should not get hang up on the definitions or scope but always try to look at the larger picture. Because if protesting for blacks can bring reform (currently I doubt it) that reform could benefit all communities.

 

[NoDakDok]

Again, I am not addressing the BlackLivesMatter campaign, I was addressing the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives campaign, which is related but very much distinct. Physicians (and medical students) have a social responsibility and expectation of holistic understanding beyond that of the general public. We are not perfect, but even with our humanity we are to do our best to be nondiscriminatory. I choose, personally, to extend this belief to social activism when I am representing my profession.

Because this continues to get misconstrued and this is about as close as I can imagine to three premeds running in circles high-fiving and slapping one another's butt while agreeing with each other, I'll discontinue posting about the issues altogether. I hope some positive change comes out of this, but historically these types of situations quickly go the way of severe Alzheimer's. It's sad, but 'social activism' seems very 'faddy' today. In the meantime, my patients expect me to be learning how to be a good doctor so I don't do something stupid, so I'll get after that.

Best wishes.

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, I am not addressing the BlackLivesMatter campaign, I was addressing the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives campaign, which is related but very much distinct. Physicians (and medical students) have a social responsibility and expectation of holistic understanding beyond that of the general public. We are not perfect, but even with our humanity we are to do our best to be nondiscriminatory. I choose, personally, to extend this belief to social activism.

Because this continues to get misconstrued and this is about as close as I can imagine to three premeds running in circles high-fiving and slapping one another's butt while agreeing with each other, I'll discontinue posting about the issues altogether. I hope some positive change comes out of this, but historically these types of situations quickly go the way of severe Alzheimer's.

I believe in intelligent social activism. This campaign is not an example of that.

 

[Doctorphilic]

I believe in intelligent social activism. This campaign is not an example of that.

What is intelligent social activism?

 

[mehc012]

Again, I am not addressing the BlackLivesMatter campaign, I was addressing the WhiteCoatsForBlackLives campaign, which is related but very much distinct. Physicians (and medical students) have a social responsibility and expectation of holistic understanding beyond that of the general public. We are not perfect, but even with our humanity we are to do our best to be nondiscriminatory.

There's our difference - I do not see it as distinct, and I do not think it should be.
If a crowd of people is chanting the same thing, each voice is not distinct.

If one person or group were to change the message, they'd no longer be contributing to the chant - if several did so it would quickly become a normal crowd of people, with each little cluster engaged in their own conversation.

There are just as many people agreeing with you - no need to start acting like nobody is listening to what you say. Even those who disagree have been discussing the matter.
Because this continues to get misconstrued and this is about as close as I can imagine to three premeds running in circles high-fiving over agreeing with each other, I'll discontinue posting about the issues altogether. I hope some positive change comes out of this, but historically these types of situations quickly go the way of severe Alzheimer's.

 

[Mad Jack]

What is intelligent social activism?

Something that doesn't involve a hashtag and that does involve actual legislation. Or if you're protesting, a real ****ing protest, of the people who actually caused the problem, not just in random places for no solidly related reason. I was an active protestor for a while, the kind of guy who knows how to deal with tear gas and rubber bullets like they're an inconvenient weather event. I find this sort of "social activism" embarrassing and a complete waste of time.