hey aPD - did I just mess up horribly?

[bluegiraffe]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Edited for privacy - realized I don't want the program figuring out who I am and going after me somehow... 🙁 (/paranoia)

 

[iddoc2010]

I'm not aPD, but I've been through the process myself. In my opinion, telling a program you are "ranking them highly" is one of those vague phrases that could mean many different things. I think everyone involved in the application process knows this, and I'm sure the PD at the program you're referring to realizes that when you are saying you will be "ranking them highly", this means you are not ranking them #1. Many applicants tell several programs they are "ranking them highly" whatever it means. The PD has no way of knowing where you will ultimately rank them and no way to know how many programs you told you were "ranking them highly". In theory you could tell every program you apply to this, although it would be less than ethical.

In any case, as you know, the PD flagrantly violated the rules of the Match here...so I doubt he'll be running around telling other PD's about it. This kind of thing is common and tolerated in some subspecialties (e.g. ortho) but not in internal medicine. I'm sorry you were put in that position.

 

[IndyXRT]

I think you did the most reasonable thing, given the situation. I also doubt you're shooting yourself in the foot with other programs by doing this. Sorry you had such a bad experience.

edit: Also, think long and hard about whether you would really rather go to that program than not match at all. I would be tempted not to rank them based on that interaction.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Sounds like the PD is a jerk.

I'd consider not ranking the program.

And, I'd consider reporting it as a match violator -- once the match is done.

I don't think you've done anything bad.

 

[Dral]

Just to further back the OP.

http://www.nrmp.org/fellow/algorithm.html

"It is okay for programs to express a high level of interest in applicants to recruit them into their program, and for applicants to say that they prefer one program over others. Such expressions, however, should not be considered as commitments."

 

[DarthNeurology]

Sounds like the PD is a jerk.

I'd consider not ranking the program.

And, I'd consider reporting it as a match violator -- once the match is done.

I don't think you've done anything bad.

I strongly disagree, in that I strongly feel that the OP should not make matters worse for himself/herself and "report" the program director. First, because it was a phone conversation it is the OP's word against the program director's word. It is probably OK to call up an applicant and ask them 100 times "Where do you want to go?", rude yes, but perhaps not a strict violation of the match rules.

Even if the program director did ask where you are going to rank them, most likely they would not tell the nrmp that they did this.

Even if you do "win", so what? Whistleblowers are NEVER rewarded in medicine, and always punished in one way or another. The program director might have contacts in a fellowship you want and bomb your chances, he/she might be a big whig and you could face retaliation years later.

Believe me, in the program's eye they are offering you a sweet deal to go to their great program and taking a risk by communicating with you, if you go and "report" them they will likely be pretty mad. Maybe the PD "messed up" and accidentally asked you about how you would rank their program and regretted it later. Still it is your word against theirs.

PDs/attendings do plenty of unethical things, and you should save your reputation until you hit something really big in residency, i.e. choose your battles. If this PD is bad their reputation will hurt their residency program, heck, after the match you could tell fellow residents and attendings what happened and it will come back to haunt them.

It is "OK" to tell a program that you will rank them "highly" as it doesn't mean anything and PDs know it. It was a good move to keep the program as a "safety program."

The good thing is that the program IS interested in you, and if everything else is OK, meaning your perception of the PD outside of this, you could still use it as a last resort.

Remember that the attendings/PDs who deserve to be reported are the ones who are most likely to do blatantly retaliatory means things to the whistleblower, part of their personality . . .

 

[SocialistMD]

Even if the program director did ask where you are going to rank them, most likely they would not tell the nrmp that they did this.

The NRMP takes violations very seriously and usually sides with the accuser without needing to confirm it with the accused or even needing much in the way of evidence that the violation actually happened outside of the word of the person reporting the violation.

You need to decide if you think the violation is worth reporting and report it if you feel it is. If you are going to report them, do it regardless of the results of the match. Don't get on your ethical high horse if you end up matching elsewhere, knowing full well that you would not report them should you match there.

 

[bananamed]

If they pressured the OP that many times, they probably pressured a ton of other applicants as well. Blow the whistle, it'll be hard to track.

 

[DarthNeurology]

If they pressured the OP that many times, they probably pressured a ton of other applicants as well. Blow the whistle, it'll be hard to track.

If the phone conversation was very awkward, and perhaps this is one of the few times the PD really pressed the case this season, then yes, they can probably figure out who it was. Who knows, maybe the rules of the nrmp allow the PD to figure out who the person making the complaint is. In fact, I would argue that the nrmp would have to disclose the name of the applicant as the PD would then be able to say that he/she did x,y or z in the case.

In the end, it is not worth the risk to the applicant, the potential losses far exceed any good that can be done. If the OP has trouble obtaining a fellowship or the PD does something mean and figure out where the applicant matches (which he or she will as this is released to PDs), then if there are very adverse consequences for the OP the fact that he/she did the right thing will bring little comfort.

 

[SocialistMD]

In fact, I would argue that the nrmp would have to disclose the name of the applicant as the PD would then be able to say that he/she did x,y or z in the case.

Again, not true. The NRMP makes the program aware that they were reported for a violation of the match rules (they tell them the rule violated) and tell the program that any further report of infringement on the rules results in either probation status or exclusion from the match. They do not name names.

And don't think for a second that any one applicant is so special that they are the only one on whom a tactic is tried. As stated above, it is much more likely that the tactic was used on every applicant the program was planning to rank but from whom they had not heard.

 

[DarthNeurology]

The NRMP takes violations very seriously and usually sides with the accuser without needing to confirm it with the accused or even needing much in the way of evidence that the violation actually happened outside of the word of the person reporting the violation.

Since the applicant is the victim here, there is nothing wrong with protecting him/herself by waiting until after the match, less potential impact on matching.

But again, who cares if the OP wins the "complaint" or not, the PD will still be a PD at the end of the day and the OP could be branded a complainer.

There is no way in the world the applicant could make the complaint, match at the program, have it get out that he/she complained and expect everything to be OK during residency. The PD would find a way to get the resident kicked out.

To the OP, don't listen to people who tell you to report without a care in the world about the risk, because they aren't the one making the complaint and have no risk to them regardless of what happens.

 

[SocialistMD]

Since the applicant is the victim here, there is nothing wrong with protecting him/herself by waiting until after the match, less potential impact on matching.

But again, who cares if the OP wins the "complaint" or not, the PD will still be a PD at the end of the day and the OP could be branded a complainer.

There is no way in the world the applicant could make the complaint, match at the program, have it get out that he/she complained and expect everything to be OK during residency. The PD would find a way to get the resident kicked out.

To the OP, don't listen to people who tell you to report without a care in the world about the risk, because they aren't the one making the complaint and have no risk to them regardless of what happens.

Look, I could care less if the OP reported the call or not and I don't care if it happens before or after the match if it is going to happen. What concerns me is that you speak like a voice of authority on a subject of which you clearly aren't. They do not give out names. If the program has been reported before, the program director may not be a program director because the program may cease to exist, as that is the power the NRMP has and that is the power they enjoy flaunting.

Leave the OP to make his or her own decisions, but don't continue to try and scare him/her with your own paranoia.

 

[DarthNeurology]

Look, I could care less if the OP reported the call or not and I don't care if it happens before or after the match if it is going to happen. What concerns me is that you speak like a voice of authority on a subject of which you clearly aren't. They do not give out names. If the program has been reported before, the program director may not be a program director because the program may cease to exist, as that is the power the NRMP has and that is the power they enjoy flaunting.

Leave the OP to make his or her own decisions, but don't continue to try and scare him/her with your own paranoia.

As per NRMP rules you can request that a complaint be anonymous. But it is always a gamble if that information stays anonymous. If your complaint is fairly detailed there is a good chance that the PD can figure out who it was. It is naive to assume that there would be no backlash from an action that could shut down a residency program.

I speak from experience and have seen similar cases work out not so well for the complainer. Everybody can offer their opinion, hence, the point of SDN. The only "voice of authority" on this subject would be someone who made a complaint regarding a match violation.

If you have any specific examples or know someone who made a complaint against a program for a match violation that would be useful information, otherwise everyone on this thread is pretty much not a "voice of authority".

I think we both would agree that the PD *should* be reported. In the real world there are sometimes very bad adverse effects when doing the right thing.

I would caution the OP that before taking action there could be negative consequences. As per your own words you state that you "could care less" regarding if the complaint is made or not and when it is made. I actually care that the OP could be burned by such an action, and as APD pointed out, it is best to make the complaint after the match. And since AProgDirector IS a PD, he/she's advice is much more trustworthy than yours.

 

[smq123]

It is probably OK to call up an applicant and ask them 100 times "Where do you want to go?", rude yes, but perhaps not a strict violation of the match rules.

It is not only rude, it IS a Match violation. The NRMP clearly states that you can volunteer information, but purposely soliciting this kind of information (i.e. "What is your #1?" "Where do you want to end up?") is a violation.

Believe me, in the program's eye they are offering you a sweet deal to go to their great program and taking a risk by communicating with you, if you go and "report" them they will likely be pretty mad.

The good thing is that the program IS interested in you, and if everything else is OK, meaning your perception of the PD outside of this, you could still use it as a last resort.

You can't know this.

It is to the PD's benefit if every applicant ranks their program #1, because they get their top choices. It doesn't necessarily mean that the program really WANTS the OP that badly; they may just be trying to game the Match so that it plays into their favor.

If you have any specific examples or know someone who made a complaint against a program for a match violation that would be useful information, otherwise everyone on this thread is pretty much not a "voice of authority".

I don't know....if aProgDirector would consider reporting it as a match violation, I probably would believe him over you. Not to be offensive, but I would trust his opinion, seeing that he is an actual program director!

 

[error404]

I don't know....if aProgDirector would consider reporting it as a match violation, I probably would believe him over you. Not to be offensive, but I would trust his opinion, seeing that he is an actual program director!

Woah. Did anyone else out there always magically assume that aProgDirector is a she?

Pronouns are funny things.

 

[SocialistMD]

If you have any specific examples or know someone who made a complaint against a program for a match violation that would be useful information, otherwise everyone on this thread is pretty much not a "voice of authority".

I gave you the outcome of the case on which I have specific knowledge. It is the reason that I speak with the certainty that I do. I do not need to give details other than to say that the program was notified that it was reported as having violated a rule in the match and the anonymity of the person reporting the violation was maintained by the NRMP, as those are the only details germane to this discussion. If the OP would like further details, s/he can feel free to PM me.

I think we both would agree that the PD *should* be reported...
As per your own words you state that you "could care less" regarding if the complaint is made or not and when it is made. I actually care that the OP could be burned by such an action, and as APD pointed out, it is best to make the complaint after the match.

Again, you are reading what you want to and not what I am saying. If I felt the PD should be reported, I would have said so. Instead, I said I could care less if the OP reports the violation (which you somehow interpreted to mean that I could care less about the outcome for the OP). Also, I never said it should happen before or after the match, only that, if the OP decides to report it, the report should be made despite the outcomes of the match.

My personal opinion on this matter is that, yes, it is a match violation, but on the spectrum of crimes it is like running a red light, not murder. I would not feel overwhelmingly obligated to report it if it happened to me, as the net harm done is minimal, much as I would not call 911 if I saw someone run a red light. That is why I made the point that, if the OP is going to report it, it should be reported regardless of the outcome of the match. If the OP feels this match violation is worth reporting, it should be reported; it shouldn't be reported simply because s/he was inconvenienced by the call and will not report it if s/he ends up at said program. I guess my point is, stick to your guns; if it is wrong, it is wrong.

 

[DarthNeurology]

Also, I never said it should happen before or after the match, only that, if the OP decides to report it, the report should be made despite the outcomes of the match.

My personal opinion on this matter is that, yes, it is a match violation, but on the spectrum of crimes it is like running a red light, not murder. I would not feel overwhelmingly obligated to report it if it happened to me, as the net harm done is minimal, much as I would not call 911 if I saw someone run a red light.

My points of issues with you are:

1. APD recommends, as do I, to wait until the match is over to report this. This implies on APD part that such action could hurt the applicant's application in the match, or that there is a probability of this happening. You site one case where the anonymity was "maintained" of the applicant, but this is no guarantee this would always be the case. You appear very inflexible that the OP should "get off their high horse" and make the complaint even if they match at the program. There are practical issues you are ignoring.

2. You say in two different posts that this match violatioin is like "running a red light" while earlier you said that match violations could result in a program director not being a program director and a program ceasing to exist. Please. Obviously such action could have pretty bad consequences for a residency program, it would be naive to assume that the applicant would be perfectly shielded from any revenge/retaliation.

3. You attack the OP saying that he/she should get off their "high ethical horse" and report the violation "regardless" of the match results, while you might not report the violation as it does "minimal harm." You also state the PD is probably doing this to a lot of the other applicants. So I think that what the PD did, did cause harm to the applicant that was more than minimal, especially if done to many applicants. Your overall all contribution to the post, ending with the advice of "stick to your guns" seem to be a too inflexible approach devoid of pragmatism, which I guess is my major "concern" with you.

 

[SocialistMD]

DarthNeurology-

Perhaps it is just that I am not being as clear as possible. Let me attempt to lay it out as clearly as I can.

1. APD recommends, as do I, to wait until the match is over to report this.

1. No, you don't (or, at least, you initally didn't, as the below quote is a direct response to aProgDirector's post).

I strongly disagree, in that I strongly feel that the OP should not make matters worse for himself/herself and "report" the program director.

2. Please reread each and every post I've made on this thread and tell me where I've said anything to the contrary. I've never once said when it should be done, only that if the OP feels it should be done, the OP should follow through with his/her actions regardless of the outcome of the match.

This implies on APD part that such action could hurt the applicant's application in the match, or that there is a probability of this happening.

You are making leaps here. The NRMP has a lot invested in protecting the anonymity of people reporting because it ensures the integrity of the match. If word got out that they were releasing names, no one would report any violators and the NRMP would lose its tight control on the process. Sure, there is a slight probability that anonymity could be lost (much as there is a slight probability that personal identifiers could be leaked to the public in any clinical trial), and if the OP is so concerned about that, s/he shouldn't report the violation, be it before or after the match, because anonymity could be lost after the match just as easily as it could before.

You site one case where the anonymity was "maintained" of the applicant, but this is no guarantee this would always be the case.

And you've cited nothing, making my example the most valid and true, as your argument is based entirely on your own paranoia and speculation.

2. You say in two different posts that this match violatioin is like "running a red light" while earlier you said that match violations could result in a program director not being a program director and a program ceasing to exist.

There are laws and there are rules. Murder is against the law, as is running a red light. Asking a person where they are ranking you is against the rules. I liken the rule violation to running a red light more than murder, therefore I am ambivalent as to whether or not the OP reports it.

A match violation (actually, it usually requires more than one) can result in a program being put on probation or being withheld from the match. There is no conflict in my statement. I see the violation listed as a minor offense (and, thus, would not report it myself), but the NRMP sees things in a much more black and white way. Just because I think it is excessive to cane someone for vandalism doesn't mean it doesn't happen in some countries. The same is true here; I think it is excessive to put programs on probation or withhold them from the match for something like this, but I don't make the rules or the consequences, the NRMP does.

Obviously such action could have pretty bad consequences for a residency program, it would be naive to assume that the applicant would be perfectly shielded from any revenge/retaliation.

See above about NRMP and privacy.

3. You attack the OP saying that he/she should get off their "high ethical horse" and report the violation "regardless" of the match results, while you might not report the violation as it does "minimal harm."

Once again, I am not telling the OP to report it. I'm saying that, if the OP feels that breaking the rules (or even this particular rule) deserves to be reported, then s/he should report it no matter what. I've never said to report it before or after the match or even that the OP should report it. All I want is for the OP to decide whether or not it is a reportable offense and then act accordingly. In my mind, if the OP decides it is a reportable offense and does not report it (for whatever reason you fancy), it would be like not reporting a murder because s/he feared the murderer would come back and kill him/her (for clarification, because this seems to be a sticking point for you, I do not think it is like murder which is why I do not think it necessarily needs to be reported).

My whole point was that if the OP feels it is a reportable offense, then it is a reportable offense. That doesn't change before, during or after the match. To just let it go because s/he gets his/her way in the end or to become afraid to report it because s/he ends up at said program is letting the PD off the hook the OP created and isn't the way this should be done. If you decide in your mind that an offense is reportable, that shouldn't be conditional, and if there were any scenario under which you'd report it, then you should report it under every scenario. That's all I've been trying to say.

You also state the PD is probably doing this to a lot of the other applicants. So I think that what the PD did, did cause harm to the applicant that was more than minimal, especially if done to many applicants.

So, you are saying the OP should report it, then? Then you should tell the OP to report it, after the match if you will, regardless of the outcome of the match, as it was still a more than minimal harm.

Your overall all contribution to the post, ending with the advice of "stick to your guns" seem to be a too inflexible approach devoid of pragmatism, which I guess is my major "concern" with you.

Let's compare contributions, shall we?
Provided a factual example of what happens when people report match violations
SocialistMD-Yes
DarthNeurology-No

Tried to get the OP to make a decision on his/her own based on his/her evaluation of the situation and then stick to it
SocialistMD-Yes
DarthNeurology-No

Encouraged a paranoid thought process without any substantial evidence on which to base it, other than fear
SocialistMD-No
DarthNeurology-Yes

Repeatedly put words into another poster's mouth/misinterpreted what was said to further his own agenda
SocialistMD-No
DarthNeurology-Yes

Sullied the Sith name
SocialistMD-No
DarthNeurology-Yes

I guess you did contribute more than me. Bravo...

P.S. I never attacked the OP, I simply said that if s/he decides to report it then s/he should stick to that decision.

 

[bluegiraffe]

ZOMG you guys! Well thanks to everyone who reassured me I hadn't messed up my chances. You all have good points but I'm sorry this has turned into a bloodbath... maybe I will and maybe I won't, but right now I've got better things to do, like stressing over if I'm going to match or not, and I'm not going to think about it again until after March 19.... otherwise the terrorists win.

 

[bananamed]

Let's compare contributions, shall we?
Provided a factual example of what happens when people report match violations
SocialistMD-Yes
DarthNeurology-No

Tried to get the OP to make a decision on his/her own based on his/her evaluation of the situation and then stick to it
SocialistMD-Yes
DarthNeurology-No

Encouraged a paranoid thought process without any substantial evidence on which to base it, other than fear
SocialistMD-No
DarthNeurology-Yes

Repeatedly put words into another poster's mouth/misinterpreted what was said to further his own agenda
SocialistMD-No
DarthNeurology-Yes

Sullied the Sith name
SocialistMD-No
DarthNeurology-Yes

I guess you did contribute more than me. Bravo...

👍

 

[dragonfly99]

Please let's try and keep this discussion civil.

I can't see the original post as it's been deleted.

It sounds like the PD asked the applicant "Where do you want to go?". So, it's pressure tactics. I'd just tell the program you are very strongly considering them, would love to live there/go there, etc. They are just trying to twist your arm. Say whatever, and then rank the programs in the order you really want...

I would strongly advise against reporting any programs prior to the Match deadline...not smart to stick your neck out at this point. If you end up matching at that program, I wouldn't report the program because if they find out you did it they could make your life hell...simply not worth the risk. There was somebody who blew the whistle on Hopkins several years ago for work hours violations and they got forced out/booted, as far as I know. Of course, perhaps he was a lazy, not good intern too and there's more to the story, but I know the person pretty much got drummed out of there and went to another program.

If the program did the same thing to a lot of applicants they might find it hard to figure out who reported them, but if they only phoned 5 or 6 people like that, it wouldn't necessarily be that hard to figure it out. Also, if they didn't blatantly ask you where you'd rank them or to repeat your rank list to them verbatim, probably hard to prove any Match violation...

 

[SocialistMD]

If you end up matching at that program, I wouldn't report the program because if they find out you did it they could make your life hell...simply not worth the risk.

So, you are basically saying it is okay to have your cake and eat it, too? I think that is a big problem today; we only do what is convenient for us and don't have any moral conviction. If you (or the OP or anyone) feel this violation should be reported, you are basically saying you are morally opposed to this violation of the rules to the point that you need to take action. You shouldn't make caveats for it that make your life easier.

In reading the responses so far, I am apparently the only one that sees it this way. Maybe it is because I've stepped out of my surgery forum or maybe it is a sign of the changing times, but I remember when people used to actually have a backbone and stood up for what they believed in and didn't just look to get people in trouble when they themselves would not suffer any consequences. I guess everyone is okay with the OP reporting the PD after the match if s/he matches at any other program and you'll all revel in the fact that s/he somehow "got them" for breaking the rules you so earnestly feel you should protect and help enforce...that is, when you stand to gain everything and lose nothing.

I'm going back to my hole...

 

[bluegiraffe]

I'm kind of surprised by the amount of ire this has raised. I was only asking if I had completely shot myself in the foot by caving to a pd's pressure tactics and saying I liked the program more than I did... and now I'm the one with some huge moral quandary on my hands? I'm going to lay low until after the match, then think about it again. Luckily I'm doing IM and not like plastics or something where everyone knows everyone's business, but it's still a small world and I'm not in a position to burn bridges... and given that I'm not even sure I should rank this program at all now, I doubt that I'll be in the position of matching there and then "chickening out" on reporting or whatever - yes, the point about sticking to your guns is valid, but if the worst should happen and I end up at this program and am too intimidated to report, I don't think that would make me the bad guy in this story...

 

[DarthNeurology]

So, you are basically saying it is okay to have your cake and eat it, too? I think that is a big problem today; we only do what is convenient for us and don't have any moral conviction. If you (or the OP or anyone) feel this violation should be reported, you are basically saying you are morally opposed to this violation of the rules to the point that you need to take action. You shouldn't make caveats for it that make your life easier.
...that is, when you stand to gain everything and lose nothing.

I don't think you should be preaching about moral conviction when you yourself said that maybe this is a "red light" and you yourself might not report it. This is bad, but not like you knew that the PD maliciously killed a patient!

As DragonFly said, the guy who reported problems at Hopkins from being awake too many hours got canned by the residency, although he was correct in doing so. Point being you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I was in a similar situation and "did the right thing" but, boy, did it come back to haunt me in the form of retaliation and harrassment. Reality is that there are a lot of mid-level infarctions in medicine, such as what the PD did, . . . you can report them and make the situation better, but you will be targeted in your residency.

OK, Socialist, say your residency program is over the 80-hour work week by 1 hour, so you are working 81 hours for maybe 4 months, a minor but real infarction, are you going to go on a crusade against your surgical PD and threaten them with shutting down the program? I think we all know what would happen to you regardless of what happens to the program.

In my experience, the people complaining about how the world lack moral conviction etc. . . are the ones who have moral deficiencies themselves are are exteriorizing their problems.

As the OP said, he/she is not the aggressor offender, it is perfectly moral I think in this situation to not report until after the match as there is no clear connection to patient care. There are other ways to deal with this, such as an anonymous letter to the PD asking him/her not to make such phone calls in the future and that it could lead to the program being reported.

Socialist, you demonstrate a remarkable degree of inflexibility towards others when applying your rules of morality, yet you yourself admit that you might not report this, letting yourself off the hook. It is bad to hold others to a different standard than you yourself prescribe to.

 

[DarthNeurology]

I'm kind of surprised by the amount of ire this has raised. I was only asking if I had completely shot myself in the foot by caving to a pd's pressure tactics and saying I liked the program more than I did... and now I'm the one with some huge moral quandary on my hands? I'm going to lay low until after the match, then think about it again. Luckily I'm doing IM and not like plastics or something where everyone knows everyone's business, but it's still a small world and I'm not in a position to burn bridges... and given that I'm not even sure I should rank this program at all now, I doubt that I'll be in the position of matching there and then "chickening out" on reporting or whatever - yes, the point about sticking to your guns is valid, but if the worst should happen and I end up at this program and am too intimidated to report, I don't think that would make me the bad guy in this story...

I think it is a good decision to realize that it is a small world, and to wait until after the match. No residency program would make it easy for a resident who reported the program even before being an intern, this is just reality.

It is easy on an anonymous message board to encourage people to take actions for which the instigator will have no consequences. Take everything you hear here with a grain of salt.

 

[SocialistMD]

I don't think you should be preaching about moral conviction when you yourself said that maybe this is a "red light" and you yourself might not report it. This is bad, but not like you knew that the PD maliciously killed a patient!

OK, Socialist, say your residency program is over the 80-hour work week by 1 hour, so you are working 81 hours for maybe 4 months, a minor but real infarction, are you going to go on a crusade against your surgical PD and threaten them with shutting down the program? I think we all know what would happen to you regardless of what happens to the program.

In my experience, the people complaining about how the world lack moral conviction etc. . . are the ones who have moral deficiencies themselves are are exteriorizing their problems.

Socialist, you demonstrate a remarkable degree of inflexibility towards others when applying your rules of morality, yet you yourself admit that you might not report this, letting yourself off the hook. It is bad to hold others to a different standard than you yourself prescribe to.

I don't know how I can make you understand what I am saying, because you are still arguing points that don't address my points, so much so that your basic argument is now against me; that I am inflexible and lack moral conviction and am externalizing my problems on the OP.

I drive fast. Really, really fast. I usually go about 20% over the posted speed limit on any given road, moreso on highways. I am breaking a law. I am not reckless in my driving (I am actually a high-speed driving instructor for middle-aged men who have too much money and want to drive their Porsches, Ferraris, etc. on a track), but I do go fast. If I were to drive past you, would you call and report me? Most likely not; you know that I am speeding, but you have determined that my breaking that law isn't such a big deal that it needs to be reported. You do not value the speed limit as much as you do murder. That is how I feel about this particular rule violation. That is point two. I shouldn't have to defend it anymore, nor should my moral convictions be questioned because I agree with some rules and not others or because I see some infractions as less severe than others and make my decisions accordingly.

Point one is this; if there is a law that one values so much that they feel they should report its violation to the authorities, that should be an absolute. To me, murder is the most obvious example. If I saw someone murdered, I would call the police. I wouldn't be detered by the fear of any hypothetical retaliation by the murderer. The same is true for a violation of the rules. If you value a rule so much that you feel its violation deserves intervention, then it should always deserve intervention. This is undergraduate philosophy of law, nothing more.

What disappoints me is that, with growing frequency, people are using "rules violations" as an excuse to get back at someone for doing something that inconvenienced them, not because they think it was wrong. If one thinks this violation is wrong and that is why she wants to report the program, then it should be reported no matter what because the violation was still committed. However, if one simply wants to report the violation in an effort to get back at the PD, well, that is how children behave, not adults.

 

[DarthNeurology]

I drive fast. Really, really fast. I usually go about 20% over the posted speed limit on any given road, moreso on highways. I am breaking a law. I am not reckless in my driving (I am actually a high-speed driving instructor . . .

Not to get into a flame war, but I take issue with people who break the speed limits, especially on freeways. Since the speed limit has been increased in this country there have been more traffic deaths attributed to the limit being raised.

It is not a matter of being a professional high-speed driving instructor, it is a matter of having your reaction time significantly decreased and passing other drivers on the freeway at speeds significantly greater than how fast they are driving. This is just plain simple physics, not a comment about your skills as a driver.

I would give you a ticket if I was a Cop as your driving pattern does endanger people more than doing the speed limit.

I think violations that we are talking about here are "wrong" and violate whatever law or nrmp match rule. Students and applicants who are victims of such violations are put in a difficult position regarding whether to report the violation or not, . . . not that the violation is not "wrong" the letter of the law and rules of the nrmp are clear.

What is wrong IS wrong, it doesn't depend on the perception of the victim.

If a 12 year old girl has sexual intercourse with a 40 year old man and doesn't think it is wrong, you can be sure that the courts and police think differently and will prosecute the 40 year old.

This is basic law, it doesn't matter if Socialist is speeding but a fellow driver thinks it is "OK", Socialist still broke the law and puts lives at risk, which is reckless driving . . .

 

[SocialistMD]

Not to get into a flame war, but I take issue with people who break the speed limits, especially on freeways. Since the speed limit has been increased in this country there have been more traffic deaths attributed to the limit being raised.

It is not a matter of being a professional high-speed driving instructor, it is a matter of having your reaction time significantly decreased and passing other drivers on the freeway at speeds significantly greater than how fast they are driving. This is just plain simple physics, not a comment about your skills as a driver.

I would give you a ticket if I was a Cop as your driving pattern does endanger people more than doing the speed limit.

I think violations that we are talking about here are "wrong" and violate whatever law or nrmp match rule. Students and applicants who are victims of such violations are put in a difficult position regarding whether to report the violation or not, . . . not that the violation is not "wrong" the letter of the law and rules of the nrmp are clear.

What is wrong IS wrong, it doesn't depend on the perception of the victim.

If a 12 year old girl has sexual intercourse with a 40 year old man and doesn't think it is wrong, you can be sure that the courts and police think differently and will prosecute the 40 year old.

This is basic law, it doesn't matter if Socialist is speeding but a fellow driver thinks it is "OK", Socialist still broke the law and puts lives at risk, which is reckless driving . . .

I apologize for derailing this thread with my talk of moral obligation and speeding. DarthNeurology I'm glad you are a good citizen who abides by the letter of every law on the books and I'll just PM you my reply.

 

[dragonfly99]

please, please, gentleman, can we keep this discussion civil and not resort to personal attacks? I shudder to know that was in that PM...

The OP simply asked us for some advice about what I think is probably a fairly common dilemma in the match process. It's just a little unusual in that
it happened in internal med.

I really don't think the OP has much to worry about here...not sure that what was done rises to the level of a reportable offense to NRMP. Personally, I would not bother. The OP is stressed out too much about this. The OP sounds like a good candidate who has gone to numerous IM interviews...the OP is very likely to match at the OP's #1 or #2 if he/she is a US grad...that's what happens at IM. So if the OP doesn't like this program that much, just rank them lower than 3 and you very likely won't go there. Don't let programs pressure you into changing your rank list. Your med school dean's office/career office probably can tell you lots of reassuring stories about situations like this. Don't worry, the program is not going to "come after" you pretty much regardless of what you said to them (or didn't say) - they have bigger fish to fry. Also, the internal medicine world (even in academics) is so big that even if someone decided to hate you, they'd have to really hate you a lot and expend a lot of effort to hurt your future chances of something like a fellowship down the road. Realistically, that won't happen as a result of some action you took as a student in the Match.

 

[Excelsius]

So, you are basically saying it is okay to have your cake and eat it, too? I think that is a big problem today; we only do what is convenient for us and don't have any moral conviction. If you (or the OP or anyone) feel this violation should be reported, you are basically saying you are morally opposed to this violation of the rules to the point that you need to take action. You shouldn't make caveats for it that make your life easier.

In reading the responses so far, I am apparently the only one that sees it this way. Maybe it is because I've stepped out of my surgery forum or maybe it is a sign of the changing times, but I remember when people used to actually have a backbone and stood up for what they believed in and didn't just look to get people in trouble when they themselves would not suffer any consequences. I guess everyone is okay with the OP reporting the PD after the match if s/he matches at any other program and you'll all revel in the fact that s/he somehow "got them" for breaking the rules you so earnestly feel you should protect and help enforce...that is, when you stand to gain everything and lose nothing.

I'm going back to my hole...

I completely agree with you. Osteoporosis of the vertebral column seems to be a real issue. I am not sure if this case warranted any reporting, since the OP seemed to be ok with what happened, but when residents fail to notify their fellow colleagues about malicious programs, even on an anonymous forum, there is a cause for concern. It might also be the cause for the potency of the insurance companies. It seems that doctors are either worried about their safety or concerned about convenience ("I don't have time to fix the system").

Ok, sorry for further derailing this thread, but I think this is tangentially related to what the OP experienced.