I'm Bleg. (You really should have been able to figure that one out by yourself.)
Who said doctors should not be allowed to drink? Not I.
Then it's a good thing I didn't make any such remark, as I'm sure you'll agree.
I heard some docs smoke weed, Do they get fired?
- Thread starter jjeangi
- Start date
I'm Bleg. (You really should have been able to figure that one out by yourself.)
Who said doctors should not be allowed to drink? Not I.
Then it's a good thing I didn't make any such remark, as I'm sure you'll agree.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 0
You said they "should not," not that they "should not be allowed." It still begs the questions, why? What is wrong with doctors drinking socially?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 293
- Reaction score
- 2
I don't really understand what is still being "debated" here. There is nothing wrong with saying:
1) Doctors should not use illegal drugs simply because they're illegal. It is impractical, as they run the risk of losing their license and worsening the public image of the profession. This is a pragmatic, not ethical, position.
2) It is not automatically immoral to break a law, especially one like marijuana prohibition. However, it displays poor judgment for a physician to use illegal drugs.
From what I gather, most people have been in agreement with these two points.
The other concept that has been put forward, that legality=morality, is deeply disturbing to me. Someone who is willing to forfeit their personal ethical judgment to the legal system and support laws that, for example, subjugate women may not be qualified to make the challenging ethical decisions inherent in medicine.
1) Doctors should not use illegal drugs simply because they're illegal. It is impractical, as they run the risk of losing their license and worsening the public image of the profession. This is a pragmatic, not ethical, position.
2) It is not automatically immoral to break a law, especially one like marijuana prohibition. However, it displays poor judgment for a physician to use illegal drugs.
From what I gather, most people have been in agreement with these two points.
The other concept that has been put forward, that legality=morality, is deeply disturbing to me. Someone who is willing to forfeit their personal ethical judgment to the legal system and support laws that, for example, subjugate women may not be qualified to make the challenging ethical decisions inherent in medicine.
Last edited:
As a matter of personal morality, I think people should never, ever knowingly allow themselves to recreationally enter a state of compromised judgment. For a doctor, I believe this is doubly true. So I agree that a doctor should not drink alcohol, ever. Nevertheless, there is nothing illegal about drinking alcohol, or even getting drunk, so it is not in the same category as smoking pot.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 1
Wow Bleg! For all your shots at Nazi germans, you would have made a remarkably good citizen of that state...
By your logic the common morality of that state dictated the laws that ended up in the prosecution of jews. So it would have been immoral for anyone to disobey them. Your claims to an exception given higher moral principles base your whole system on judgement calls, which is extremely dangerous.
Here is where your conceptions of morality are disturbing: You coat your appeal for mindless obedience with self-contradicting "reasoning".
It boils down to this: no form of government is perfect. Every society will have at points laws that do not reflect morality, and it is the duty of citizens to correct them, but also oppose them if they must.
By your logic the common morality of that state dictated the laws that ended up in the prosecution of jews. So it would have been immoral for anyone to disobey them. Your claims to an exception given higher moral principles base your whole system on judgement calls, which is extremely dangerous.
Here is where your conceptions of morality are disturbing: You coat your appeal for mindless obedience with self-contradicting "reasoning".
It boils down to this: no form of government is perfect. Every society will have at points laws that do not reflect morality, and it is the duty of citizens to correct them, but also oppose them if they must.
The only people who have "put forward" such a simple-minded equation are those using it as a straw man.
Can you give some example in this thread that illustrates your concern? I doubt it.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,750
- Reaction score
- 2,485
It's actually amazing that we have all pretty much agreed on the first 2 points. Usually that takes about 3 pages (or never) for it to happen.
As far as the last issue, you're totally right - it's disturbing.
Your shameless ad hominem demonstrates that neither you nor your arguments can be taken seriously.
Only if you lack the intellectual faculties to understand my logic.
Yet I explicitly disclaimed this. Your argument is dishonest.
Nonsense. All legislation is based on judgment calls.
There is nothing "mindless" about such obedience, except perhaps to those who wish not to obey. I do not pay my taxes "mindlessly", nor do I seek to find illegal ways to avoid paying them. This is not "mindless", but purposeful.
You have failed to define under what circumstances the citizens "must" "oppose them". I gather you think of smoking pot as a courageous show of civil disobedience necessary to correct the grossly unjust laws. I find this type of shallow non-thinking common among those who seek to justify their actions rather than analyze the underlying reasons for the existence of law.
Now you're changing mid-stream. That is dishonest of you. You had claimed:
Yet this is not an example of a Saudi woman refusing to "cover up". I don't see that act as either immoral or unethical. Saudi women are not enfranchised and have no ability directly to influence law. They are, in effect, slaves to the state. Slaves in such a situation have no ethical or moral obligation to continue their servitude. If a Saudi woman refuses to cover up on principle, more power to her, I say.
But the example was one where an outsider, desiring financial gain, willingly enters Saudi Arabia and also willingly agrees to be bound by the laws of Saudi Arabia. This is a starkly different situation. When you willingly and voluntarily enter into slavery, you have forfeited your right to freedom. In such a case, you are indeed morally and ethically obligated to uphold the law.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 1
Ok, now you are just turning your arguments into a hot mess. I see no point in continuing this with you.
I think another consensus of this thread, other than the 2 already listed is that Bleg is one disturbing individual.
I think another consensus of this thread, other than the 2 already listed is that Bleg is one disturbing individual.
Translation: I lack the ability to argue the point, and I lack the honesty to concede your argument, so I'll just pretend to be disgusted and leave.
Translation: That is, I will leave after I hurl another ad hominem.
To others arguing against my point: Do you accept d1ony5u5's posts as representative of your own thoughts, or do you disclaim him/her/it?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 1
You might think what you like, but the truth is that you go back and forth and modify your arguments. There is no point in arguing with you when all you say you go back on later on.
I care not for what someone with limited capacity for analysis like you thinks of me.
I care not for what someone with limited capacity for analysis like you thinks of me.
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 748
Bleg is a disease and should be banned, from joining the medical profession that is. I agree with the other posters about his "disturbing views" on morality and upholding the law. Doctors shouldn't drink? Interesting. By your explanation this is only slightly immoral, not as bad as smoking pot. I guess most doctors are immoral then.
Yet you are unable to articulate any reason why, other than that you don't like my views. Ad hominem is all you can dredge up.
What paragons of tolerance you are!
Then you can rest easy.
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 748
I have already gone through this with you and will not waste my time, and I'll let you drag in other posters with your senseless arguments and borderline juvenile antics. good day
Really? Where and when would this be?
If they are so "senseless", you can easily refute them. Yet you do not.
I wonder why?
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 748
good try...wont fall for this again
Convincing argument. Your logic is devastating.
Way to keep your word about not wasting your time!
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
Apparently, I do not. I thought I had answered your question thoroughly.
Apparently not.
I never expressed moral qualms about having a good time -- unless you believe that getting blasted is the only way to "have a good time".
Of course I did, quite explicitly. You just didn't like my answer.
I can think of no social situation where proper judgment is not required. And a physician never knows when he might be called upon to practice as a physician. Work hours have nothing to do with the exigencies of reality.
Not sure what's so hard about what I said. I believe that people should never, ever willingly relinquish their ability to exercise sound judgment, and certainly not for recreational purposes. Medical doctors, having as they do special knowledge and ability, are in my view even more obligated to avoid any compromise of their judgment. Some compromised judgment is inevitable, of course, but willingly impairing your judgment for the sake of "fun" is not in that class.
Now, you may not agree with this, but disagreement is not the same as misunderstanding. I can see how you might disagree with my obvious point, but I don't see how you can misunderstand it.
Bleg is correct. Physicians should always be on point ready to save everyone around them from the danger that they have unknowingly put themselves in. Never let down your guard. You just never know. Some day you (as a physician) may be at a party and then all of the sudden the deck collapses and dozens of young men and women will be impaled on wooden stakes screaming for a doctor (Episode of ER). Luckily, you had not even sipped a beer, or smirnoff ice, and can save all of their lives.
Your mockery of my beliefs marks your unwillingness to consider opinions beyond your own, but does not affect the integrity of my position. A considered rebuttal would be of more use for the discussion than mere mockery.
Mockery doesn't become funnier just because you disclaim it. In your case, the mockery was so broad and overboard ("impaled on wooden stakes", "save all of their lives") that protesting innocence doesn't even sound clever, just obstinate.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
His mockery serves to highlight the faulty logic of your argument. Your argument is physicians should never drink as it compromises there judgment when there may be a situation outside of work that such judgment is nec.
What is wrong with this logic is a physician that is NOT on call or working does not need to be responsible for others well being. Should they help someone if a situation arises and they are needed - sure. But it is not a doctors duty to live his whole life just so he may be 'ready' if some health issue arises with another person. - physicians spend enough time working, in fact it's important that they have time to relax and not worry about saving others.
So basically, now I understand your argument, I just think it is completely flawed and absolutely ridiculous.
O ye, and I figured you would probably use the 'only way of having fun is drinking' blah blah...I don't believe that at all...but it certainly is damn fun
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,173
- Reaction score
- 261
Obviously you've never seen that episode of ER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,153
- Reaction score
- 12
Wow, and I belong to my med school's wine society. We get together a few times each month and drink fine wines and discuss the history and characteristics of the particular variety of grape that is featured that evening. Imagine that, a bunch of docs and medical students sitting around and drinking wine together. Learning and laughing and entering into altered states of consciousneness with compromised judgment.
Just curious: Do you know what is meant by "logic"? His reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't demonstrate my logic to be faulty. It only demonstrates that he finds it worthy of mockery.
My argument was never that "physicians should never drink as it compromises there [sic] judgment when there may be a situation outside of work". Rather, my argument was that disobeying the law without a clear moral or ethical imperative to do so was, by definition, unethical. Someone compared smoking pot with drinking alcohol; I merely pointed out the obvious difference that drinking alcohol was not illegal.
As a separate aside, someone asked what I thought about physicians drinking alcohol. I gave it as my personal opinion that people should not impair their judgment, either through legal or illegal drugs, and that those with higher social responsibility were more obligated to avoid this. But that was a separate discussion from the original, and I certainly never said that doctors should not be allowed to drink.
This is a social question on which we apparently disagree. I believe that we are always responsible for the well-being of others. Our societal obligation to see to the well-being of our fellow man does not end with our work hours.
Agreed. But that is much different from saying that people ought intentionally to make themselves unfit to make important value judgments.
Another example of how much you respect my opinion, I assume.
True enough. I don't really watch TV. I guess that's another reason I shouldn't be a doctor; I can't relate well enough to those who watch TV all the time.
No TV, no drugs, no alcohol. How on earth does Bleg manage to have any fun at all in life? Why, what in life could possibly be fun besides drugging oneself and vegging out in front of the tube?
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
well bleg, I certainly agree that I do not respect your opinion bc said opinion is just off
Also I am not arguing about your opinion on pot, just your statement in regards to alcohol
Anyways...Enjoy your very sober life...let me guess you live a life of celibacy?
Also I am not arguing about your opinion on pot, just your statement in regards to alcohol
Anyways...Enjoy your very sober life...let me guess you live a life of celibacy?
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,009
- Reaction score
- 4,496
This is such a shockingly childish statement that I almost choked on my arizona ice tea after I read it. Let's all go ask bleg whether he thinks we should look at dirty pictures and use swear words at the dinner table too.
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 9,746
- Reaction score
- 1,670
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,516
I've always surprised at how wierded out/offended people are at the idea that someone doesn't drink. It's an idea that has been (and contunes to be) a central point of morality for multiple religions and systems of secular morality, and at one point was even written into the United States Constitution. Whenever I tell people I don't drink, though, I always get a look like I have a d-ck growing out of my forehead. And that's just the fact that I personally don't drink. The idea that people shouldn't drink, an idea that is a central point of morality for multiple secular and religious systems of morality and at one point was part of the United States Constitution, is just flat out incomprehensible to them. It's not that they disagree with the idea, it's that they see the idea as so idiotic that it's not worth considering.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
NO not at all....I actually have nothing wrong with people who dont drink, your life your choice, I could care a less..
I just don't like bleg
Please note it well. "Colonol [sic] Forbin" doesn't like me. He is not offended at my opinion; rather, it's me personally he dislikes. And why? After all, he doesn't even know me. Why is it that he is so personally antipathetic toward me as an individual? Why, because he dislikes my personal opinions about alcohol, as expressed on this thread.
And this is a guy gunning to be a medical doctor. The very pinnacle of bigotry and personal intolerance, shouting down anyone who disagrees with him and refusing to engage in logical conversation, preferring instead to hurl ad hominem and invective at those he disagrees with and take a personal dislike to them.
Wonderful doctor material.
You can hide behind an anonymous screen name, "Colonol", but you are who you are. Your hatefulness and intolerance toward individuals who disagree with your opinion is a part of your personality. You are happy to display it as long as you find yourself in the political majority, where it will be put up with. Good luck with that hateful intolerance when you find yourself on the non-politically-correct side of things, assuming you have the integrity to stand with the courage of your convictions -- which I doubt.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,085
- Reaction score
- 8
Sarcasm is rarely a successful medium in debate.
Interesting how one can righteously set himself above others, then proceed to completely and obliviously destroy his position through the manner and tone in which he responds to those around him.
Interesting how one can righteously set himself above others, then proceed to completely and obliviously destroy his position through the manner and tone in which he responds to those around him.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,009
- Reaction score
- 4,496
I don't trust people who don't drink..
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 3,151
SDN's Godwin's Law alert.
Way too late. You missed http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=9718665&postcount=56 and http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=9718756&postcount=65.
Out of curiosity, besides Islam, what religions prohibit drinking?
I don't think anyone cares if someone doesn't drink or smoke weed or have extramarital sex or swear a bit more than necessary. What people have a problem with is self-righteousness. And a lack of a sense of humor.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
Now bleg, me not liking you has nothing to do with you having a different opinion then me on drinking. I just think your attitude towards others is very condescending and kind of bizarre actually. So don't flatter yourself - your opinioin has nothing to do with it, it's you as a person.
Oh, and there is no hatefullnes at all - I don't hate you, I just find you quite disagreeable...
and I just stopped arguing with you because it was going nowhere and I don't like arguing with a person who's logic is flawed
Oh, and there is no hatefullnes at all - I don't hate you, I just find you quite disagreeable...
and I just stopped arguing with you because it was going nowhere and I don't like arguing with a person who's logic is flawed
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,454
- Reaction score
- 30
Mormons, and several other Christian off-shoots, some Buddhist and Hindu sects, etc.
Drinking is a huge part of my religion, pretty much any holiday/ritual has alcohol attached to it. Not just a sip but a shot. Temples even give out bottles of alcohol on New Years, gallons of it are poured on the ground before building, traditional weddings crack open barrels, etc.
