Is there a reason why religiously affiliated universities are opening up DO schools?

[user3]

Um, their motivation is the $$$ and nothing more. Medical Schools are known money makers as there are more than enough students (many of whom have wealthy parents) wanting spots in medical schools. That's why a lot of these new schools have ridiculously LOW average GPAs and MCATs. These institutions could give a rat's ass about "healing".

Only DO schools can run like this. If you look at my earlier post, the LCME explicitly discourages schools from being tuition driven and has even put one school (RFU) on probation for being too dependent on student tuition for its operating expenses.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Cipher9422]

I'm not sure what my mcat score has to do with anything, but I'm sure you're disappointed my score wasn't lower.

Specifically, the gaps I'm referring to are the intermediate life forms. Why are there an abundance of fossils, but the intermediate is consistently missing?
Don't tell me to stop wasting time, i have every right to post here like anyone else.

I'm going to preface by stating that I believe in Evolution.

stats speak louder than anyone on sdn. With an 11 and 12 in ps and bs, respectively, it is a no-brainer that you are an educated individual. I bet most people that are arguing with you only wish they scored that high. You choosing to not believe in evolution because it goes against your faith is absolutely and completely fine. However, you should realize that it is against the norm and comments from people questioning your education should be expected.

Regardless of beliefs, I sincerely doubt that you will practice anything but evidence-based medicine. So then what's the big huff and puff over you not believing in evolution?

 

[Cipher9422]

if god was really such a wonderful architect why does he love an octopus more than humans? they have much better eyes adapted with no blind spot unlike us unfortunate humans who have our retina behind blood vessels and nerve fibers creating a blind spot.
reducible complexity of eye evolution demonstration:

Yeah, and why aren't we all 15 feet tall with wings and unicorn horns that shoot rainbow???????

completely unfair!

but in all seriousness, its probably because it allows them to live somewhat comfortably in the dark depths of the ocean. I'm sure if we lived under the sea we would have crazy octopus eyes too.

 

[babdoc]

I'm going to preface by stating that I believe in Evolution.

I'll start like Cipher, I personally have a faith. I also hold evolution as true.

I will be a little nitpicky with semantics here. You cannot believe in evolution or any science for that matter. You can understand it and take it as true/likely true. Belief is a judgement call or a faith-type claim. Science is a systematic method of objectively evaluating an observation. If well controlled science shows evidence, effect, or whatever, then you cannot reject it just because you don't believe in it. That's where there is a breakdown between science and faith. People tend to think you can see them as an either-or when they are in fact apples and oranges.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

When cats and Star Wars memes fail, go for booze diversion...

Double yuck. Moscato is too sweet...not even wine. Stick with reds or if you have to Chardonnay. Reds with meat? I like Shiraz/Syrah or a Malbec. Can't go wrong

Malbec? Got any decent vintages or brands?

 

[GopherFan14]

Malbec? Got any decent vintages or brands?

Cobbler Mountain- but it's a tiny little Virginia Winery
Lots of people like Black Box Malbec or Bota Malbec (both significantly cheaper than bottles).

Personally I like the italian varietals and Barboursville has a good barbera and sangiovese.

Or there is Masi- Valpolicella!

Yes I jumped on the wine conversation!

 

[babdoc]

Black box and Bota are surprisingly good.

 

[TXKnight]

I haven't read all the previous comments. But I think the reason behind religious schools increasingly opening DO schools are the same reasons why we have some DO schools expanding classes and/or opening: It is a great business

 

[Mad Jack]

Malbec? Got any decent vintages or brands?

Malbec has more character than a lot of reds, and I find that a malbec that works for one person might very well turn away another. Just experiment with some of the mid-shelf bottles from Cali or Australia. Back when I used to drink, I loved me some Bota Box Malbec, it's fairly cheap and quite good with steak. Also goes -extremely- well as a base in stews with a high steak content, or as an added hint of flavor when mixed with A1 sauce and some spices when mixing ground beef for burgers.

 

[Mad Jack]

Black box and Bota are surprisingly good.

Cobbler Mountain- but it's a tiny little Virginia Winery
Lots of people like Black Box Malbec or Bota Malbec (both significantly cheaper than bottles).

Personally I like the italian varietals and Barboursville has a good barbera and sangiovese.

Or there is Masi- Valpolicella!

Yes I jumped on the wine conversation!

Beat me to it, lol.

Black Box is a lot more tanin heavy than Bota, just as a warning. If you're prone to red wine headache like myself, go with the Bota.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

The Gif Strikes Back

 

[medickdb]

Bam. Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Evolution vs. Creationism. One night only, tonight. Be there! Be there! Be there!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...onism-vs-evolution-the-debate-is-live-tonight

 

[NurWollen]

The Gif Strikes Back

Dude, you should post like, 4 more of these. Three of them should be prequels. Then maybe later you can make three more sequels.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Dude, you should post like, 4 more of these. Three of them should be prequels. Then maybe later you can make three more sequels.

The following gifs would never be as good as the original tho.

 

[NurWollen]

The following gifs would never be as good as the original tho.

Help us JJ Abrahms... you're our only hope.

 

[DermViser]

Only DO schools can run like this. If you look at my earlier post, the LCME explicitly discourages schools from being tuition driven and has even put one school (RFU) on probation for being too dependent on student tuition for its operating expenses.

Exactly. DO schools allow this to happen if not fully encourage it, unlike the LCME.

 

[SuckySurgeon7]

Oh gosh, isn't this thread dead yet??

 

[abolt18]

It was for a week until you resurrected it. Way to go.

 

[touchpause13]

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

View attachment 178396

because class of 2018's first year of residency will be graced by the existence of this.

 

[Bill Brasky]

 

[darklabel]

Exactly. DO schools allow this to happen if not fully encourage it, unlike the LCME.

LCME removed the stipulation that all entities have to be non-profit.

http://www.lcme.org/2012_lcme_accred_standard_changes.pdf

So yeah....LCME isn't soo much better than COCA.

 

[DermViser]

LCME removed the stipulation that all entities have to be non-profit.

http://www.lcme.org/2012_lcme_accred_standard_changes.pdf

So yeah....LCME isn't soo much better than COCA.

I'm not talking about profit vs. nonprofit status. I'm talking about building more medical schools in general. If you look at the proportion, the rate of D.O. schools being built FAR exceeds the rate of MD school growth in the last 30 years. What's worse is that D.O. schools have done this without increasing spots in THEIR OWN D.O. residencies.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'm not talking about profit vs. nonprofit status. I'm talking about building more medical schools in general. If you look at the proportion, the rate of D.O. schools being built FAR exceeds the rate of MD school growth in the last 30 years. What's worse is that D.O. schools have done this without increasing spots in THEIR OWN D.O. residencies.

Because 30 years ago DOs did not have equal practice rights to MDs in many states such as Nebraska.

 

[baboxxyun]

I'm not talking about profit vs. nonprofit status. I'm talking about building more medical schools in general. If you look at the proportion, the rate of D.O. schools being built FAR exceeds the rate of MD school growth in the last 30 years. What's worse is that D.O. schools have done this without increasing spots in THEIR OWN D.O. residencies.

Presently, MDs open schools up at a much faster rate. If you look up schools that are under going accreditation on wiki, for every 1 DO school, there are 4 MD schools.
And the number of DO residencies have increased each year. It's not like they have done absolutely nothing to accommodate the increasing numbers.

 

[DermViser]

Presently, MDs open schools up at a much faster rate. If you look up schools that are under going accreditation on wiki, for every 1 DO school, there are 4 MD schools.
And the number of DO residencies have increased each year. It's not like they have done absolutely nothing to accommodate the increasing numbers.

If you add up the number of DO school graduates and add up the number of DO residency spots -- there is NO WAY that every DO student can do an AOA residency. Just by numbers, there HAVE to be DO residents doing MD residencies so that it works out in the match. Also, just bc schools are getting accredidation under the LCME system, doesn't mean they will get approved. Just look at the "Palm Beach Medical College", that never got approval.

 

[user3]

LCME removed the stipulation that all entities have to be non-profit.

http://www.lcme.org/2012_lcme_accred_standard_changes.pdf

So yeah....LCME isn't soo much better than COCA.

accreditation standards are somewhat subjective though. Back when RFU was put on probation for being too dependent on student tuition, the clause regarding how MD school funding should come from a variety of sources-- used the language "should" and not "must". Just like this not-for-profit clause. So, RFU may not have technically been in violation, but the LCME still had the right to demand RFU reduce its dependence on tuition or else lose accreditation.

Same deal when Temple and GWU (I believe) were put on probation for having too little study space. The guideline also used the "should" language.

How aggressively individual guidelines are enforced is up to the discretion of the accrediation body. The LCME (and COCA) still have the final say on whether an applicant school can move forward, and COCA should utilize that right more.

Take this vague-ish COCA clause, for example: "A COM must have available sufficient and appropriate facilities for the program of instruction that enable students and faculty to successfully pursue the educational goals and curriculum of the COM."

They could instantly put any school on probation for lacking study space, which is a common complaint at DO schools. But COCA seems to err on the side of lax...

 

[GC1000]

I'll start like Cipher, I personally have a faith. I also hold evolution as true.

I will be a little nitpicky with semantics here. You cannot believe in evolution or any science for that matter. You can understand it and take it as true/likely true. Belief is a judgement call or a faith-type claim. Science is a systematic method of objectively evaluating an observation. If well controlled science shows evidence, effect, or whatever, then you cannot reject it just because you don't believe in it. That's where there is a breakdown between science and faith. People tend to think you can see them as an either-or when they are in fact apples and oranges.

Right on!!! No one was their to see it happen, there is scientific evidence of certain events and this theory called evolution has been molded and changed overtime to fit the new evidence. I believe at the very core of evolution, it is an attempt for science to eliminate God. I know many evolutionist don't share this view.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Right on!!! No one was their to see it happen, there is scientific evidence of certain events and this theory called evolution has been molded and changed overtime to fit the new evidence. I believe at the very core of evolution, it is an attempt for science to eliminate God. I know many evolutionist don't share this view.

No more than it was geography's intent to disprove god through proving that the Earth wasn't flat or had corners. Or any of the fields of study that find fault with the Bible.
Simply put you don't need science to eliminate religion, for religion is a claim that supplies no evidence other than itself. And whether or not you're willing to sit quietly and reject evidence contradictory or whether you will embrace it and move away from the fine window that religion has constructed to show only but a glimpse of a divine being is up to you.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I'm going to preface by stating that I believe in Evolution.

stats speak louder than anyone on sdn. With an 11 and 12 in ps and bs, respectively, it is a no-brainer that you are an educated individual. I bet most people that are arguing with you only wish they scored that high. You choosing to not believe in evolution because it goes against your faith is absolutely and completely fine. However, you should realize that it is against the norm and comments from people questioning your education should be expected.

Regardless of beliefs, I sincerely doubt that you will practice anything but evidence-based medicine. So then what's the big huff and puff over you not believing in evolution?

You gotta admit there is something scary about this dude being smart yet an idiot. If anything this proves the mcat or any other test can't truly predict you.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

Only DO schools can run like this. If you look at my earlier post, the LCME explicitly discourages schools from being tuition driven and has even put one school (RFU) on probation for being too dependent on student tuition for its operating expenses.

Wow! COCA should take a page from LCME...

 

[Chillywilly]

I sometimes wonder how people can believe the world is 6000 years old. Umm dinosaurs? Carbon dating? Ages of rocks and fossils?

 

[stlrams22]

You gotta admit there is something scary about this dude being smart yet an idiot. If anything this proves the mcat or any other test can't truly predict you.

Specifically, what is scary? I didn't know the mcat was supposed to " predict you."

 

[touchpause13]

I sometimes wonder how people can believe the world is 6000 years old. Umm dinosaurs? Carbon dating? Ages of rocks and fossils?

Sometimes I think about that too. Then my head starts to hurt and I stop lol

 

[GC1000]

Sometimes I think about that too. Then my head starts to hurt and I stop lol

I'm sure it doesn't take much for your head to hurt. You're obviously not very smart based on your posts on SDN and your stats.

 

[touchpause13]

I'm sure it doesn't take much for your head to hurt. You're obviously not very smart based on your posts on SDN and your stats.

U mad bro?

 

[GC1000]

U mad bro?

Not mad, comments that don't agree with your viewpoints don't warrant insults.

 

[touchpause13]

Not sure you are one to talk, seeing as you just went out of your way to call me stupid.

 

[didymus]

Much concern has been expressed over religious institutions opening medical schools--specifically LUCOM. I'm not saying one way or another what I personally think about this, but I was hoping someone could give me a specific example(s) of what they fear could be taught at a conservative Christian institution that would have adverse effects on the practice of medicine by those students. For example, how would believing the world is 6,000 years old have a negative impact on a physician performing as a general surgeon, or interpreting an image as a radiologist, or helping a diabetic manage blood-glucose levels at a primary care clinic?

I may have overlooked someone having already pointed this fact out, but Dr. Ben Carson rejects the theory of evolution. Can anyone identify how his rejection of evolution correlated to his surgical outcomes or research pubs at Johns Hopkins? I get that there are people out there who take issue with Dr. Carson's personal views on some/many things, but the fact remains that his views on the origins of the Earth, and the role evolution played in them (or even his beliefs on homosexuality), did not lead to poor outcomes for patients, his scientific research and publications, or his role as chair over several departments. His contributions to the field of pediatric neurosurgery are innumerable and impressive. So what specifically can someone identify as problematic about holding, or being taught, Evangelical Christian views about an array of issues as it relates to the actual practice of medicine? Going further, can those who've expressed fears about the actively-religious participating in the establishment of scientific institutions acknowledge that, historically, such people have made substantial and critical contributions to the advancement of science and medicine?

It seems to me that there has been a good deal of irrational fear expressed on this thread, and it definitely exists on all sides among the public, regarding the impact faith has on the advancement of science (or the impact of science on faith). There were a couple posts about the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Bill Nye is known for making the case that teaching children Creationism will inevitably lead to scientific progress being stifled. This is patently false, as history paints a very different picture. I think people need to quit embracing, what I believe to be, the nonsense that faith leads people away from science, and that science leads people away from faith. I think the more people are willing to accept that both have a place in healthy societies, the better we can get on with living in harmony and making the world better for all of us.

 

[Lucca]

Much concern has been expressed over religious institutions opening medical schools--specifically LUCOM. I'm not saying one way or another what I personally think about this, but I was hoping someone could give me a specific example(s) of what they fear could be taught at a conservative Christian institution that would have adverse effects on the practice of medicine by those students. For example, how would believing the world is 6,000 years old have a negative impact on a physician performing as a general surgeon, or interpreting an image as a radiologist, or helping a diabetic manage blood-glucose levels at a primary care clinic?

I may have overlooked someone having already pointed this fact out, but Dr. Ben Carson rejects the theory of evolution. Can anyone identify how his rejection of evolution correlated to his surgical outcomes or research pubs at Johns Hopkins? I get that there are people out there who take issue with Dr. Carson's personal views on some/many things, but the fact remains that his views on the origins of the Earth, and the role evolution played in them (or even his beliefs on homosexuality), did not lead to poor outcomes for patients, his scientific research and publications, or his role as chair over several departments. His contributions to the field of pediatric neurosurgery are innumerable and impressive. So what specifically can someone identify as problematic about holding, or being taught, Evangelical Christian views about an array of issues as it relates to the actual practice of medicine? Going further, can those who've expressed fears about the actively-religious participating in the establishment of scientific institutions acknowledge that, historically, such people have made substantial and critical contributions to the advancement of science and medicine?

It seems to me that there has been a good deal of irrational fear expressed on this thread, and it definitely exists on all sides among the public, regarding the impact faith has on the advancement of science (or the impact of science on faith). There were a couple posts about the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Bill Nye is known for making the case that teaching children Creationism will inevitably lead to scientific progress being stifled. This is patently false, as history paints a very different picture. I think people need to quit embracing, what I believe to be, the nonsense that faith leads people away from science, and that science leads people away from faith. I think the more people are willing to accept that both have a place in healthy societies, the better we can get on with living in harmony and making the world better for all of us.

The imposition of a minority interpretation of a specific creation myth loosely adapted from a minority group's religious tradition explicitly contradicts the goal of science to act as a majority consensus based on repeatable, objectively verifiable results with some measurable power of prediction. Not only does creationism explain nothing, it predicts nothing since none of its assumptions match up with the evidence that is immediately available.

Essentially:

Thing A: Predicts nothing, adds nothing of value, is a bastardized, non-canonical theory with zero corroboratory evidence in spite of being a hard-line and inflexible position argued from "authority".
Thing B: Explains everything within a known margin of error, can be used to accurately predict future phenomena, is an evolving and malleable concept built and sculpted by consensus through experiment and observation.

If you think that Thing A is the same as Thing B in that both should be taught in a setting specifically meant to teach people Thing B, then you are wrong. If you believe that the equation of Thing B with Thing A does not somehow raise disturbing questions about the validity of the institution of Thing B in the minds of the young and ignorant then not only are you wrong, but you are delusional. If you believe that these disturbing questions won't translate into explicitly harmful irrational behavior such as vaccine dodging, homeopathy-chasing, and quack-funding then you are all of the above but a ***** as well.

From Quora: "How can one believe in Science and Religion at the same time?"

Answers generally fall into the following camps

1. Those that believe religion is a set of beliefs/rites/myths that either should not be tested or are expected to be accepted even in light of contradictory data. This view of religion is deemed incompatible with science and can only be explained through ideas such as cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, or doublethink.
2. Those that believe religion is a set of personally verifiable beliefs that should be tested and adjusted based on new data. This view believed that the two disciplines are not in opposition, if not actually complementary.

Creationism falls into Camp 1. The "Faith and Science" of Aquinas, the Islamic Renaissance, Eastern Medicine, and the age of reason following the Reformation are examples of Camp 2.

 

[CooIBreeze]

Why is this cancerfest still desperately clinging to life?

 

[didymus]

.....Creationism falls into Camp 1. The "Faith and Science" of Aquinas, the Islamic Renaissance, Eastern Medicine, and the age of reason following the Reformation are examples of Camp 2.

So, no specific examples of how such beliefs being taught or held have a negative impact on one's ability to practice medicine? Gotcha.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Specifically, what is scary? I didn't know the mcat was supposed to " predict you."

Because any unbiased view of the evidence necessitates accepting that evolution is science and a fact, and this is not an anti-religious comment. When I was a teenager before any science curriculum, I believed in (a form of) creationism. My family was not the 6k year old hardcore fanatics, but I was taught that god created the earth and Adam and Eve were real people. I do worry what else a person that buys into the creationist lie can buy into. Don't tell me that's crazy to believe since we've seen it in Fox News guest doctors like Keith Ablow. The person we're discussing right now obviously has the brain capacity to learn and apply the knowledge to certain tasks, but they certainly haven't learned the spirit of science which teaches us to confront reality as the facts tell us instead of finding the facts to fit our preconceived notions. As for "predicting you," I meant as your ability to evaluate evidence in an unbiased way.

 

[Lucca]

So, no specific examples of how such beliefs being taught or held have a negative impact on one's ability to practice medicine? Gotcha.

Irrationally held beliefs generally impede the general public rather than the practitioner themselves. Some examples: Deepak Chopra, MD makes millions selling quackery to the public thanks to his deeply held beliefs in "quantum healing", certain forms of homeopathy, and alternative medicine. Homeopaths and anyone else that makes money selling "natural medicines" or otherwise profiting on the public's "chemophobia" falls into this category as well. The distrust in the institution of science that absolute devotion to irrational beliefs feeds into a mental environment that allows for delusional catastrophes such as the "green vaccines" movement. Every year hundreds of unfit parents and unwanted children are created for the sole purpose of perpetuating antiquated and religiously-grounded ideas such as wedlock, resistance towards birth-control, and the suppression of women's rights. The narrative of fear that arises from the moral police work of most religious institutions needlessly feeds stigmatized minds into the hands of psychiatric care that could've been avoided if the sifting grate of dogmatic guilt wasn't around to keep those with weaker constitutions or heightened imaginations from otherwise leading a normal life. Some religiously affiliated medical institutions in impoverished countries deny the distribution of proper birth control/std-protection or even the disbursal of such knowledge among those populations for the sole purpose of furthering a religious agenda. In my eyes, the conscious decision of the medical practitioners behind such aid is nothing but a crime against humanity since controlling birth rates and sexually transmitted diseases among impoverished populations is essential to breaking the cycle of misery and poverty. Every time a Jehova's witness dies because they denied a blood-transfusion, there is an obstruction. Every time late-stage cancer patients walk in years after the first signs of their cancer because they had spent all that time fruitlessly subscribing to Ayurvedic physicians, there is an obstruction.



Frankly, I can't personally understand how you can have spent any non-zero amount of time studying entropy, genetics, and chemical reactions without immediately noticing that evolution is a perfectly obvious consequence of the above three concepts.

Dr. Ben Carson's training depends on those same properties and his ability to practice at a high-level and achieve all that he has done is not a tale of religious and scientific cooperation, rather it is a tragedy of self-delusion and a testament to its power. Naturally, elements of that delusion have seeped into other aspects of his life and become toxic.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Much concern has been expressed over religious institutions opening medical schools--specifically LUCOM. I'm not saying one way or another what I personally think about this, but I was hoping someone could give me a specific example(s) of what they fear could be taught at a conservative Christian institution that would have adverse effects on the practice of medicine by those students. For example, how would believing the world is 6,000 years old have a negative impact on a physician performing as a general surgeon, or interpreting an image as a radiologist, or helping a diabetic manage blood-glucose levels at a primary care clinic?

I may have overlooked someone having already pointed this fact out, but Dr. Ben Carson rejects the theory of evolution. Can anyone identify how his rejection of evolution correlated to his surgical outcomes or research pubs at Johns Hopkins? I get that there are people out there who take issue with Dr. Carson's personal views on some/many things, but the fact remains that his views on the origins of the Earth, and the role evolution played in them (or even his beliefs on homosexuality), did not lead to poor outcomes for patients, his scientific research and publications, or his role as chair over several departments. His contributions to the field of pediatric neurosurgery are innumerable and impressive. So what specifically can someone identify as problematic about holding, or being taught, Evangelical Christian views about an array of issues as it relates to the actual practice of medicine? Going further, can those who've expressed fears about the actively-religious participating in the establishment of scientific institutions acknowledge that, historically, such people have made substantial and critical contributions to the advancement of science and medicine?

It seems to me that there has been a good deal of irrational fear expressed on this thread, and it definitely exists on all sides among the public, regarding the impact faith has on the advancement of science (or the impact of science on faith). There were a couple posts about the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Bill Nye is known for making the case that teaching children Creationism will inevitably lead to scientific progress being stifled. This is patently false, as history paints a very different picture. I think people need to quit embracing, what I believe to be, the nonsense that faith leads people away from science, and that science leads people away from faith. I think the more people are willing to accept that both have a place in healthy societies, the better we can get on with living in harmony and making the world better for all of us.

Ben Carson is honestly a tool of massive proportions and his social views are pretty awful. As a neurosurgeon he may be amazing, and I am not attempting to take that away from him. But to deny that a doctor should at least aspire to be a paragon for community and to advocate for truth and reasonability.

So, no specific examples of how such beliefs being taught or held have a negative impact on one's ability to practice medicine? Gotcha.

medicine is only just an applied field of science.
Personally I think as a whole biblical literalism is a frightening concept that spurred the advance of humanism both in the 16th Century Europe and the Islamic Golden Ages.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Because any unbiased view of the evidence necessitates accepting that evolution is science and a fact, and this is not an anti-religious comment. When I was a teenager before any science curriculum, I believed in (a form of) creationism. My family was not the 6k year old hardcore fanatics, but I was taught that god created the earth and Adam and Eve were real people. I do worry what else a person that buys into the creationist lie can buy into. Don't tell me that's crazy to believe since we've seen it in Fox News guest doctors like Keith Ablow. The person we're discussing right now obviously has the brain capacity to learn and apply the knowledge to certain tasks, but they certainly haven't learned the spirit of science which teaches us to confront reality as the facts tell us instead of finding the facts to fit our preconceived notions. As for "predicting you," I meant as your ability to evaluate evidence in an unbiased way.

Honestly the issue with this all is that Evolution is so integral in the life & social sciences. To deny it is really reprehensible to just about everything rational.
#ethologistproblems

 

[didymus]

Irrationally held beliefs generally impede the general public rather than the practitioner themselves. Some examples: Deepak Chopra, MD makes millions selling quackery to the public thanks to his deeply held beliefs in "quantum healing", certain forms of homeopathy, and alternative medicine. Homeopaths and anyone else that makes money selling "natural medicines" or otherwise profiting on the public's "chemophobia" falls into this category as well. The distrust in the institution of science that absolute devotion to irrational beliefs feeds into a mental environment that allows for delusional catastrophes such as the "green vaccines" movement. Every year hundreds of unfit parents and unwanted children are created for the sole purpose of perpetuating antiquated and religiously-grounded ideas such as wedlock, resistance towards birth-control, and the suppression of women's rights. The narrative of fear that arises from the moral police work of most religious institutions needlessly feeds stigmatized minds into the hands of psychiatric care that could've been avoided if the sifting grate of dogmatic guilt wasn't around to keep those with weaker constitutions or heightened imaginations from otherwise leading a normal life. Some religiously affiliated medical institutions in impoverished countries deny the distribution of proper birth control/std-protection or even the disbursal of such knowledge among those populations for the soul purpose of furthering a religious agenda. In my eyes, the conscious decision of the medical practitioners behind such aid is nothing but a crime against humanity since controlling birth rates and sexually transmitted diseases among impoverished populations is essential to breaking the cycle of misery and poverty. Every time a Jehova's witness dies because they denied a blood-transfusion, there is an obstruction. Every time late-stage cancer patients walk in years after the first signs of their cancer because they had spent all that time fruitlessly subscribing to Ayurvedic physicians, there is an obstruction.

Frankly, I can't personally understand how you can have spent any non-zero amount of time studying entropy, genetics, and chemical reactions without immediately noticing that evolution is a perfectly obvious consequence of the above three concepts.

Despite your extensive ranting, you have yet to provide an example of how holding or being taught Evangelical Christian beliefs, about such things as the age of the earth for instance, have any adverse impact of the practice of medicine. Period. You have tried to build a case against holding such beliefs in general because of some broader social impact, but I never asked about that, so, unfortunately for you, you wasted considerable time on a couple tangents. Perhaps your sentiments have meaning to the overall thread, but you quoted my posts at the start of both of your most recent replies, and nothing you said related to what I asked. It leads me to conclude that, despite your deep-seeded, and quite pathological, disdain for religion, you actually do not think holding anti-evolution/Creationist views--among other conservative Evangelical views--has any real bearing on the practice and delivery of medicine by a physician; it follows, then, that such beliefs being personally held, or institutionally presented, have no discernible bearing on the education of doctors; so, it would follow again, that these institutions opening medical schools should not bother you in the least.

The red herring about Religion impacting the world in ways you don't particularly care for/value did not serve to make a strong point about what my posts were specifically concerned with. If you can speak directly to my posts, though, I'd love to read what you have to say.

 

[didymus]

Ben Carson is honestly a tool of massive proportions and his social views are pretty awful. As a neurosurgeon he may be amazing, and I am not attempting to take that away from him. But to deny that a doctor should at least aspire to be a paragon for community and to advocate for truth and reasonability.



medicine is only just an applied field of science.
Personally I think as a whole biblical literalism is a frightening concept that spurred the advance of humanism both in the 16th Century Europe and the Islamic Golden Ages.

Both of your points being what they are, you still have not given an example. That's all I'm asking for. Think of Ben Carson as a tool (it doesn't bode well, however, for people who say that while also championing the likes of Bill Nye, who is about as massive a tool as they come--after Bill Maher, of course), but you admitted that he is an amazing neurosurgeon. That's what my questions were driving at. His Creationist views do not equate to bad patient outcomes. They do not inhibit his position and role as faculty at one of the best medical training sites on the planet. They do not limit his contribution to the field of medicine. So why the eff do any of you care if a religiously-affiliated institution opens a medical school?

I think the last few posts have made the case that there isn't a case to be made against such institutions having medical schools. Evidently, someone who is a creationist can apply the science well enough to be a peds-neurosurgery baller and successfully manage departments of scientists.

 

[GC1000]

Despite your extensive ranting, you have yet to provide an example of how holding or being taught Evangelical Christian beliefs, about such things as the age of the earth for instance, have any adverse impact of the practice of medicine. Period. You have tried to build a case against holding such beliefs in general because of some broader social impact, but I never asked about that, so, unfortunately for you, you wasted considerable time on a couple tangents. Perhaps your sentiments have meaning to the overall thread, but you quoted my posts at the start of both of your most recent replies, and nothing you said related to what I asked. It leads me to conclude that, despite your deep-seeded, and quite pathological, disdain for religion, you actually do not think holding anti-evolution/Creationist views--among other conservative Evangelical views--has any real bearing on the practice and delivery of medicine by a physician; it follows, then, that such beliefs being personally held, or institutionally presented, have no discernible bearing on the education of doctors; so, it would follow again, that these institutions opening medical schools should not bother you in the least.

The red herring about Religion impacting the world in ways you don't particularly care for/value did not serve to make a strong point about what my posts were specifically concerned with. If you can speak directly to my posts, though, I'd love to read what you have to say.

It is difficult to argue with anti-religious people spewing their hatred. They have been indoctrinated by carefully selected information. I find it amazing that people who study biology believe everything happened by chance. It seems the have lost their ability to think critically.

 

[Lucca]

Despite your extensive ranting, you have yet to provide an example of how holding or being taught Evangelical Christian beliefs, about such things as the age of the earth for instance, have any adverse impact of the practice of medicine. Period. You have tried to build a case against holding such beliefs in general because of some broader social impact, but I never asked about that, so, unfortunately for you, you wasted considerable time on a couple tangents. Perhaps your sentiments have meaning to the overall thread, but you quoted my posts at the start of both of your most recent replies, and nothing you said related to what I asked. It leads me to conclude that, despite your deep-seeded, and quite pathological, disdain for religion, you actually do not think holding anti-evolution/Creationist views--among other conservative Evangelical views--has any real bearing on the practice and delivery of medicine by a physician; it follows, then, that such beliefs being personally held, or institutionally presented, have no discernible bearing on the education of doctors; so, it would follow again, that these institutions opening medical schools should not bother you in the least.

The red herring about Religion impacting the world in ways you don't particularly care for/value did not serve to make a strong point about what my posts were specifically concerned with. If you can speak directly to my posts, though, I'd love to read what you have to say.

I have listed how religious beliefs adversely affect the health and access of healthcare of the public. I have also linked this to physicians themselves promoting this sort of ideology and behavior. Serenade already explained that there's nothing specifically about those beliefs that impedes the literal practice of medicine since medicine is just a subset of skills that require applied knowledge, but I think I've done an adequate job of describing how such beliefs can adversely affect the health of a population which, by extension, is the true purpose of the practice of medicine. The specific example towards Creationism, which I've already listed, is that equating an irrational mythology with science fosters distrust and creates a shaky foundation for the rest of science. Furthermore, I described how medical training requires that one accept evolution because young-earth creationism is explicitly contradicted by evolution and that any other stance on the subject as a practitioner of medicine is only a product of self-delusion, a la Ben Carson. So, yes, it matters that these principles be taken into account when you are educating medical professionals because evolution is such an important cornerstone of the basic life sciences unless you want to intentionally produce self-deluded physicians.

Also I disagree with strongly with that statement in bold. The ability of a physician to functionally practice the profession of medicine does not equate to the value or substance of their medical education. You can go ahead and read it straight from my signature, "Education for a Life, not a Living." I don't think that needs further explanation, your logic just doesn't work there.

I don't have a pathological disdain for religion. I like religion. I like that it exists. I think in many ways it adds lots of value to peoples lives and I think the free expression of faith is one of the most important liberties a person can have. However, as a responsible human being I will never tolerate any individual's faith somehow impeding the overarching ethical framework of society; in this case, it impedes the proper education of physicians and harms the public for reasons I have already listed. I think a strong faith is perfectly serviceable without having to resort to mythological fetishism and draconian text interpretation.

As an aside, what is utterly remarkable about young-earth creationism is that it adds very little value to the practice of your own faith. What does it add? Nothing. Nothing at all. It was a widely unpopular literal translation in the times of the ancient Jewish scholars and it is a widely unpopular literal interpretation today, especially outside of the borders of the United States (where the majority of the Christian population resides). It is a moot point, an unnecessary stake of contention that seems to exist solely to highlight the continued isolation of Evangelical Christian groups in the US.