People that shouldn't be going into medicine but is...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
H

Helkar3

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Who knew people ARE consider more than one person.

1) The first person that comes to mind is Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He'll help get you to where you want to go really fast.

2) There's this premed I know that tells me Jesus Christ provide immunity against diseases, so Flu immunization isn't necessary... Thank god, this person is Premed, but the flood gates might burst open soon!

3) I know a guy that's going to be attending MD school that once told me he thinks AIDS is a christian/moralist conspiracy to stop people from having sex. (He's a frat boy) Jokes aside... millions of dead and dieing people in Africa can attest to AIDS authenticity.

I believe that both of these people will contribute to the future outbreak of measles, mumps and rubella.

Anyone else know of anyone that's going into medicine with crazy ideas?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
As much as he's been vilified, there are many worse doctors than Jack Kevorkian.
 
Helkar3 said:
1) The first person that comes to mind is Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He'll help get you to where you want to go really fast.

2) There's this premed I know that tells me Jesus Christ provide immunity against diseases, so Flu immunization isn't necessary... Thank god, this person is Premed, but the flood gates might burst open soon!

3) I know a guy that's going to be attending MD school that once told me he thinks AIDS is a christian/moralist conspiracy to stop people from having sex. (He's a frat boy) Jokes aside... millions of dead and dieing people in Africa can attest to AIDS authenticity.

I believe that both of these people will contribute to the future outbreak of measle, mumps and rubella.

Anyone else know of anyone that's going into medicine with crazy ideas?
Click to expand...



Umm. I don't think Kevorkian was crazy at all... Of course, this entire topic is a political debate waiting to happen.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The issue of Jack Kevorkian involves more of your personal values and beliefs, not necessarily if he is competent.

Give me someone who cares about people and wants to improve lives through medicine. Anyone who enters for money or power shouldn't get into medicine (that doesn't stop them, I'll agree).
 
Helkar3 said:
I know a guy that's going to be attending MD school

I believe that both of these people will contribute to the future outbreak of measle

Anyone else know of anyone that's going into medicine with crazy ideas?
Click to expand...

People is, outbreak of measle... YOU have some crazy ideas about verb agreement and the difference between singular and plural. But I likes your styles. Carries on.
 
Does the title not bother anyone else?

Correction: People that shouldn't be going into medicine but are...

Sorry. I'm kind of a grammar freak
 
medzealot said:
People is, outbreak of measle... YOU have some crazy ideas about verb agreement and the difference between singular and plural. But I likes your styles. Carries on.
Click to expand...

qft
 
phnerd1105 said:
Does the title not bother anyone else?

Correction: People that shouldn't be going into medicine but are...

Sorry. I'm kind of a grammar freak
Click to expand...

It's the only reason I clicked on the link.

I was sure OP would deliver but I'm not sure if serious. :eyebrow:
 
All of the examples you used are absurd but aren't horrible. A little medical education should help these people see the light of the day.
 
To make this thread grammatically correct, you should change "is" to "did". and be to "have gone" and going to "gone"

In my honest opinion I do not believe Walter Freeman should have become a physician. There is no doubt in my mind he was an intelligent man, (he has a very peculiar way of speaking, with emphasizing the last word in his sentence in a very unique way...It's fun to reproduce) but he was far too involved in his reputation than the scientific reasoning and care for his patients. Perhaps it could be argued that the lobotomy was more a product of the times and relative to the lack of viable alternatives in treatment, but the fact is when one is cutting into an organ as unknown as the brain, one must realize there can be far reaching implications for their patients.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
jdh71 said:
It's the only reason I clicked on the link.

I was sure OP would deliver but I'm not sure if serious. :eyebrow:
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly. Still not sure if it's a troll. If it is, well played I guess.

Anywho, I'm on board with most people here that it isn't clear that kevorkian was entirely in the wrong. Unless you watch fox news.
 
Helkar3 said:
Who knew people ARE consider more than one person.

1) The first person that comes to mind is Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He'll help get you to where you want to go really fast.

2) There's this premed I know that tells me Jesus Christ provide immunity against diseases, so Flu immunization isn't necessary... Thank god, this person is Premed, but the flood gates might burst open soon!

3) I know a guy that's going to be attending MD school that once told me he thinks AIDS is a christian/moralist conspiracy to stop people from having sex. (He's a frat boy) Jokes aside... millions of dead and dieing people in Africa can attest to AIDS authenticity.

I believe that both of these people will contribute to the future outbreak of measles, mumps and rubella.

Anyone else know of anyone that's going into medicine with crazy ideas?
Click to expand...

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
 
2sk0ol4c0ol said:
All of the examples you used are absurd but aren't horrible. A little medical education should help these people see the light of the day.
Click to expand...

I doubt that reason, education, and logic can cut through thick and deeply engrained religious belief. I knew a HS biology teacher that doubted the theory of evolution even though she was teaching us about it. She pointed out that Darwin renounced evolution on his death bed so that he can die a christian death (not sure if that's true) to cast doubt on evolution.

Also, people who are into conspiracy theory aren't really called skeptics, but they are refer to as deniers by experts. Case in point are Birthers. Even with multiple evidences and the original birth certificate "long form" released, people still do not believe that Pres Obama was born in the US.
 
CaliGirl14 said:
Umm. I don't think Kevorkian was crazy at all... Of course, this entire topic is a political debate waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Well, I only have to say is that he was tried and sentence to prison through a court of law. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he did something wrong... I particularity chose him because he believe that what he did was in the best interest of medicine, but (imho) he did not do it in accordance to medical ethics. In fact, I support his notion of physician assisted suicide as a means to die a humane death, but only in accordance with strict regulatory and governmental supervision.
 
medzealot said:
People is, outbreak of measle... YOU have some crazy ideas about verb agreement and the difference between singular and plural. But I likes your styles. Carries on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the secret is out. I'm not very good with grammar.
 
Helkar3 said:
Well, I only have to say is that he was tried and sentence to prison through a court of law. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he did something wrong...
Click to expand...

What is lawful =/= what is correct =/= what is moral
 
Helkar3 said:
Well, I only have to say is that he was tried and sentence to prison through a court of law. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he did something wrong... I particularity chose him because he believe that what he did was in the best interest of medicine, but (imho) he did not do it in accordance to medical ethics. In fact, I support his notion of physician assisted suicide as a means to die a humane death, but only in accordance with strict regulatory and governmental supervision.
Click to expand...

Son, medical ethics are independent of "stric regulatory and governmental supervision".
 
The issue revolving Jack is debatable, there are many individuals who are for him and against him. He didn't blatantly help kill people for no reason whatsoever.
 
medzealot said:
People is, outbreak of measle... YOU have some crazy ideas about verb agreement and the difference between singular and plural. But I likes your styles. Carries on.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: lol

I would 100% rather have this thread turn into a grammar lesson.

I'm not loving the examples but I get it, OP. I just don't think these physicians are going to be to blame for any MMR outbreaks. You wanna blame someone blame Jenny McCarthy.
 
The deal with Kevorkian is that he was tried multiple times and acquitted before he was finally convicted. The first few times the jury did jury nullification because they felt very strongly that what he did was right, despite it clearly going against the letter of the law. The thing that finally got him was videotaping one of his assisted suicides and dropping the video off on the steps of the courthouse. That was an arrogant move that clearly violated patient privacy, and no jury could ignore it. But the previous jury nullifications show that society was largely sympathetic to his breach of the law.
 
I want to make a couple notes about Dr. Kevorkian because it seems that a lot of people in this thread are making him synonymous with euthanasia, which is a gross oversimplification of what he did and what he went on trial for. Euthanasia in this context is the ending of a life when that person finds it undesirable to live; usually this comes about because of terminal illness, old age, or some other irreversible malady. Such a person might elect to commit suicide with the help of a physician prescribed drug (physician assisted suicide), by having life support removed (passive euthanasia), or by having a physician administer a lethal dose of a drug (active euthanasia). Each classification has its own arguments for and against it, with passive euthanasia generally being considered more acceptable than the active variant.

A couple of problems arise with the Kevorkian case, the first of which is he had been stripped of his medical license years before he was actually convicted of a crime. A good analogy here would be abortion; regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, it would be inappropriate for a physician without a license to provide the service. It would also be inappropriate for that service to be provided outside of a medical facility. This is the first place where Kevorkian's practice was different than what is typically thought of as moral euthanasia.

The second problem is that states and countries where euthanasia is legal generally have some sort of government based system to determine which patients it is appropriate for. That determination often takes the form of an assessment of the patient's ability to competently make the decision to end their own lives (and this assessment is typically carried out by more than one physician). Kevorkian did nothing of this sort, it was only him that made the determination if his patient was competent to make this sort of decision.

Regardless of how you feel about euthanasia, what Kevorkian did was outside of the law on multiple levels-not only was euthanasia not legal, but he wouldn't have been licensed to provide it even if it were. I know that the moral question of euthanasia is another matter altogether, and it is one that is justifiably being debated in many places. However, the debate about the ethics behind Kevorkian's actions and the debate about euthanasia are in some ways separate questions, and I want to make sure that everyone reading this thread understands that.


Helkar3 said:
I doubt that reason, education, and logic can cut through thick and deeply engrained religious belief. I knew a HS biology teacher that doubted the theory of evolution even though she was teaching us about it. She pointed out that Darwin renounced evolution on his death bed so that he can die a christian death (not sure if that's true) to cast doubt on evolution.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who hold religious beliefs in tandem with scientific ones. It's not really even that difficult; you go to science for things that science does well and you go to faith for things that faith does well.
 
While it may seem odd, there does seem to be evidence that faith-based healing may work in some cases. There are many studies of increased immune responses and reduced side-effects from therapy as a result of conscious mental states. This is also known as placebo effect. So while I do not think that one should forgo vaccination, faith may help sometimes.
 
Astarael said:
I want to make a couple notes about Dr. Kevorkian because it seems that a lot of people in this thread are making him synonymous with euthanasia, which is a gross oversimplification of what he did and what he went on trial for. Euthanasia in this context is the ending of a life when that person finds it undesirable to live; usually this comes about because of terminal illness, old age, or some other irreversible malady. Such a person might elect to commit suicide with the help of a physician prescribed drug (physician assisted suicide), by having life support removed (passive euthanasia), or by having a physician administer a lethal dose of a drug (active euthanasia). Each classification has its own arguments for and against it, with passive euthanasia generally being considered more acceptable than the active variant.

A couple of problems arise with the Kevorkian case, the first of which is he had been stripped of his medical license years before he was actually convicted of a crime. A good analogy here would be abortion; regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, it would be inappropriate for a physician without a license to provide the service. It would also be inappropriate for that service to be provided outside of a medical facility. This is the first place where Kevorkian's practice was different than what is typically thought of as moral euthanasia.

The second problem is that states and countries where euthanasia is legal generally have some sort of government based system to determine which patients it is appropriate for. That determination often takes the form of an assessment of the patient's ability to competently make the decision to end their own lives (and this assessment is typically carried out by more than one physician). Kevorkian did nothing of this sort, it was only him that made the determination if his patient was competent to make this sort of decision.

Regardless of how you feel about euthanasia, what Kevorkian did was outside of the law on multiple levels-not only was euthanasia not legal, but he wouldn't have been licensed to provide it even if it were. I know that the moral question of euthanasia is another matter altogether, and it is one that is justifiably being debated in many places. However, the debate about the ethics behind Kevorkian's actions and the debate about euthanasia are in some ways separate questions, and I want to make sure that everyone reading this thread understands that.
Click to expand...

Very aptly explained. I totally agree with you.
 
I'm rather amused by your "(He's a frat boy)" comment. It's as if to say that all frat boys think along those lines, and his status as a member of a fraternity sufficiently explains the fault in his reason.

I know guys that in fraternities that could list their academic achievements in circles around you. I know men in frats that have gone to Harvard Law, Johns Hopkins Med, and someone in my brother's fraternity was even a Marshall scholarship winner last year.

You're a fool.

P.S. Learn more about the Kevorkian case. Fool.
 
Truzzi said:
I'm rather amused by your "(He's a frat boy)" comment. It's as if to say that all frat boys think along those lines, and his status as a member of a fraternity sufficiently explains the fault in his reason.

I know guys that in fraternities that could list their academic achievements in circles around you. I know men in frats that have gone to Harvard Law, Johns Hopkins Med, and someone in my brother's fraternity was even a Marshall scholarship winner last year.

You're a fool.

P.S. Learn more about the Kevorkian case. Fool.
Click to expand...

While I have no reason on this web forum to question the particular veracity of your defensive statement, most of us simply are simply confused because we didn't feel the need to buy our friends in university.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Meria
How do people get full merit scholarships into medical school?
Replies
3
Views
1K
EdgeTrimmer
EdgeTrimmer
corgo
Do you have to be a “people person” to be a good doctor?
Replies
15
Views
1K
longhaul3
L
P
Updating on a publication that has been accepted but not actually published yet?
Replies
1
Views
463
toastedbutter
toastedbutter
P
Is going to a medical school that hasn't produced a graduating class yet viable?
Replies
7
Views
1K
EdgeTrimmer
EdgeTrimmer
AcneRosaceaDermatitis
  • Locked
Hi everyone, I was told on CC that I shouldn't go to medical school anymore. What do you all think?
Replies
5
Views
885
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
Top