President-elect of ACS recommends semen as a valentine's day gift in editorial

[dpmd]

The editorial is posted here

I saw this because someone posted a New York Times article on facebook about this titled Sexism Charges Divide Surgeons Group, and it was the first I had heard about this. I decided to read the editorial myself to see what the fuss was about.

One thing I had an issue with is the line "You can draw your own inference about males not being needed until there’s trouble in the environment." I don't know what he meant by it, butI can see how it might be interpreted as women need men when things get tough since they can't handle things on their own.

As far as the semen part, I think the study is total crap and therefore shouldn't be referenced at all. If the study wasn't sh*tty, I would think the end line "So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates." would be funny instead of just stupid. But maybe not the best thing to write in a professional publication regardless.

Any other thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[filter07]

According to the ACS, a half page editorial with a misguided attempt at humor is enough to outweigh the lifetime accomplishments of a surgeon who co-authored one of the premier textbooks in surgery, chaired one of the most distinguished departments of surgery for over two decades, invented a life-saving medical device, and trained a number of high ranking female academic surgeons. The ACS is overreacting and betraying their own cowardice.

People make mistakes. This editorial was an attempt at humor. It missed the mark. So what? if people are offended, sure, take down the article. But did he really have to resign from being editor in chief? Why is his President-elect status in jeopardy? That is beyond ridiculous.

 

[DarknightX]

Not suprising. We live in a society where what someone says is much more important than what they actually accomplish.

People's feelings are important, we can't have anyone feeling offended these days.

 

[JackADeli]

Unfortunately in surgery, you are only as good and thus remembered by your last failure....

 

[Chirurgia magna]

We were talking about this the other day in our SICU. Honestly, I read it and chuckled. ACS is over reacting. It's an attempt at humor. I personally found it funny, others didn't, so what? I can't believe he resigned over this. This is so stupid.

 

[Smurfette]

I just found it more bizarre and random than it was "offensive", per se.....not sure what the point was of this editorial, as it sounds like fodder for "the ol' boys club" based off some nonsense study more than anything else. Definitely missed the mark. But ACS's reaction makes me wonder if there's more to the story behind-the-scenes beyond this editorial.

 

[ESU_MD]

I think the problem is more with the ACS, than an out of context bad joke by a legend.

I think the ACS is going the way of the AMA toward liberalism. It was sad how easy the ACS rolled over dead for obamacare, etc. Its almost like someone in the leadership could be so entranced by obama, or wants some kind of post-acs "health czar" political appointment down the line.

Sad

 

[JackADeli]

Reaching back to my psych rotation... this is my take.
Someone that has been involved in the surgery, ACS, and the "old boys' club" to the extent to be "president-elect" in theory has some insight. This mistake, while in itself not particularly horrible, does show a remarkable lack of judgement. At best, it is akin to someone shooting a poorly thought email in the middle of the night. At worst, it probably represents the otherside of high performing surgeons.... i.e. the functional, often ~hypo-manic personality.

A double edged sword in that the ~functional hypo-mania alllows for spectacular high performance but also will often lead some to "leap/jump without looking". I suspect, though I don't know the individual, he has probably had a few "unfiltered" outbursts prior to this. However, this one was put in print.....

 

[Chemdocx]

This article is freaking hilarious. I have to try this line of thought out at the bar.

 

[JackADeli]

I just read that.... I didn't realize it was Greenfield! Yep, he is an old school, high performing, inventor, etc, etc.... He is an interesting individual! I didn't find the editorial particularly offensive but clearly not the political correct view some prefer. God forbid you publicize research that may seem unfavorable to certain political and/or special interest groups.

I hope it doesn't cascade to get him tossed from UofM. UofM is a very "liberal" and agressively active campus in similar subjects.

 

[Dirt]

This mistake, while in itself not particularly horrible, does show a remarkable lack of judgement.

qfp


I am honestly somewhat shocked that people are so defensive of this guy. Sure the editorial wasn't akin to being caught at a neo-nazi rally, but it clearly takes a shot at women and really is in poor taste.

You can draw your own inference about males not being needed until there’s trouble in the environment.

Sure I chuckled a little bit at the point he was making, but if the president elect of the ACS either doesn't know, or doesn't care enough to realize that this was inappropriate for someone of his ilk than there is a problem.

 

[JackADeli]

...I am honestly somewhat shocked that people are so defensive of this guy. Sure the editorial wasn't akin to being caught at a neo-nazi rally, but it clearly takes a shot at women and really is in poor taste...

Really? I guess to each their own. Eye of the reader and all. I for one am somewhat tired and more so each day at the societal requirement that almost everything we say or do must absolutely be controlled, filtered and otherwise edited/sensored to avoid offending someone or some group. I would also point to the politically correct environment that regularly allows and or excuses direct attacks on males, caucasions, etc... for ?balance or ?justice to account for past deeds??? An underlying issue the editorial attempted to respond to is the political agenda of some organizations to marginalize or minimize the importance of males in our world.

Finally, always find it interesting the rapid and aggressive defense should a left/liberal leaning female be "attacked" but a "right" or "conservative" woman is free game.... Whatever, it's all hypocrisy anyways.

 

[dilated]

qfp


I am honestly somewhat shocked that people are so defensive of this guy. Sure the editorial wasn't akin to being caught at a neo-nazi rally, but it clearly takes a shot at women and really is in poor taste.

Probably because most of us can recognize that we've put our foot in our mouth at some time or another. But in this country now, the only unforgiveable sin seems to be saying something non-PC. Wreck the economy by gambling or outsource a few thousand jobs and here's your X million dollars bonus. Save a few thousand lives but say something offensive one time and it's not enough to apologize and lose your job as editor of the news, they'll try to destroy your career entirely. Perspective...

 

[Winged Scapula]

 

[JackADeli]

ROL

 

[Dirt]

I for one am somewhat tired and more so each day at the societal requirement that almost everything we say or do must absolutely be controlled, filtered and otherwise edited/sensored to avoid offending someone or some group.

While I agree with you to some degree, especially with regard to politicians and the banal double talk they use so that nothing they say can be used against them at any point, the fact remains that some things are politically incorrect.

I am sorry but when the president-elect of the ACS writing an editorial about giving women semen instead of chocolate for valentine's day he is at best exhibiting poor taste and judgement, if not being outright derogatory to women.

Furthermore, he is certainly cementing the stereotype of the surgeon as a thick-headed caveman.

Probably because most of us can recognize that we've put our foot in our mouth at some time or another. But in this country now, the only unforgiveable sin seems to be saying something non-PC. Wreck the economy by gambling or outsource a few thousand jobs and here's your X million dollars bonus. Save a few thousand lives but say something offensive one time and it's not enough to apologize and lose your job as editor of the news, they'll try to destroy your career entirely. Perspective...

Sure everyone puts their foot in their mouth sooner or later, but this was not something said at a party while drunk, this took some planning on his part and there was plenty of time to evaluate whether or not he should publish this.

Dr. Greenfield is also not "most of us", he is supposed to be a preeminent leader in the surgical community and that brings with it a necessary level of tact that was simply not exhibited here.

I certainly do not think his career should be put in jeopardy, but what he did deserves repercussions.

 

[Smurfette]

View attachment 16626

Dirt, I agree that the article was in poor taste, but....not sure how far the punishment should go. Lose the editor-in-chief status (already done)? Or the ACS presidency? A simple public apology/explanation? What repercussions truly seem appropriate? I don't think there's a simple answer.

 

[Winged Scapula]

FYI...that is me bored out of my mind at a departmental meeting while discussing minutiae of how to punish surgeons who are late for cases.

I agree that it was in poor taste, but.... Does the punishment (i.e. possibly losing the ACS presidency is being discussed) really fit the crime or isn't it a bit harsh?

My question:

1) is this Greenfield being Greenfield (eg, this is what he's like) or is he losing his mind?

And while I agree that it calls into question his judgement and that people are making a big deal of it, I'm not sure ACS has much of a choice here. It will be a PC nightmare for them (in a world that already thinks surgeons are egocentric jerks). I think removing him from the presidency *is* a bit harsh but I wouldn't blame ACS for wanting to avoid public fall-out if they didn't.

 

[Smurfette]

My first impression was "is he losing it?", actually. I sort of dismissed that thought after I read it a second time, as I would *hope* the ACS president is fully competent. I agree it clearly is a lose-lose situation for both ACS and Greenfield, though. No matter what decision they make, people will think it's either too harsh or too soft, and both sides end up looking bad.

 

[dilated]

And while I agree that it calls into question his judgement and that people are making a big deal of it, I'm not sure ACS has much of a choice here. It will be a PC nightmare for them (in a world that already thinks surgeons are egocentric jerks). I think removing him from the presidency *is* a bit harsh but I wouldn't blame ACS for wanting to avoid public fall-out if they didn't.

Welp, he's officially out as ACS president-elect. Although I'm sure it'll be framed as "voluntary resignation" or something. There's only one thing in 21st century America that can never be forgiven..

 

[Chirurgia magna]

Wow, just got this email as well. What a load of crap.

Dear Colleague,

We are writing to inform you that the Board of Regents of the American College of Surgeons met on Sunday, April 17, to consider the continued status of Lazar J. Greenfield, M.D., FACS, as an officer of the College. Dr. Greenfield recently authored an editorial in Surgery News that some members of the surgical community found offensive. The College received numerous communications from the surgical community about the editorial.

Dr. Greenfield addressed the Board and expressed his deep regret that individuals had been offended by the article. After reaffirming his long-standing support for women in surgery, Dr. Greenfield resigned from his position as an officer of the College.

The contributions Dr. Greenfield has made to the field of surgery, including the invention of the Greenfield Filter, can not be overstated. We wish to honor Dr. Greenfield and celebrate his inestimable contributions to the College and the surgical community. We also know that at this critical juncture for surgery and health care in America, it is important that the American College of Surgeons not be distracted by any issues that would diminish its focus on improving care of the surgical patient.

As determined by the Board of Regents, Patricia J. Numann, MD, FACS, First Vice-President-Elect of the College, will assume the office of President-Elect.

Sincerely,

Carlos A. Pellegrini, MD, FACS, Chair, Board of Regents
L. D. Britt, MD, FACS, President
David B. Hoyt, MD, FACS, Executive Director
American College of Surgeons

 

[SLUser11]

Welp, he's officially out as ACS president-elect. Although I'm sure it'll be framed as "voluntary resignation" or something. There's only one thing in 21st century America that can never be forgiven..

I just got that email. It's ridiculous that this will be how he's remembered...

 

[JackADeli]

...some things are politically incorrect...

That's the point, "politically incorrect".... i.e. political, i.e. standards set via politics, i.e. crap! I don't set the standards of my discussions or even what is allowed to be discussed based on politics.

Let us not forget what "politically correct" really is. It is NOT a standard of moral conduct. It is NOT a standard of ethics. It is in general, a left/liberal means of sensorship. It is generally arbitrated and/or determined by liberal/left leaning media. And, it is horribly inconsistant in its application. To stop at the word hypocrisy would be mild in criticism. If a politically conservative/right leaning gender/race/ethnic individual is attacked, by "main stream" media standards, it is OK. However, you must tread lightly, circle round and round a subject, avoid direct comment when commenting on a liberal/left leaning gender/race/ethnic individual. So, to say something is "politically incorrect" truely has no fundamental value. That gauge is calibrated on individual basis depending on what political agenda dominates at the time. "Political correct" is a means of sensorship and often a means for individuals to cop-out of a conversation/debate in which they really have no standing to challenge; i.e. debate the funding of public schools and poor performance.... "that's politically incorrect because you must be racist".

Further, yes, he is DrGreenfield... writing an editorial specific to the surgeon community. This is not a wallstreet journal for all the common public.

...he is at best exhibiting poor taste and judgement, if not being outright derogatory to women...

Maybe, poor taste... though poor judgement does not necessarily equate poor taste. As to derogatory to women? No, I don't think so. His comments did not degrade women and thus not derogatory... though the politic people may claim it. He presented references to studies that suggest the results of heterosexual copulation may have health benefits.

In fact, his scientific references suggest that, a night of passion [often a major component of American Valentines celebration] may have more positive physiologic impact then the girth enhancing chocolates and/or dying flowers. Should that be viewed as offensive and/or taboo for physicians to state/write/comment in publications targeted to physicians?

Tongue and cheek/giggle factor aside, I find the references interesting if not educational. I, however, do not see this data/educational trivia being degrading to women. What, the possibility, based on actual scientific studies, that exposure to semen fluids may be physiologically beneficial is just plain wrong?! We just can't talk about such things. Hell, by those standards, I think the bigger crime was actually asking the questions, formulating the hypothesis, and performing the study. Someone's head should roll for such social sacrilege

I just got that email. It's ridiculous that this will be how he's remembered...

Sadly, be qualified or not, his female replacement will have the shadow hang over her that she is a token female in his position to make up for any perceived ~gender injury he may have caused....

 

[DoctwoB]

Agreed with most that it demonstrated poor judgement and taste, but was blown way out of proportion. Poor judgement in three ways. 1. The ACS journal is not the forum for sexual behavioral/psychology research. 2. The underlying study was pretty bad, and I would expect a surgeon of Dr. Greenfield's caliber to be better at critical analysis of literature then just publishing anything that sounds interesting. 3. If he did want to present the study as an interesting biological phenomon (as indeed it would be), then do it in a scientific manner and without the tongue-in cheek attempts at inappropriate comedy.

That said, all this just ads up to a bad editorial, which at most he should issue an apology for. Kicking him out of his position is a huge over-reaction to appease the PC crowd, and is completely ridiculous.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Question:

should men be commenting on whether said editorial is offensive to women?

As the email from the ACS noted, they have received several emails from women, and women surgeons, who stated that it was and is offensive.

Whether anyone thinks this is an overreaction, I find it interesting to see several of our male users here stating that it is an overreaction and should not/is not offensive. Is that anyone's place to comment on other than their own personal feelings?

 

[filter07]

Everything is offensive to someone. When the consequences are resignation from being editor or president of ACS, the level of offense should be fairly clear to most people, not just women.

 

[dilated]

Question:

should men be commenting on whether said editorial is offensive to women?

As the email from the ACS noted, they have received several emails from women, and women surgeons, who stated that it was and is offensive.

Whether anyone thinks this is an overreaction, I find it interesting to see several of our male users here stating that it is an overreaction and should not/is not offensive. Is that anyone's place to comment on other than their own personal feelings?

If he made a Polish joke and some Polish people got mad and said he should resign, could you only have an opinion on whether he ought to be forced to resign if you too were Polish?

That's kind of ridiculous thinking IMO, but it's unfortunately more and more common. It seems to be irrelevant whether you actually said something offensive, just the fact that somebody took offense automatically proves you are in the wrong.

 

[JackADeli]

Question:

should men be commenting on whether said editorial is offensive to women?...

Should they NOT? Should they only comment if they support the women feeling offended? Are we back to "PC", i.e. you can't discuss it unless you side with the PC position... cause maybe your just "sexist" if you don't agree. Now sex/gender determines your right to comment or have an opinion? That's troubling.

...As the email from the ACS noted, they have received several emails from women, and women surgeons, who stated that it was and is offensive.

Whether anyone thinks this is an overreaction, I find it interesting to see several of our male users here stating that it is an overreaction and should not/is not offensive. Is that anyone's place to comment on other than their own personal feelings?

I hear you. But the opposing question is who determines this? If some women are offended, is that enough? What if plenty of women did not find it offensive, is their lack of insult not relavent? What if women in general found no offense but many men complained, would that matter? What is the critical mass of "offended" comprised of? Do you need pop-press media attention? Do you just need a dozen women complain and/or claim to be "speaking for all the other women"? Shouldn't we ask why they are specifically offended? I have seen too many "offened" individuals unable to explain why they were offended..."it just seems wrong". Is it their personal interpretation as opposed to what was actually written? If their interpretation as opposed to the actual content causes them offense, who is really to blame?

But, I guess the suggestion is that nobody for whatever reason is allowed/able to voice their personal opinion on this matter. Apparently someone expressed their opinion it was offensive. Why is it any less appropriate for men (i.e. theoretical semen donors/valentine gifters) to voice their opinions too??? Only if males share or agree with the offended party? Really? Is that a modern open society of discussion and debate?

I don't know the answers. I just expect way, way more from the "most intelligent and/or most educated" segment of society. I too often find people wholely unoffended at any number of things until someone "educates them" on why they should be offended.... We are a culture of "victims" at every level/echelon of society.

If he made a Polish joke and some Polish people got mad and said he should resign, could you only have an opinion on whether he ought to be forced to resign if you too were Polish?

That's kind of ridiculous thinking IMO, but it's unfortunately more and more common. It seems to be irrelevant whether you actually said something offensive, just the fact that somebody took offense automatically proves you are in the wrong.

 

[Chirurgia magna]

Is it safe to express an opinion yet?

We continued our discussion today with our team (an equal number of men and women) and none of the women were offended by the article. They thought it was funny actually. But honestly, come on, offensive or not, I have heard L.D Britt say more stupid **** in a single sentence at conferences than that entire article combined.

 

[SLUser11]

Is it safe to express an opinion yet?

We continued our discussion today with our team (an equal number of men and women) and none of the women were offended by the article. They thought it was funny actually. But honestly, come on, offensive or not, I have heard L.D Britt say more stupid **** in a single sentence at conferences than that entire article combined.

Someone needs to show me how to make the emoticon eating popcorn.


As a sidenote, LD Britt is very entertaining. I've enjoyed his talks on SESAP and Audio digest, and I enjoyed meeting him at the DC conference.....I don't necessarily always agree with his approach to trauma care, but I enjoy listening to him state his case.

 

[ESU_MD]

Someone needs to show me how to make the emoticon eating popcorn.


As a sidenote, LD Britt is very entertaining. I've enjoyed his talks on SESAP and Audio digest, and I enjoyed meeting him at the DC conference.....I don't necessarily always agree with his approach to trauma care, but I enjoy listening to him state his case.

Entertaining ,, yes. Ifelt he was a very racist man underneath it all though

 

[Smurfette]

Someone needs to show me how to make the emoticon eating popcorn.

Advanced emoticons:

If replying to a post, "go advanced"
Under the smilies at the right, hit "more". Lots of options to choose from, also displays the written shortcuts.

The popcorn one is the word "corny" surrounded by colons.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Perhaps I should have worded my question differently.

First, I have no dog in this fight: I have already said I am not personally offended BUT a lot of women were. So I don't buy the argument that some arbitrary number of people need to be offended before it becomes real.

What I was referring to were the comments above and elsewhere from *men* who said either that women shouldn't find it offensive, it wasn't offensive, etc. I don't think that's one's place to say. Just as it would not be right for me to say, "those women shouldn't be offended", it isn't right for men to do so, especially when I think it reasonable to view this as more relevant to women.

My concern is that we shouldn't be deciding for OTHERS what is offensive and what isn't. If someone is offended, it is NOT "their problem" but rather we need to evaluate why they are offended and what role we play in that. I had a similar conversation with two friends the other day - the male in the triad referred to another woman as a bitch. I was not offended that he used the term; the other woman in the triad was -- even though the term was not directed at either of us. Does that mean she was wrong and I was right? Of course, not -- so why are we trying to determine for other people, mostly, women what they should be offended about? Should Greenfield have gotten a free pass because of his position, his fame? If anything, he deserves a harsher punishment because the expectations are higher for someone of his reputation.

So my point was not to imply that men shouldn't comment on this topic but rather I don't think they should be assuming they know what the majority of women really think or are offended by, nor does anyone here know what Greenfield *really* thinks and believes. I'm no feminist but I do get tired of the narcissistic attitude that "because I think X, so does everyone else".

Plenty of people were offended and regardless of Greenfield's accomplishments, he *and the editorial board* deserved censure and as I noted above, the writing was on the wall for his position with ACS days ago.

Should they NOT? Should they only comment if they support the women feeling offended? Are we back to "PC", i.e. you can't discuss it unless you side with the PC position... cause maybe your just "sexist" if you don't agree. Now sex/gender determines your right to comment or have an opinion? That's troubling.I hear you. But the opposing question is who determines this? If some women are offended, is that enough? What if plenty of women did not find it offensive, is their lack of insult not relavent? What if women in general found no offense but many men complained, would that matter? What is the critical mass of "offended" comprised of? Do you need pop-press media attention? Do you just need a dozen women complain and/or claim to be "speaking for all the other women"? Shouldn't we ask why they are specifically offended? I have seen too many "offened" individuals unable to explain why they were offended..."it just seems wrong". Is it their personal interpretation as opposed to what was actually written? If their interpretation as opposed to the actual content causes them offense, who is really to blame?

But, I guess the suggestion is that nobody for whatever reason is allowed/able to voice their personal opinion on this matter. Apparently someone expressed their opinion it was offensive. Why is it any less appropriate for men (i.e. theoretical semen donors/valentine gifters) to voice their opinions too??? Only if males share or agree with the offended party? Really? Is that a modern open society of discussion and debate?

I don't know the answers. I just expect way, way more from the "most intelligent and/or most educated" segment of society. I too often find people wholely unoffended at any number of things until someone "educates them" on why they should be offended.... We are a culture of "victims" at every level/echelon of society.

 

[JackADeli]

...I have no dog in this fight: I have already said I am not personally offended BUT a lot of women were. So I don't buy the argument that some arbitrary number of people need to be offended before it becomes real...

I completely follow. I generally don't have a dog in the fight either. As I noted in one of my earliest post, I/we in general expect a certain level of judgement at these high echelon positions.

However, I think there really is a number/critical mass of "offended" that needs to be considered. Say, 1, 2, 3 or 20 individuals (male/female/ethnic/non-ethnic/etc...) were offended where several thousands found no offense. Do the numeric minority of offended determine and/or sensor the topics of discussion? Do they determine the termination of an individual's career? I don't have the answer, but I think we need to be realistic and absolutely must consider the real extent of "offense" if any? I would hate the ACS to become so politically correct that it/we are paralyzed because some PART of some segment may become offended.

...What I was referring to were the comments above and elsewhere from *men* who said either that women shouldn't find it offensive, it wasn't offensive, etc. I don't think that's one's place to say. Just as it would not be right for me to say, "those women shouldn't be offended", it isn't right for men to do so, especially when I think it reasonable to view this as more relevant to women...

Again, I follow that. But, the point is that men can and should have an opinion too. The issue of sex is two way streak. Men may be donating the fluid and women receiving. I find it a mistake to presume this is purely a "woman issue". The fact is that the complaints circle around the idea of bodily fluid from MEN to WOMEN. Men caan have an opinion and their right to opinion should not be contingent upon agreeing with those offended. This article aside, we all see things in which we formulate an opinion as to whether someones reaction is appropriate. The world of PC seems to dictate everyone's feelings absolutely must be accepted and/or validated as if reasonable. Short of winning a court battle, it seems we are no longer able to rationaling consider data and/or formulate an opinion that someone is overeacting or oversensitive or simply out to lunch. Curiously though, such PC limits only apply to public issues... because, otherwise we would be socially paralyzed. I want to meet the individual that walks through daily life fully validating, accepting, and affirming everybodies opinions/feelings... Hell, that isn't even happening in this thread... at the exact time that we are told we can not judge the opinions of others (i.e. form our own opinions).

...My concern is that we shouldn't be deciding for OTHERS what is offensive and what isn't. If someone is offended, it is NOT "their problem" but rather we need to evaluate why they are offended and what role we play in that...

But, we do decide everyday on a regular basis. And, while not always, it is not uncommon that someone being offended is actually "their problem". That is part of why we "evaluate why they are offended and what role we play in that". We may play no substantive role other then we spoke reasonably. Again, the specific article aside, there are many with numerous issues that generate a sense of "offense". We should consider why. We should consider if the "offended" individual/s is an outlier or not. I have seen individuals offended when I was talking to buddies about a great drinking night out.... On differing occasions, the offended individuals then informed us how they were recovering alcoholics or their friend/family/etc... was an alcoholic or their friend/family member was in a DUI. The examples go on and on... should we take a poll and/or screen the population for general discussions. I would argue, in the case of individuals with personal background issues, their being offended is more to do with them then the general conversation. And, again, I am speaking generally and not directly to the Greenfield editorial.

...so why are we trying to determine for other people...what they should be offended about? Should Greenfield have gotten a free pass because of his position, his fame? If anything, he deserves a harsher punishment because the expectations are higher for someone of his reputation...

That is simple.... because that really is the determinant of the assuring the "punishment fits the crime". I don't believe anyone should get a "free pass" because of reputation or wealth or social/political status. But, this does in general terms boil down to someone charged with committing an improper act and as a result paying a penalty. We are a professional community (ACS). "We" should set standards, which by their nature establish what may be proper or ~respectable determination of violation of standards, i.e. "what [someone] should be offended by" in order to expect some justice/social restitution/etc.... That is life.

...So my point was not to imply that men shouldn't comment on this topic but rather I don't think they should be assuming they know what the majority of women really think or are offended by, nor does anyone here know what Greenfield *really* thinks and believes...

I generally agree. I don't know what anyone else thinks male/female/transgender/etc.... I definately don't know what LG thinks or thought when writing that article (though it is sad that it appears little effort was put into clarification on that front). I can only go by life experience and use that to hopefully form ~educated judgements of what is reasonable. I can tell you that every female I have spoken to [including WS] has expressed a lack of offense to the editorial.

...I do get tired of the narcissistic attitude that "because I think X, so does everyone else"...

Me too. But, sadly, we often find that position, IMHO, most pronounced in the feminist/PC/"I'm a victim" ranks of society. I prefer to hear people out but will not be forced/paralyzed in just accepting....

...Plenty of people were offended and regardless of Greenfield's accomplishments, he *and the editorial board* deserved censure and as I noted above, the writing was on the wall for his position with ACS days ago.

The statement of "plenty" and "deserved" are fairly definitive judgements to make. It is even more interesting for such a definitive indictment to be made by someone that self-proclaims a lack of offense at the conduct. It begs a question as to what facts that definitive position/conviction is based upon.....

I guess it would be nice to define "plenty"? Do you have an estimate/number? Was it accross the board groups offended? Again, such a comment presumes facts I don't have, do you? Cause, most of the discussion on this forum suggests, even from female posters defending the right of others to be offended, that they are NOT offended. Honestly to say someone or some group deserves a punishment really needs a basis more then just a generalize assumption. The ACS has repeated significant replies/complaints. Have they reported anything on the counter as to those that did not find offense? I don't know. But, I think we should act rational and behave in more of an "evidence based" fashion. I would hope ACS sets policy and positions on a broader basis then simply the loudest group at a given time. Maybe they did just that in this situation... however, NOBODY has presented any data/facts/details to support such an assumption. Rather, this discussion and the topic in general seems more based in emotional outrage by some unknown number of unknown composition. And, as I noted, I do find it offensive to presume that this, from an "offense" perspective is mostly owned by women.... that position is tiresome, especially when it comes to sex issues that require male and female.

 

[hotchocolate]

I'm not in surgery, but I think he deserved repercussions. In a time when professionalism in medicine includes respecting everyone's sexual orientation, race/ethnicity/cultural background, disability status, age, and a myriad of other considerations, it doesn't make sense if sexism is implicitly or explicitly accepted (and yes, saying that women need men for their mental health or survival, especially when this is completely unsupported by rigorous evidence, is sexist).

Being PC is not a bad thing. To limit someone's so-called freedom of speech in order to help people who have historically been discriminated against feel comfortable is a minor inconvenience to those who would love to loudly proclaim their racist and sexist "opinions." Thank God for PC speech and behavior. Without it this country would run rampant with discrimination and insults, under the guise of free speech and opinions. You know what they say about opinions right...

 

[dpmd]

While the part about recommending semen as a valentines day gift is the more sensational part of the story (hence why I used it as the title), I'm actually more interested in the comment about women not needing men until there is trouble. I am curious as to what he meant, because I can interpret it in ways that are offensive ("silly women don't think they need a man, but look who they run to when there is trouble" or "men are useless much of the time, but at least they can help out in a pinch"). I wonder if he just isn't good at humor, or if this is a peek into his way of thinking (that he hides most of the time so he doesn't get in trouble)

I don't think one person should comment on whether someone else WAS offended, and there is something that rubs me the wrong way about someone not in the group in question saying the offended person is wrong for being offended (to use the example earlier, somebody non-polish telling the polish person they are overly sensitive if they are offended by the polish joke). Not to say that they can't comment on the situation, just that they should be respectful.

Someone brought up professionalism. In an age where residents are getting in trouble for making some flippant facebook posts or having party pictures posted, you would think that the bar would be set higher for what can be published in a professional journal. I wonder if anyone reads through the editorials before they get published? Citing poorly conducted studies is not professional even if the content had nothing to do with sex.

 

[Winged Scapula]

I cannot define "plenty" or the number of women who were reportedly offended by the Surgery News article. The ACS has not released that information only to say that a substantial number of complaints were received. I do not know what substantial means either and that would be up to ACS to define.

I don't think one person should comment on whether someone else WAS offended, and there is something that rubs me the wrong way about someone not in the group in question saying the offended person is wrong for being offended (to use the example earlier, somebody non-polish telling the polish person they are overly sensitive if they are offended by the polish joke). Not to say that they can't comment on the situation, just that they should be respectful.

Exactly. This is the point I was trying to make. And yes, while we do "all the time" tell people they shouldn't be offended/feel X way, etc. this is inappropriate, IMHO. This is a central tenet of psychological training - feelings are neither right or wrong and judgements should not be made about them. I recognize that I am perhaps more liberal than others on this topic but I find it bothersome that people, mostly men, find it appropriate to tell the offended women that there is something wrong with them being offended.

Someone brought up professionalism. In an age where residents are getting in trouble for making some flippant facebook posts or having party pictures posted, you would think that the bar would be set higher for what can be published in a professional journal. I wonder if anyone reads through the editorials before they get published? Citing poorly conducted studies is not professional even if the content had nothing to do with sex.

Yes, I would suspect that even a thrown away publication like Surgery News has an editorial board (I know they do) which reviews the articles and editorials for publication. I don't care whether he cites poor studies but am still suprised that the article was accepted for publication. Makes me wonder how out of touch Surgery News editorial board is with the current political climate.

I would respond more to JAD's lengthy post above, but do not have the time to read it its entirety.

 

[JackADeli]

I'm not in surgery, but I think he deserved repercussions...

And that is your right to think what you want.... But again, I encourage everyone to pause and assess what they are basing their judgement and/or indictment upon....

1. are YOU specifically offended?,
2. is YOUR indictment based upon YOUR reading and understanding of what was written in its entirity/full context?
3. is the indictment based upon YOUR initial interpretation (possibly wrong or not) of what was written in or out of context?
4. is the indictment based upon YOUR reading that some other group, albeit anonymous and albeit of unknown size and/or composition was reported to be offended?
5. etc., etc....

To say/declare someone "deserves" significant and far reaching career punishment/penalties is a very strong statement. IMHO, nobody here, to my read, has expressed or demonstrated any significant awareness of the facts to support such a position. Hypothetically, if only one person was offended, is that adequate to terminate one's career? Is that the level of perfection required? Or, is there a "critical mass", short of which an editorial apology might have been "fair"?

While I can see pop press exploding over some agricultural workers statements out of context and the rapid political fall-out to termination, etc.... I personally expect more from educated adults in medicine that presumably have the intellectual capacity aand educationaal training to dig further then the sensational commentaries and pop-press. Let us not be sheep drawn by the PC machinery.

I am not a particularly strong supporter of LG per se. Nor do I claim those as yet unidentified "plenty" of offended lack reason for their feelings. I am just believe we should think beyond the emotion and have a real understanding of facts before we condemn individuals, organizations, etc.... I remember a famous "the police acted stupidly" statement or an US agriculture worker condemned and fired or recent tragedy of a shooting that led people to accuse whole blocks of otherwise unrelated people as being guilty/"blood on their hands", etc, etc.......

 

[dilated]

To limit someone's so-called freedom of speech in order to help people who have historically been discriminated against feel comfortable is a minor inconvenience to those who would love to loudly proclaim their racist and sexist "opinions." Thank God for PC speech and behavior.

 

[hotchocolate]

Oh, I am absolutely serious

Also, I think the repercussion for most of these "failure to be PC" type of transgressions should not be firing necessarily, but should include mandatory education (kind of like continuing medical education) followed by tests of understanding, on whichever topic the person failed to understand (whether that be racism, sexism, ablism, ageism, whatever). Unfortunately, some people just do not get it when they say something discriminatory...why is it discriminatory, why would you maybe not want to say something like that in a professional setting, why it demeans a group of people. Some people need to be educated on these things.

 

[filter07]

Oh, I am absolutely serious

Also, I think the repercussion for most of these "failure to be PC" type of transgressions should not be firing necessarily, but should include mandatory education (kind of like continuing medical education) followed by tests of understanding, on whichever topic the person failed to understand (whether that be racism, sexism, ablism, ageism, whatever). Unfortunately, some people just do not get it when they say something discriminatory...why is it discriminatory, why would you maybe not want to say something like that in a professional setting, why it demeans a group of people. Some people need to be educated on these things.

Did you go through this education too then? Did you think your school was right in giving you an ultimatum?

Sent from my cerebral cortex using intermittent sodium channels.

 

[Severus]

Also, I think the repercussion for most of these "failure to be PC" type of transgressions should not be firing necessarily, but should include mandatory education (kind of like continuing medical education) followed by tests of understanding, on whichever topic the person failed to understand (whether that be racism, sexism, ablism, ageism, whatever). Unfortunately, some people just do not get it when they say something discriminatory...why is it discriminatory, why would you maybe not want to say something like that in a professional setting, why it demeans a group of people. Some people need to be educated on these things.

i'd rather just get fired.

 

[hotchocolate]

Did you go through this education too then? Did you think your school was right in giving you an ultimatum?

Sent from my cerebral cortex using intermittent sodium channels.

Nope, I didn't ever say or write this sort of a thing, so never got an ultimatum--BUT I have heard of students from my school who were dismissed from school for writing non-PC things on a blog or forum posts. Many have also undergone Honor and Professionalism Council-type of hearings for these sorts of transgressions (one example, for making an anti-gay comment while drunk at a bar, reported by a fellow student).

This is my point of view, but I do think mandatory education would be a better alternative to dismissing or firing people (whether that is med students, residents, or attendings) for non-PC behavior.

There is also a generational issue here I think...because being PC is so ingrained in more contemporary education whereas I'm sure it was not so in Dr. G's generation. I think my generation (I'm 26) realizes the need to be PC much more than Dr. G's generation probably would, because we have grown up with more diverse classmates and with curricula that address that diversity-- BUT, there is still a long way to go.

 

[JackADeli]

...I think the repercussion for most of these "failure to be PC" type of transgressions ...should include mandatory education (kind of like continuing medical education) followed by tests of understanding, on whichever topic the person failed to understand (whether that be racism, sexism, ablism, ageism, whatever)...

Ahhhh, the monastic pursuit of social perfection.

...Unfortunately, some people just do not get it when they say something discriminatory...why is it discriminatory, why would you maybe not want to say something like that in a professional setting, why it demeans a group of people. Some people need to be educated on these things.

Interesting, let's start more comprehensive re-education camps.

Back to the topic at hand, I am not sure everyone agrees or even sees DrLG's editorial as "discriminatory". Most I have read thus far have expressed they "do not find it offensive/are not offended" by the editorial. Though most want to give the benefit of the doubt to the "plenty" or "numerous" anonymously offended. As to those, on this forum, implying or suggesting they are directly offended, I still have NOT seen/read very clear/coherent explanation as to what exactly [mind you the entire writing IN CONTEXT] they find so offensive. I suspect, though often wrong, just the counter editorial and/or the comment of semen is presumed to be taboo and thus fundamentaly offensive..... Interesting phenom in pop-culture these days, often, the discussion of anything closely or remotely related to male genitalia is presumed an attack/afront on women.

But, PC obviously does not require explanation just submission.

Nope, I didn't ever say or write this sort of a thing, so never got an ultimatum--BUT I have heard of students from my school who were dismissed from school for writing non-PC things on a blog or forum posts. Many have also undergone Honor and Professionalism Council-type of hearings for these sorts of transgressions (one example, for making an anti-gay comment while drunk at a bar, reported by a fellow student)...

Surprising, college/universities, the bastion of free speach and experimentation expelling students for free speach.... presumably speach that does not meet left/liberal leaning academia standards.

...There is also a generational issue here I think...because being PC is so ingrained in more contemporary education...I think my generation (I'm 26) realizes the need to be PC ...because we have grown up with more diverse classmates and with curricula that address that diversity...

That is both pathetic and tragic. "The need"? Seriously!!! Read my earlier post. There are fundamentally some concepts of truth, right, wrong. A decent basic philosophy class can help you catch up on those concepts. But, PC is by definition a fluid system of judgement geared toward squashing and/or sensoring opposing views that do not jive with the current POLITICAL regimes. It is also a very easy, aka lazy, way of copping out of discussing difficult topics. The "need to be PC" is a need to submit/conform, in more cases then not to liberal/left agenda.

It is currently not viewed as "PC" to talk about the mortgage crisis in terms of unqualified borrowers. Rather, "PC" is to blame the banks, declare it all the fault of "predatory lending". It is generally not "PC" to actually discuss the realities of who pays what amount of taxes and what percentage pays nothing. Rather, it is "PC" to debate who we should classify as "wealthy" and refer to the "wealthy" needing to "pay their share". It is not "PC" to speak to patients directly about bad lifestyle choices (i.e. diet, sedentary, tobacco, etc...), rather we must treat them as "the customer is always right"..... The list goes on and on accross many areas of modern life. The reality is "PC" is not a need or even a dependable/reliable/consistant standard. It is at best a hypocrisy filled set of rosey goggles better then a bottle of tequila but with a far more dire hang-over.

Of course, "PC" in its own way loves to be an "all inclusive" (until it's not) phenom of "I wouldn't do this/that but I'm not in a position to judge someone else...". You can only "judge" when it conforms to the "PC" masses. Why not grow a pair, take a stand, and make some judgements when it's NOT easy to stand up and judge... It is ever so easy to jump on the wagon in the "PC World" and throw stones at the outcast.

If we are going to judge individuals and/or their works, may we, as presumably educated, rational, critical thinkers use far more thought out standards of right and wrong as opposed to "PC".

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm

 

[filter07]

Half of the surgeons at U.Michigan are women, the highest rate in the nation.

Edited in case someone has an axe to grind

 

[hotchocolate]

Half of the surgeons at U.Michigan are women, the highest rate in the nation. Also, SEMEN AND VAGINA.

Your point? Half the surgeons in America are definitely not women...

I'm guessing even if the offended women surgeons who wrote in gave a public explanation of why they were offended, some people would still think the underlying reason is the mention of semen. Oh well...

 

[filter07]

hiding from the pc police

 

[Severus]

It is currently not viewed as "PC" to talk about the mortgage crisis in terms of unqualified borrowers.

...

... just...

i don't even know where to begin with this. but i'd be in the wrong forum anyway.

 

[goooooober]

Oh, I am absolutely serious

Also, I think the repercussion for most of these "failure to be PC" type of transgressions should not be firing necessarily, but should include mandatory education (kind of like continuing medical education) followed by tests of understanding, on whichever topic the person failed to understand (whether that be racism, sexism, ablism, ageism, whatever). Unfortunately, some people just do not get it when they say something discriminatory...why is it discriminatory, why would you maybe not want to say something like that in a professional setting, why it demeans a group of people. Some people need to be educated on these things.

You have to do more than be professional and pc as a leader, you have to know how to deal with human beings. Hopefully you will acquire some of that maturity and skill as you progress in your training or else there will be a lot of unhappy people under you and your type of attitude.

I really agree with JackADeli on this. I am really disappointed in Greenfield for agreeing to resign so fast. I would have gotten a better feel for who exactly I offended and then make a decision to either fight or apologize, not give up.

Oh well....

 

[ESU_MD]

You have to do more than be professional and pc as a leader, you have to know how to deal with human beings. Hopefully you will acquire some of that maturity and skill as you progress in your training or else there will be a lot of unhappy people under you and your type of attitude.

I really agree with JackADeli on this. I am really disappointed in Greenfield for agreeing to resign so fast. I would have gotten a better feel for who exactly I offended and then make a decision to either fight or apologize, not give up.

Oh well....

Who knows what kind of politics are involved at these levels. Seems like typical backroom deals situation.

Also, being elected president of ACS without having to actually serve may not be too bad of deal though. What else does greenfield have to prove anyway?