- Joined
- Apr 8, 2019
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 1,104
At least, we may have a diverse but useless workforce!
Rad Onc Job Market, Supreme Court, and Hyper-Polarization of America
- Thread starter Gfunk6
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 4,264
- Reaction score
- 9,929
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
Deep red states will only fail further down the economic ladder. Could argue that FL and TX are red but imo they are closer to purple. Going to be even harder to recruit ROs to these pro life states, but with the oversupply, it may not matter
www.axios.com
www.cnn.com
Overturning Roe could reverse economic gains
An end to Roe could set back the economy.
The economic consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade will be enormous, experts warn | CNN Business
Restricting reproductive freedom comes at an economic cost to the nation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,657
- Reaction score
- 3,473
The End of Roe v. Wade
For a constitutional scholar and pro-choice Democrat, there are reasons to endorse the leaked draft opinion overturning the 1973 abortion decision—and to see it as vindication for a range of liberal priorities.
www.wsj.com
"I am a Democrat who supports abortion rights but opposes Roe. The Court's ruling in the case was simply not grounded either in what the Constitution says or in the long-standing, widely embraced mores and practices of the country. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that, and perhaps the Dobbs draft is wrong too. But there is nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political in what Justice Alito has written."
It seems there are two possible conservative arguments for why Roe v Wade should be overturned.
The End of Roe v. Wade
For a constitutional scholar and pro-choice Democrat, there are reasons to endorse the leaked draft opinion overturning the 1973 abortion decision—and to see it as vindication for a range of liberal priorities.
"I am a Democrat who supports abortion rights but opposes Roe. The Court's ruling in the case was simply not grounded either in what the Constitution says or in the long-standing, widely embraced mores and practices of the country. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that, and perhaps the Dobbs draft is wrong too. But there is nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political in what Justice Alito has written."
1) States can arbitrarily pass laws that regulate bodily functions so long as there isn't an explicit rule against it in the constitution.
2) Fetuses are de facto human beings.
I am a liberal in the classic sense in that I like to imagine why others' hold the opinions that they do. What I see in the leaked brief is argument 1), but i get the sense that this is a fig leaf for argument 2). Are "pro-life" advocates so excited because overturning Roe v Wade brings us just a little closer to constitutional purity? Not likely. If Maryland passed a law that all men who have a child out of wedlock are required to have a vasectomy, wouldn't that be permissible by the same argument proposed by Alito? Perhaps, a conservative would argue that male autonomy (as opposed to female autonomy) does, indeed, embrace the "mores and practices of the country"...
...but let's get back to the real issue motivates "pro-life" advocates: their belief that life begins at conception. I contend that many haven't really thought this through. If a fetus has the same rights as a person, can you imprison a pregnant woman?...wouldn't this violate the due process of the fetus? Can you deport a pregnant immigrant who conceived in the US?...after all, she is carrying an American citizen. Can pregnant women claim their pregnancy as a dependent?
My instincts are telling me that this is going to end badly for the "pro-life" movement.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,661
- Reaction score
- 5,080
Honestly, women who are of reproductive age in the US are having fewer and fewer babies. There are a lot of good reasons for this. This decision will probably accelerate that issue (e.g. population stagnation and decline). I've definitely heard some women say that they will simply opt for surgical sterilization because a lot of states will also make it hard for contraceptives and the morning after pill to be available and covered by medical insurance.
By returning a contentious social issue to the states, and thereby the representatives of the people at that level -- accountable in a much more meaningful way than SCOTUS, would contend that much of the vitriol and angst will be removed from the issue. Federalism can be your friend, as many found out during the recent pandemic.
And I would suggest that the many religious denominations of those who have animated the pro-life movement have thought it through, quite thoroughly. You (and many!) may not like their conclusions, but it does form a logical whole.
I am not certain that the best face of federalism is giving states the power to bully their citizens
I am also not certain that, in a free country, a non-believer should be bound by any faith’s beliefs.
Let’s be honest… this isn’t about freedom, it’s about control. What would a federalist say about this proposed Missouri law that would criminalize abortions its residents get in other states?
The deep red states are going to compete for who can be the most cruel. The “pro-life” will doom itself with this zealotry. To quote Exodus, the Lord has “hardened [their] heart”
I guess if those citizens of whichever feel bullied they can vote out the bullies and have the law changed? Much better than 5+ in black robes unaccountable to the public making the rules up. Of course the abortion folks can engage in the arduous work of a constitutional amendment. Didn't work out for the temperance movement, but can always try!
Perhaps women’s advocates can just simply defend their “religious” views against these intolerant states. After all, with equal sincerity, can’t I just simply argue depriving a woman of choice is “against my religion”? Those are the buzz words one needs to get unreasonable consideration from those black robes (unaccountable to the public)… right?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
Scary stuff
abcnews.go.com
www.saintfrancis.com
Don't ignore pain/"The 5th vital sign"!!
Tulsa mass shooter allegedly gunned down his doctor after asking for help with pain
A patient gunned down his doctor and three other people in a mass shooting at a Tulsa, Oklahoma, medical building on Wednesday afternoon, according to police.
Preston J. Phillips M.D. - Orthopedic Surgery - Tulsa, Oklahoma (OK)
Preston J. Phillips M.D. practices Orthopedic Surgery at a Saint Francis facility in Tulsa.
Don't ignore pain/"The 5th vital sign"!!
D
deleted941485
Scary stuff
Tulsa mass shooter allegedly gunned down his doctor after asking for help with pain
A patient gunned down his doctor and three other people in a mass shooting at a Tulsa, Oklahoma, medical building on Wednesday afternoon, according to police.
Preston J. Phillips M.D. - Orthopedic Surgery - Tulsa, Oklahoma (OK)
Preston J. Phillips M.D. practices Orthopedic Surgery at a Saint Francis facility in Tulsa.
Don't ignore pain/"The 5th vital sign"!!
Blame the MD: Doctors should think about the implications of saying no to a patient in pain…
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
From what it sounds like he had seen this guy in fu after surgery trying to address things?
Have you ever said no to a request for main pain medication?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
"med onc already prescribing it to you via PDP search so nope, not writing more"
D
deleted941485
If there’s no actual contraindication, no. Pisses patients off otherwise and thankfully I don’t have to follow them that long. Push it off on pain management and them sweat it out. Let them look over their shoulder everytime they are in the parking lot
I usually give patients the benefit of the doubt but won’t interfere if palliative/med onc is already managing. Have had to say “no” a few times to patients on a pain contract with someone else…
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 8,624
- Reaction score
- 10,698
Narcotics from orthopedic/spine surgeon is a much different game than narcotics from an oncologist of any-type. I imagine how frequently I say no (I can remember about 2 cases thus far in 2 years where I got significant push back for 'I won't Rx narcotics for your chronic pains') is multitudes less than what orthopedic or neurosurgeons or any other type of surgeon have to in any sort of time frame. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Just terrible. Congress will provide thoughts and prayers and then nothing will continue to happen. If congress isn't interested in taking any steps to prevent deaths of children, they're not going to magically start protecting doctors.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 316
Bets on how long it takes before someone proposes arming all doctors like they want to do with teachers?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 4,264
- Reaction score
- 9,929
When a Psychiatrist Shoots to Kill | National Review
‘More might have died if doctor had not shot gunman” — so read the headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 27. On the previous Thursday, a patient, Richard Plotts, entered the office of his p…
www.nationalreview.com
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 3,681
The lack of waiting periods in purchasing firearms is just absolutely ridiculous. Who knows if a cooling off period might have made a difference.
Anyone who NEEDS a gun today . . . should not get a gun today.
Anyone who NEEDS a gun today . . . should not get a gun today.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 5,904
Some of us have trees to cut down. It needs to be done now, and it needs to be fully auto
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
Extended mags a must... I got a damn forest to take care of
The best part of concealed carry license is no waiting period. Impulse buying guns is awesome.
Why?
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,016
- Reaction score
- 9,782
We should be arming the kids.
Why not?
Passed the background check for the CCL. Then another when buying. Why wait 3 days or whatever? Take it immediately to the range and sight in, and/or mods, or whatnot.
Well, for one, who’s to say you haven’t committed a crime between getting you permit and you developing your sudden “impulse” to purchase a gun? I suspect folks like you could manage some patience while exercising your second amendment rights… if it means keeping the rest of us safe, right? I mean, you don’t NEED to impulse buy guns, you just like to, right?
Ha it always comes to that. I suspect folks like you can mind your own business and not worry about other's needs. And if you don't, as can easily be predicted when particular parties run the federal government, good time to arbitrage with gun/ammo manufacturer stocks.
I suspect folks like you forget that delayed gratification is the cornerstone of civilization.
“But I want it now!!” Is not a serious or compelling argument.
Do you have a grown up reason you can’t wait three days?
Not on me to explain. On you to explain why my constitutional rights should be restricted. Maybe your elegantly crafted explanation (or appeal to emotion, whatever) will change hearts and minds in state legislatures.
D
deleted1116990
It sounds like he doesn't, but perhaps the 5'1" 95 lbs. woman who just left her abusive ex husband and is now coming home from work late at night hiding alone in a motel in a high crime neighborhood does. I guess she could just carry some pepper spray and a whistle though.
The argument that nobody needs an AR-15 or needs to buy a gun immediately or needs whatever else is incredibly privileged and presumptuous. You don't know what someone else's situation is. It is everybody's own personal prerogative to determine what they need for their protection. Interestingly, politicians and celebrities tend to prefer their private security teams be equipped with weapons like AR-15s. But you don't need that, only they do. Furthermore restricting things based on whether not people subjectively need them is a slippery slope. You don't really need that gold locked away in your safe, do you? Here, we're going to take that from you and give you this paper money instead. It's just as good, trust us.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
Nothing about treating a long gun and an ar15 the same in the constitution. That's where common sense comes in... Ask Japan, Switzerland etc
Nah… no where in constitution does it mention that you don’t need a background check. It’s just you don’t have a compelling argument, so you are left with a silly one.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 8,624
- Reaction score
- 10,698
I need a shoulder mounted stinger missile for my protection. Oh, wait… that’s not allowed. But it’s MY PREROGATIVE!
Society accepts limits on the right to bear arms, because no one would every want to fly in a plane if one could be easily shot down by an “armed citizen” who is having a bad day.
If there are going to be SOME limits, shouldn’t we consider whether there should be some more? For example, would limiting impulse buying result in more lives being lost, or more lives being saved? I think the answer to that question is obvious but it’s a question that many refused to address.
As expected you have none at all.
D
deleted1116990
He is talking about waiting periods, not background checks. Although, arguably either could be considered an infringement on the rights of citizens to bear arms. If you can't obtain them, then you can't bear them. Regardless, states have rights to handle things not addressed in the constitution and there exists a process for changing the constitution.
You don't sound very informed on this if you are confusing waiting periods and background checks. To clarify, when you purchase a gun and a background check is run, this happens through a computer system and this takes about one or two minutes. A waiting period is something else entirely that some restrictive states have.
The other thing that usually needs clarifying is what the purpose of the second amendment is/was. Very few people understand this. It is not about hunting or home security. The purpose of the 2A is to prevent government tyranny. You probably think this is ridiculous (that can never happen here! -- actually, it has happened here), but it is the truth, and just throughout the 20th century I can give you a dozen examples of governments disarming its citizens then committing atrocities against the part of the population it did not like. Do you think the draconian Covid lockdowns that occurred in Australia would have been taken to the extent they were if there were an armed population and that people who didn't like it may have reacted violently? Maybe you think that was a good thing. There is certainly a large percentage of the population that believes the government can better take care of people than granting people liberties and the responsibilities of taking care of themselves.
I will be happy to address it. Individual liberty is always the most important thing. When you start doing cost benefit analyses to justify restricting individual liberty, you are talking about consequentialism and go down a slippery slope of the ends justifying the means. Would confiscating all guns, if that were even possible, lower gun deaths? I will admit, almost certainly. Does that justify stripping the entire country of lawful citizens of their liberty? It's doubtful that those who legally purchase a gun to commit murder would have any qualms about obtaining a gun illegally to commit murder. Surely some percentage will change their mind if obtaining a gun is harder (but given our experience with the war on drugs, do we honestly think we will be very successful at preventing a thriving black market of guns?). Others will obtain guns illegally and others will kill people through other means. What percentage of people will just change their mind if they can't buy a gun at wal-mart? I have no idea, and I don't care because I don't believe the ends justify the means. The systemic problem of what is driving people to kill doesn't go away magically with the stroke of a pen.
My argument is simple. Many mass shootings are completed with weapons that are purchased immediately prior to the crime... as such, perhaps we should examine mandatory waiting periods. Your argument appears to be "butttt I like impulse buying guns, and, um, second amendment".
Am I missing some nuance to your point? If so, the floor is yours...
The nuance would be that he considers the right to bear arms to be inherent- that is, they are protected by the government, not granted by them. Therefore, the onus is upon the government/state to explain why that right has to be infringed, it is not upon him to explain why the right needs to be preserved.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 5,904
D
deleted1116990
I remember very clearly growing up seeing somebody open carry a long gun in a grocery store. Everyone hates jackasses like that.
What's worse, the right to fart in the elevator or the right for the average American to wear comfy skin tight clothes and flip flops on an airplane? They are basically cruise ships in the air at this point. Take a flight on Spirit to Las Vegas... the horror.
Have you bothered to look at the data? It's out there (to the extent any social science data can be termed in such a way). What percentage of those mass shooting would have been prevented by your proposals - time delays, etc? How many lives saved? My guess is no because you think the answer is obvious. It just feels "right" to you. You're a smart person -- my guess is you don't think you practice feeling based medicine. Why practice feeling based politics?
Spoiler alert the number is of deaths in mass shootings potentially averted is small by absolute number, even if many of these proposed laws worked in the real world perfectly. How small? On average about 19 per year. At least according to the NY times last time I checked. And that's just accepting their suppositions at face value.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 5,904
all we're allowed to go on are feelings being as actually looking into the matter is frowned upon
Science | AAAS
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 8,624
- Reaction score
- 10,698
Yeah.... I think this has gone as expected. This is not relevant to Rad Onc or medicine as a whole and has now become a political discussion. Do not continue this in other threads or expect warnings.
Locked
Locked
- Status
