Should aspiring doctors be held to the Kavanaugh Standard?

IPSIS: Formerly the Spine Intervention Society
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
drusso said:
You would let a binge-drinking, rule-breaking, fornicating womanizer stick a needle in your spine??? The IPM specialty should strive for higher standards for personal conduct. We are endowed with a higher calling than a mere jurist/lawyer.
Click to expand...

As individuals, we've all got our faults and issues. When my patients ask me if I've ever had problems with any of the above, the answer is yes. We're all human.

Still, you can be a functional alcoholic and be a great physician.
You can be a rule breaker and be venerated as an innovator/CEO.
You can be a fornicating womanizer and be President of the United States, from either party.

That doesn't mean you deserve it or that you're the best person for it.

I do think committing perjury over a minor point just to save face suggests a deeper moral failing that is inexcusable, specifically for the position of Justice. I do suspect the little lie here is covering up bigger lies.

This is the dude telling you he only took one of his mom's Morphine pills accidently when he pees positive for heroin.
This is the guy that gets pissed off when you cut him off because he doesn't have a problem, you and your tests are the problem.

We've all seen this guy in our clinics. Why're we defending him? Just because he got into Yale?
Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
SSdoc33 said:
Boof is not farting. Devils triangle is not a drinking game. Ralph club is not because of a weak stomach. Renate alumnus is not a term of affection. These are all lies under oath. They are stupid, ridiculous, seemingly unimportant lies. They should mean nothing, but they are still lies. No reasonable person would believe bret kavanaugh in regards to the answers to these questions. Why should we trust him with a lifetime appointment?
Click to expand...
If you ask someone under oath if they just farted and they lie, would you charge them with perjury? It's absurdity. Democrats are digging themselves into a hole...
 
Last edited:
Im no expert in supreme court justice qualifications, but it seems that his positions on the constitution and his 30 year experience and record is what makes him qualified....or so im told. Amy Barrett will likely be RBG's replacement even though she went to Notre Dame instead of Harvard or Yale.

Just so im clear, you arent saying he sexually assaulted anyone anymore? Now it is about his temperament not being worthy or deserving of a SCOTUS based on his reaction to a fabricated(or 2 or 3 including gang rape) sexual assault accusation? Or that he lied about what things in his high school yearbook/calendar mean? I just want to be clear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Ducttape said:
Gauss summed it up succinctly. This is a job interview, not a court of law. Presumption of innocence need not apply. How you respond, on the other hand...

his accusatory stance, belligerent approach to questioning, all suggest he is not an appropriate SCOTUS. He will be biased from the get go. And... While his Fox interview served to politicize SCOTUS like never before, it wasn’t a deal breaker. His demeanor on that show did not disqualify him from the position. Not so with the hearings...

Again, remember no accusations were ever brought up against Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito.


Regarding the last point - Agast hits the point. In the past, white men were entitled and privileged. They made up the vast majority of all positions of power and would appoint others like themselves. That does not make it right, not in the current day and age.
Click to expand...

Keep your racism off SDN Ducttape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Gauss said:
Paranoid nonsense. Government is out to get ya! Seriously? This has been GOP brainwashing BS since Reagan. So, let's talk about his civil service vs private sector employment rights. With these accusations nothing will happen with his current employment. His employment is contractual, for cause, and union represented. Contrast this to at will, non-unionized employment in the private sector where an employer can fire you without cause at any time. In the private sector, the second you are considered a liability you are out. Try to win a wrongful termination lawsuit on grounds other than discrimination or retaliation.
Duffman Brett will be fine
Click to expand...

The fact that private industry can end/deny employment at will (and should be allowed to) doesn’t at all mean the govt should be allowed to deny employment without the presumption of innocence
 
drusso said:
You would let a binge-drinking, rule-breaking, fornicating womanizer stick a needle in your spine??? The IPM specialty should strive for higher standards for personal conduct. We are endowed with a higher calling and more responsibility than a mere jurist/lawyer.

How important is it that your doctor meet or exceed the Kavanaugh standard?
Click to expand...

No one should be defined based on their behavior in HS/college. From the guy I know who used to shoot squirrels out his kitchen window, the guy who stole a corvette at 14, the girl who DUI at 17 and killed a kid as pedestrian struck, the kid who used to vomit and toss his sheets out his window so his mom wouldnt know he drank a bottle of JD the night before. They all have moved on and work jobs. We are a sum of life experiences, not all wonderful times. I'd take the womanizer, former drunk a much as the guy who flipped his car and almost lost his family and his life. Same as I would take the kid who hotwired and stole a bulldozer and has had 7 serious concussions (3DAY COMA WAS LONGEST). Both of those guys went on to save lives in their training and now deal drugs and stab people in the back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Ducttape said:
Gauss summed it up succinctly. This is a job interview, not a court of law. Presumption of innocence need not apply. How you respond, on the other hand...

his accusatory stance, belligerent approach to questioning, all suggest he is not an appropriate SCOTUS. He will be biased from the get go. And... While his Fox interview served to politicize SCOTUS like never before, it wasn’t a deal breaker. His demeanor on that show did not disqualify him from the position. Not so with the hearings...

Again, remember no accusations were ever brought up against Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito.


Regarding the last point - Agast hits the point. In the past, white men were entitled and privileged. They made up the vast majority of all positions of power and would appoint others like themselves. That does not make it right, not in the current day and age.
Click to expand...

Seems like you and your liberal media are proving yourself racist and sexist at the same time against whites and against men. Ratings just came out and CNN and MSNBC were terrible. Imagine if they didn’t talk about trump 24/7 what their ratings would be? Ted Koppel nailed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Doctodd said:
From the attorney who specializes in this type of thing....

"To begin with, Mitchell lays out how Ford had "not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened" or her age when it happened, and how "her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent." For example, Mitchell points out that Ford listed Patrick "PJ" Smyth to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to a Post reporter, but "she did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's."

Ford has "no memory of key details of the night in question -- details that could help corroborate her account," Mitchell writes. Ford does not remember who invited her to the gathering, how she heard about it, how she got there, or where that house was located with any specificity. "Most importantly," Mitchell writes, "she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house. Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions."

Since Ford is no longer your talking point, you can get back to his behavior, his HS yearbook, his alleged alcohol problem, Trump's taxes, and any other new talking points you were given.
Click to expand...
Yes the attorney who was asking the Republican committee members questions, because they didn't have the balls. ya she didn't have a dog in the fight
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
lobelsteve said:
No one should be defined based on their behavior in HS/college. From the guy I know who used to shoot squirrels out his kitchen window, the guy who stole a corvette at 14, the girl who DUI at 17 and killed a kid as pedestrian struck, the kid who used to vomit and toss his sheets out his window so his mom wouldnt know he drank a bottle of JD the night before. They all have moved on and work jobs. We are a sum of life experiences, not all wonderful times. I'd take the womanizer, former drunk a much as the guy who flipped his car and almost lost his family and his life. Same as I would take the kid who hotwired and stole a bulldozer and has had 7 serious concussions (3DAY COMA WAS LONGEST). Both of those guys went on to save lives in their training and now deal drugs and stab people in the back.
Click to expand...

Are you F'ccking kidding? One shouldn't be judged for this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
lobelsteve said:
No one should be defined based on their behavior in HS/college. .
Click to expand...

that is a ridiculous blanket statement. agree that we shouldnt be defined by our drinking/partying/relatively harmless hijinx. attempted rape/sexual assault is a different matter

also, MAYBE nickolas cruz adam lanza, et al should be defined by their actions in high school. rape isnt a mass shooting, but save the absolutes, please
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
emd123 said:
During my 10 years in the ED, rape victims were brought to the ED. We had the job of collecting the evidence and doing the rape kits. The nurses would do most of the evidence collection, aside from the pelvic exam which was an MD role. There was a lot of evidence for the nurses to collect: Scraping under the nails, hair samples, rectal swab, more DNA and more DNA. As the physician, our job was to take the history, and we were trained to be as specific as possible. We'd ask for names, exact acts that occurred, what body parts, where, when, etc, to help with prosecution later, if that path was chosen. You'd run a pregnancy test, std tests, HIV, etc. The rape kits were then turned over to law enforcement and saved in case charges were pressed.

I must say a tremendous amount of these cases involved women who were intoxicated and didn't remember what happened or by who, or only remembered bits and pieces. Often times it was impossible to determine who took what, gave what, who did what, when, when where or why. Were they slipped a pill against their will? Did they drink excessively by choice? Were they drugged then given alcohol? What acts happened? What didn't? What body parts were touched, which weren't?

Without witnesses to fill in the gaps, often times it was impossible to tell. The end result was that recollections were often so poor that without DNA, an assailant ID (and there often wasn't) and more information there was little hope of a prosecutable case, in many instances. The detectives would show up (always in a suit) and show their obvious frustration. That doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. Sometimes the women couldn't even say for sure. It just means often times these situations are very difficult to determine what happened even under the best of circumstances. Not all of these cases presented like this, but a lot of them did.

It's a sad situation.
Click to expand...
i did not notice that at all. the drunk ones usually did not come in to be seen - at least not until they were sober.

what was noticeable to me were the ones that came in, torn clothes, bruises all over their bodies, blood on their underwear, who then were confronted with healthcare professionals who as delicately as possible tried to collect evidence, including pulling hairs from all over their body, combing for particles, pelvic exams, etc.

50% of the time, these poor individuals gave up and just went home instead of going through with the whole process.


fwiw doctodd, in a previous post you said he was a judge for 30 years. he has only been a judge since he was appointment to judgeship in 2003 by Bush, most likely for services provided as one of the main attorneys working on the Starr investigation. and the comments from Mitchell - trying to make this into a court case, when she never wanted it to be that - are exactly why Ford did not want an outside counsel to do the questioning. but she acquiesced due to the heavy armed tactics of O'Connell, because she thought was her civic duty.



btw, if i were raped, i would do my best to forget as many of the details as possible about that experience. why would i want to relive all the horrid details of the worst night of my life?
 
Doctodd said:
Seems like you and your liberal media are proving yourself racist and sexist at the same time against whites and against men. Ratings just came out and CNN and MSNBC were terrible. Imagine if they didn’t talk about trump 24/7 what their ratings would be? Ted Koppel nailed it.
Click to expand...
i cant be racist when i am quoting past history and stating the obvious - there have been power differentials between whites and non-whites, especially in politics in the past. that is not racist - that is a matter of fact.

the rest of the comments were in direct continuation of the article written by Krugman posted on a separate thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Doctodd said:
studies show that 40% of female sexual assault accusations are false
Click to expand...
Given that he has three levied against him, statistically at least one is true.

Regardless, he lied multiple times on the stand. He stated he has never drank to the point of being blacked out, when we have an email he sent a friend apologizing for getting blackout drunk on a boat recently. The man said one party would pay for this on the stand when justices are supposed to be impartial. He questioned the utility of polygraph tests that he himself has written opinions stating the utility and validity of during federal cases. He deflected questions to talk about football and Yale numerous times. He lacks the integrity and impartiality to be a Justice. Anyone else can be nominated to do the job, so why pick someone who blatantly lied under oath?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Im no expert on SCOTUS qualifications, and i dont believe anyone on here is either. Ill defer that to others, such as the American Bar who rated him extremely high.

Correct on the 30 years error. Thanks.

FBI investigation done....so far the consensus is that there is nothing new in the report.

As has rightfully been pointed out, he wont die of hunger if he isnt approved. But his family, wife, and especially daughters will be affected for years, and have been decimated by this circus, false accusations, and harassment. I pray for his daughters and what they have had/will have to endure thanks to Feinstein not handling this even close to properly.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine anything more dishonest than calling a man with daughters a gang rapist without any evidence and then using the anger it generated to claim he lacks judicial temperament, despite a decade on the bench without ever a question of his temperament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
lonelobo said:
Are you F'ccking kidding? One shouldn't be judged for this?
Click to expand...

She works as a vp in a large real estate company in PA. Unsure what price she paid criminally or civilly in 1989.

As far as absolutes ssdoc. I agree. Bad choice of words on my part. HS shooters, rapists, murderers ... deserve death. I believe something bad happened to ford. And i dont believe she ever had any contact with kav. This whole thing appears like a bunch of trumped up nonsense to delay until the Democrats win the midterms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Agast said:
Does an absence of standards in the past mean we shrug it off in the future?

What’s the point of trying to bring back “values” in American society if they only apply to the little guy and not the ones at the top? The original question was what kind of standards should we put on future doctors. I hope we can all agree it’s not a good idea to let rapists become doctors just because some doctors may have raped in the past. Like that freaky Nassar and the gymnasts.

As far as what’s changed - social media and fast dissemination of news have changed the way we share and process information. Before I had no way of knowing my classmates were sexually assaulted. Now they can share it on Facebook. You and I can argue back and forth on an Internet forum and it’s not a secret anyone can find it and make their own opinions. There’s no more hiding in 2018.
Click to expand...

When is the DNC going to bring "values" into the equation for Keith Ellison or Bill Clinton?

These "values" appear very one sided and magically only apply to Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
both sides have had politicians that have shown moral lapses.

to state that only one side has them, and only one side has defended those lapses, is, well, partisan and completely biased. ie both sides are guilty.
 
So 1 or 2 allegations of sexual assault as a teenager in high school should define a person for life? If one of your kids gets accused of something like this by another kid, remember this. They are labeled as a sexual predator for LIFE.

This judgmental condemnation attitude does not look good on democrats or anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ducttape said:
both sides have had politicians that have shown moral lapses.

to state that only one side has them, and only one side has defended those lapses, is, well, partisan and completely biased. ie both sides are guilty.
Click to expand...

naaaaa......only one side wins that award. Let's just say one side is juvenile, and the other isnt.
 
hyperalgesia said:
So 1 or 2 allegations of sexual assault as a teenager in high school should define a person for life? If one of your kids gets accused of something like this by another kid, remember this. They are labeled as a sexual predator for LIFE.

This judgmental condemnation attitude does not look good on democrats or anyone else.
Click to expand...

I really haven't seen the Republicans use uncorroborated 40 year old "allegations" that has been refuted by all the witnesses available at the time.

There is a big difference between these "allegations" and Keith Ellison accusations from 1 year ago with documentation, medical records and done by a person from the same political persuasion.

I remember the same Senators such as Feinstein or the lawyer Katz literally saying the exact opposite position for Bill Clinton in the late 1990s despite a plethora of actual evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Doctodd said:
Im no expert on SCOTUS qualifications, and i dont believe anyone on here is either. Ill defer that to others, such as the American Bar who rated him extremely high.

FBI investigation done....so far the consensus is that there is nothing new in the report.
Click to expand...
Lying on the stand is new, however
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Doctodd said:
naaaaa......only one side wins that award. Let's just say one side is juvenile, and the other isnt.
Click to expand...
Says the guys who states multiple times in previous posts " I am not a Republican", but then only argues their talking points, lmao
 
Kavanaugh decided if he was going down, it would not be w/o a fight. He called the BS for what it was.
Doctodd said:
I can't imagine anything more dishonest than calling a man with daughters a gang rapist without any evidence and then using the anger it generated to claim he lacks judicial temperament, despite a decade on the bench without ever a question of his temperament.
Click to expand...

Best summary of the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
can anyone hear the sound of the goal posts moving?

The 5 stages of TDS apparently last much longer than any of us originally anticipated
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
VA Hopeful Dr said:
Yep. I've been keeping an eye on 538's predictions for the make up of the Senate. The chances of the Democrats taking the Senate were hovering right around 30-31% until the last week. Now its down to 21%.

Wonder what's changed recently?
Click to expand...
These polls change weekly, It was a Longshot for the Dems to take Senate based on elections in red states.....now if they do't take the House that would be big news
 
hyperalgesia said:
Why do people say highest court in "the land"? Is this 15th century England? I always hear this from people who associate the US govt with royalty.
Click to expand...

Umm.. because it is actually defined as such in multiple sources as exampled by one below:

The Judicial part of our federal government includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution. They are the highest court in our country. The federal judicial system also has lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
hyperalgesia said:
Why do people say highest court in "the land"? Is this 15th century England? I always hear this from people who associate the US govt with royalty.
Click to expand...
The scotus is about as close as you get to royalty in this country. Appointed for life and above basically all reproach
 
Doctodd said:
Shhhhhhhhh don’t tell anyone. The silent majority will vote again in November.
Click to expand...

1438181559-20150729.png
 
lonelobo said:
Are you F'ccking kidding? One shouldn't be judged for this?
Click to expand...

The question is WHEN they should be judged.

To judge someone 40 years later, after a demonstration of responsible and top -notch behavior, is pretty darn cruel. I hope never to live in your community. I believe love, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, meekness, humility - are qualities I want to be around - not anger, fear, grudge-holding, and eye-for an eye attitude.

So like Steve said - I don't care where you've been, I care very much what you are doing now.

But on the flip side, if we think people can remember anything in their lives - we are horribly mistaken. Look up the study about flashbulb memories and 9/11. People's memories are horrible - and shouldn't be relied on for anything really. OR even better, listen to Malcom Gladwell's podcast called "Free Brian Williams"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
lonelobo said:
Umm.. because it is actually defined as such in multiple sources as exampled by one below:

The Judicial part of our federal government includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution. They are the highest court in our country. The federal judicial system also has lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues.
Click to expand...
Do you say, "SDN is the best forum in the land"? "I am the happiest person in the land"? This is what you sound like to me when you say "highest court in the land". It's like you're a peasant talking about the kingdom.

I think that's why Trump is so offensive to many. His crudeness constantly interupts that image...
 
lonelobo said:
These polls change weekly, It was a Longshot for the Dems to take Senate based on elections in red states.....now if they do't take the House that would be big news
Click to expand...
To an extent that's true. But 538 (generally speaking the most accurate prediction site we have) has said its more likely the GOP keeps the Senate. Its the probably of that that changes... and its been going up for the past week for some strange, inexplicable reason.

538 says the House is much closer. 49% Democrat control versus 41% GOP. Both the highest they've been in over a year.
 
its The highest court because it can overturn every other court - and court ruling - in land. that gives - Er bestows - it ultimate judicial power. There’s nothing regal in the definition, Besides that which is self indulged ...
 
epidural man said:
The question is WHEN they should be judged.

To judge someone 40 years later, after a demonstration of responsible and top -notch behavior, is pretty darn cruel. I hope never to live in your community. I believe love, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, meekness, humility - are qualities I want to be around - not anger, fear, grudge-holding, and eye-for an eye attitude.

So like Steve said - I don't care where you've been, I care very much what you are doing now.

But on the flip side, if we think people can remember anything in their lives - we are horribly mistaken. Look up the study about flashbulb memories and 9/11. People's memories are horrible - and shouldn't be relied on for anything really. OR even better, listen to Malcom Gladwell's podcast called "Free Brian Williams"
Click to expand...
So tell me exactly in the example Steve gave that a person killed a pedestrian by DUI when they should be judged and for how long?
3 yrs, 5yrs, ?
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
To an extent that's true. But 538 (generally speaking the most accurate prediction site we have) has said its more likely the GOP keeps the Senate. Its the probably of that that changes... and its been going up for the past week for some strange, inexplicable reason.

538 says the House is much closer. 49% Democrat control versus 41% GOP. Both the highest they've been in over a year.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are getting info but this directly from site today
2018 House Forecast
 
hyperalgesia said:
Do you say, "SDN is the best forum in the land"? "I am the happiest person in the land"? This is what you sound like to me when you say "highest court in the land". It's like you're a peasant talking about the kingdom.

I think that's why Trump is so offensive to many. His crudeness constantly interupts that image...
Click to expand...
No what is offensive about Trump is the man himself.
You may agree with his "current" policies, but you must agree he is also an insolent jerk as a human being.
 
lonelobo said:
No what is offensive about Trump is the man himself.
You may agree with his "current" policies, but you must agree he is also an insolent jerk as a human being.
Click to expand...

We all agree to that.... he won because he’s not a superficially charismatic politician. We’ve never said otherwise. And he is the perfect man for the job. The results speak for themselves.
 
lonelobo said:
No what is offensive about Trump is the man himself.
You may agree with his "current" policies, but you must agree he is also an insolent jerk as a human being.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, you’re demonizing Trump for his behavior and personal life. But you are all for the way Democrats act and work?
 
lonelobo said:
No what is offensive about Trump is the man himself.
You may agree with his "current" policies, but you must agree he is also an insolent jerk as a human being.
Click to expand...
I employ him for his work product, which has exceeded my expectations.

I am constantly jarred by some of his comments. But he's not my personal rep. He's not my king. And the scotus as well, I pay them to do a job that is well defined for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
lonelobo said:
So tell me exactly in the example Steve gave that a person killed a pedestrian by DUI when they should be judged and for how long?
3 yrs, 5yrs, ?
Click to expand...

Charged as a minor. She was plugged in to the legal system and paid a price determined by that system. The dead kid stayed did. Still a tragedy.

We have the rule of law in the greatest country in the history of earth. I am blessed to be born and to live in America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

C
Hand held ultrasound?
Replies
7
Views
957
ParaVert
ParaVert
drusso
Happy Doctors Day: There's Pizza in the Break Room
Replies
28
Views
1K
sloh
S
drusso
NYT: The Moral Crisis of America's (Pain) Doctors
Replies
27
Views
3K
bedrock
bedrock
drusso
Will the FIRE movement cause a shortage of pain doctors?
2
Replies
75
Views
3K
Pain Applicant1
Pain Applicant1
TeslaCoil
Doctors Unionizing
Replies
13
Views
1K
Agast
Agast
Top