Snitching on someone who lied on AMCAS?

[music2doc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

rules are not arbirary... agreed. Also rules can be very important, minorly important. They can be helpful. They can be oppressive. They can elevate society... They can oppress society.

But if you think all rules in society are just... if you think our legal system is just .... if you think rules are not biased... you may wish to study your history, sociology and political science a little better. Simple answers about right and wrong just do not work... life is complicated

And this thing about the 'empowered' welcoming rules and 'children' and 'prisoners' shunning them... that is rather simplistic. In fact some of the greatest minds and proponents of social justice were most definitely rule breakers.. Jesus... Mother Theresa... Gandhi.. Einstein... Bill Gates... And some of the greatest oppressors were rule worshipers... for example the Gestapo... Jihadists... Extreme Nationalists . And if you have ever been to certain nations (I will not say which ones). Said nations are filled with a near worship of rule following.. as well as an oppressive feeling environment and under representation in innovative thinking. One of the things that makes the USA great is that we were founded by rebels... rebels who can break rules and think outside the box as needed AND work within the system as needed.

of course lying on your AMCAS is a rule you shouldn't break..... but this thing about rule worship... that is rather silly. I see good doctors bend the rules for patients frequently... and I don't think they are 'disempowered'

Honesty... I think only two classes of people believe in unquestionably following rules... the oppressors and those who do not even realized they are being oppressed

I agree that some rules should be bent, but those who effectively bend rules are generally doing it for a "higher good" or "higher power". Look at your list and you might notice they were generally balancing ethics and morality against legalistic rules. Somehow, I don't see this girl's actions as ethically higher ground that AMCAS' position!

 

[mafunk]

I agree that some rules should be bent, but those who effectively bend rules are generally doing it for a "higher good" or "higher power". Look at your list and you might notice they were generally balancing ethics and morality against legalistic rules. Somehow, I don't see this girl's actions as ethically higher ground that AMCAS' position!

You are absolutely right... NOBODY would say this girl is trying to achieve the higher good. My post was in reaction to the poster who made broad generalizations about people who follow societal rules and people who are 'against' the man. (I say this not to show off but to make a point) I am upper middle class (top 5% income in nation), well educated, and have been a community leader..... I am empowered.... AND I am also someone who always questions 'the man'. Really a bit off topic, but I get concerned when I see people make such broad generalizations about the importance of following rules. In fact... had I been someone willing to operate withing the box, I would not be nearly as successful... nor would I be nearly as good (intuitive and empathetic) with my patients. Nor would I have been able to do nearly as many good things for society.

Sure... this gir's actions are not good. But I do not think anyone needs to turn her in. I think she will get caught. I think if she is not caught, somewhere down the line she will either grow up or fall on her face. I do not think she is a future danger to medicine and all this talk about her being one is emotionalism and just down right silly. And, I might add... If I knew this girl, I would pull her aside and talk to her about the implications of her actions. I would try to help her become a better person. She is not hurting anyone but herself, so why not try to help her get better.

Luke 23:34 "Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." This girl is just young and dumb. Forgive her... maybe help her... then move on. As I keep saying she is not a danger to society and nobody is in imminent danger.

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

 

[autotroph]

Sure... this gir's actions are not good. But I do not think anyone needs to turn her in. I think she will get caught. I think if she is not caught, somewhere down the line she will either grow up or fall on her face. I do not think she is a future danger to medicine and all this talk about her being one is emotionalism and just down right silly. And, I might add... If I knew this girl, I would pull her aside and talk to her about the implications of her actions. I would try to help her become a better person. She is not hurting anyone but herself, so why not try to help her get better.

I disagree with the philosophy of kicking the can down the road. Who is to say the next person who witnesses her screw up will turn her in? Will that person simply move forward and rationalize it by saying the same thing -- "she'll get caught...someday..." Medicine isn't one of those fields where "falling on your face" in the ethical sense is tolerable by any stretch of the imagination -- hell, there is even an oath.

So sure, pull her aside and tell her she did wrong and it won't float forever. What effect do you see having on this person? You can hope and pray that she will take it to heart and change her ways, but the fact of the matter is that at this stage of life, people are largely set in their ways.

It boils down to this: Do you feel comfortable letting this go just speaking to her if there is a 50% chance she will make a major professional mistake? How about a 25% chance? 10%? 1%? Where is the line that makes it worthwhile to let this slide?

 

[phltz]

I should preface this post with the fact that, even though I'm extremely liberal... I happen to be a rule follower. BUT I happen not to believe that telling on this girl serves the higher good... I think it is petty and injecting oneself where one doesn't belong. It is apples to oranges comparing this situation to a dr. with an alcohol problem.

rules are not arbirary... agreed. Also rules can be very important, minorly important. They can be helpful. They can be oppressive. They can elevate society... They can oppress society.

But if you think all rules in society are just... if you think our legal system is just .... if you think rules are not biased... if you think it's your duty to tell on very person you encounter who breaks a rule not matter how minor....you may wish to study your history, sociology and political science a little better. Simple answers about right and wrong just do not work... life is complicated. And a culture of turning in your neighbor no matter what the infraction... well read your history.

And this thing about the 'empowered' welcoming rules and 'children' and 'prisoners' shunning them... that is rather simplistic. In fact some of the greatest minds and proponents of social justice were most definitely rule breakers.. Jesus... Mother Theresa... Gandhi.. Einstein... Bill Gates... And some of the greatest oppressors were rule worshipers... for example the Gestapo... Taliban... Communists... Extreme Nationalists . And if you have ever been to certain nations (I will not say which ones). Said nations are filled with a near worship of rule following.. as well as an oppressive feeling environment and under representation in innovative thinking. One of the things that makes the USA great is that we were founded by rebels... rebels who can break rules and think outside the box as needed AND work within the system as needed.


this thing about rule worship... that is rather silly. I see good doctors bend the rules for patients frequently... and I don't think they are 'disempowered'

Honesty... I think only two classes of people believe in unquestionably following rules... the oppressors and those who do not even realized they are being oppressed

I never claimed that all rules need to be enforced, but that a blanket "no snitching" rule is not compatible with being in a position of real responsibility and authority. I'm perfectly willing to break rules that I think are counterproductive or unjust, but as a responsible adult who's been in positions of real authority and who is rapidly entering a position of much greater authority, I recognize the importance of doing so carefully and conscientiously. I wouldn't argue for turning in a neighbor for any infraction. In fact, I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue for that. But I have seen a lot of people arguing for a more or less blanket rule of not turning people in, and I think that's a dangerous attitude.

Here's the thing - as a doctor you're very nearly at the level where you can't leave it up to the authorities to enforce appropriate behavior. You are the authority. It's up to physicians to establish a medical culture that demands ethical behavior. There are no teachers or hall monitors in the hospital to keep it from falling apart, there are only other physicians. This demands that we consider the importance of different rules, and be willing to change or get rid of some, yes. But it also demands that we be willing to work hard to keep and enforce the important norms of behavior, even if it is uncomfortable or comes at a cost to ourselves. The attitude of "This doesn't involve me, I should just mind my own business" is not compatible with being in this sort of position.

And you might want to work on your list of examples. Unnecessarily breaking out Nazi Germany really weakens your argument. Also, Mother Theresa was a hyper-dogmatic bitch, and possibly a sociopath. She refused to provide painkillers even to people undergoing very painful procedures in her clinics, because she thought suffering brought them closer to Jesus. It's a mystery how she's been lionized as a saint by people of good conscience.

 

[mafunk]

I'm perfectly willing to break rules that I think are counterproductive or unjust, .....

That's good. Glad to hear 🙂 . On the other stuff... I will agree to disagree.

Good luck with your 'increasing' responsibility. I'm sure you will give it 100%.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

"Snitches get stitches."
- The Holy Bible

Best. Quote. Evarrrrr!😀

 

[Spatula]

The culture of blaming the snitch and not the person who actually committed the offense is so.... slimy. Real adults take responsibility for their own mistakes.

Lying about ECs deserves to be punished. It's such a high reward with no real downside if not outright caught. I am 92.3% certain that I'd have gotten accepted a year earlier if I had embellished my own ECs, it was the weakest part of last year's application.

I think it can be reasonably expected that cheating on tests at some point is going to have karmic backlash because I'd think you'd hit a wall at some level where cheating isn't going to be enough and not having the real background that non-cheaters have will backfire. Lying about ECs won't have a mechanism like that.

 

[mafunk]

I think it can be reasonably expected that cheating on tests at some point is going to have karmic backlash because I'd think you'd hit a wall at some level where cheating isn't going to be enough and not having the real background that non-cheaters have will backfire. Lying about ECs won't have a mechanism like that.

She shows up to clinical class first day.... doesn't know how to take bp, bg, ekg, etc.... I think folks might wonder

 

[Corte]

So why do you think other people would want to associate with her? This "it's not my problem" attitude is distressing to me. She is a problem within the system and a very real potential liability.

I'm a firm believer in the sentiment behind "you can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends." When you first meet people as a pre-med/in college in general (and I'd assume this applies later on,) you have the luxury of deciding who you want to associate with. For some, friends eventually turn into family. I'm bringing this up because of two reasons: 1) I don't interrogate my prospective friends or conduct a thorough background check. I simply get along/want to work with a person, or I don't. 2) My reason for not wanting to associate with her would be because I'd have a degree of resentment that stayed in the back of my mind because I knew she lied. When she meets new people, they won't necessarily know how she fabricated things unless she's crazy enough to keep bragging about it.

"It's not my problem" ... because in all honesty, it's not!

I think a lot of people on SDN are seeing this entire situation in a very black or white sense of wrong vs. right. There are some things I see in grey, and this is one of them. Sorry if that's distressing.

 

[mafunk]

I think a lot of people on SDN are seeing this entire situation in a very black or white sense of wrong vs. right.

I agree ...... and black and white morality on relatively trivial things like this usually does not lead to good things imho

 

[leaveit2rani]

Snitches get Stiches Bro!

 

[AllDaWEI]

I realize this isn't quite answering the OP's question, but I did have a strange revelation about this topic. In order to uphold the "principle" of volunteering, an ADCOM should NOT verify any volunteering activity. This might sound absolutely nuts to you, but let me explain.

The purpose of volunteering is to show that a pre-med is altruistic, and otherwise very few applicants would be accepted without displaying this altruism. Now in order to be altruistic, the ADCOM must make some assumptions. First of all, it must assume that each student volunteers because they want to, and not because they were ever forced to because of some requirement. If a student does this just to jump through a hoop, are they actually altruistic? The school therefore must assume that the students wanted to volunteer all along, and that the admissions process had no real bearing on their decision to volunteer. An ADCOM can not have expected any of the pre-meds to volunteer, and should be pleasantly surprised every single time they view an application with volunteering on it.

Because volunteering is something someone does willingly because they want to (in principle), then wanting to volunteering at the hospital changing sheets should not be any different than wanting to play my XBox 360 on weekends.

Now let's say an ADCOM decides to verify that an admitted student volunteered. Even if the student checks out, what is this implying? If a school doubts that someone volunteered in the least bit, then does that mean that the ADCOM finds the student to be NOT altruistic? Now how is this possible? How can a student possibly be admitted to medical school without being altruistic? What if the student played video games on weekends, would the school need to verify that they were plugged into their XBox 360?

Yes you may find this reasoning to be ridiculous, but is it? If volunteering is supposed to demonstrate altruism, then arent the schools required to believe that every single pre-med volunteered because they wanted to? When I was interviewing, I was never asked if I volunteered because I had to for medical school admissions.

After all, it would be preposterous for an ADCOM to assume that any pre-med volunteered because they needed to. Otherwise, how can they admit someone who isn't altruistic? And at the end of day, verifying it will only show doubt in this trait they deem absolutely necessary. 😕

 

[TriagePreMed]

I realize this isn't quite answering the OP's question, but I did have a strange revelation about this topic. In order to uphold the "principle" of volunteering, an ADCOM should NOT verify any volunteering activity. This might sound absolutely nuts to you, but let me explain.

The purpose of volunteering is to show that a pre-med is altruistic, and otherwise very few applicants would be accepted without displaying this altruism. Now in order to be altruistic, the ADCOM must make some assumptions. First of all, it must assume that each student volunteers because they want to, and not because they were ever forced to because of some requirement. If a student does this just to jump through a hoop, are they actually altruistic? The school therefore must assume that the students wanted to volunteer all along, and that the admissions process had no real bearing on their decision to volunteer. An ADCOM can not have expected any of the pre-meds to volunteer, and should be pleasantly surprised every single time they view an application with volunteering on it.

Because volunteering is something someone does willingly because they want to (in principle), then wanting to volunteering at the hospital changing sheets should not be any different than wanting to play my XBox 360 on weekends.

Now let's say an ADCOM decides to verify that an admitted student volunteered. Even if the student checks out, what is this implying? If a school doubts that someone volunteered in the least bit, then does that mean that the ADCOM finds the student to be NOT altruistic? Now how is this possible? How can a student possibly be admitted to medical school without being altruistic? What if the student played video games on weekends, would the school need to verify that they were plugged into their XBox 360?

Yes you may find this reasoning to be ridiculous, but is it? If volunteering is supposed to demonstrate altruism, then arent the schools required to believe that every single pre-med volunteered because they wanted to? When I was interviewing, I was never asked if I volunteered because I had to for medical school admissions.

After all, it would be preposterous for an ADCOM to assume that any pre-med volunteered because they needed to. Otherwise, how can they admit someone who isn't altruistic? And at the end of day, verifying it will only show doubt in this trait they deem absolutely necessary. 😕

Meanwhile in the real world... ADCOMS will check if they are suspicious of someone or because they have too much time on their hands.

 

[Neurosis]

a lot of sanctimony and hypocrisy on this thread.

 

[autotroph]

"It's not my problem" ... because in all honesty, it's not!

I think a lot of people on SDN are seeing this entire situation in a very black or white sense of wrong vs. right. There are some things I see in grey, and this is one of them. Sorry if that's distressing.

I understand your "grey area" argument, but I don't think that's where anyone is going here. Anything contentious will almost always be grey area. That's where the argument comes in--it isn't a proper resolution (IMO) to say, "Well, it could go either way!" and call it a day.

To answer your quote...yes it isn't a problem to me directly, but don't you see how it is a potential problem for anyone she comes into contact with in the future? Like I said before, and please answer me on this one: how likely must it be that she makes a MAJOR error resulting in serious harm to a patient before reporting her is a good idea? 100%, report her for sure, right? What about 50%? Etc...

She may still end up attending medical school, but I feel like the admissions committees would absolutely want this information beforehand. It's beyond the issue of shirking the "stupid" stuff. She actively lied on official documentation (and probably in interviews). That kind of transgression is something that admissions committees probably would prefer to weed out early on.

 

[autotroph]

a lot of sanctimony and hypocrisy on this thread.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Neurosis]

I think a lot of people on SDN are seeing this entire situation in a very black or white sense of wrong vs. right. There are some things I see in grey, and this is one of them. Sorry if that's distressing.

This pretty much sums up my ideas without having to type paragraphs. 👍

 

[Spatula]

I think a lot of people on SDN are seeing this entire situation in a very black or white sense of wrong vs. right. There are some things I see in grey, and this is one of them. Sorry if that's distressing.

For all but the OP this is just a hypothetical situation. Seeing it in grey still means you have to make a decision. There is no grey answer, there is report or don't report.

 

[Neurosis]

Care to elaborate?

I personally wouldn't tell. I mean what's the point? You give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done and gain a sense of satisfaction knowing you've done the right thing.
What you have to understand however, is that morality in and of itself is relative. What you think is right and what I think is right could be two different things. I think lying is wrong, but at the same time I realize I lie at times, does that make me a "bad person", I tend to think not, however to some crazed nun somewhere my actions qualify me to go to hell. Anyway, getting back to the topic, the reason I used sanctimony and hypocrisy is because it's true. Everyone lies, and whether it's a small or white lie, a lie is a lie. I'm not going to bore you with ethical/philosophical quandaries, but going around and saying that you would tell on the person and questioning the morals of others when you yourself have lied countless times is a fine example of hypocrisy, and then claiming others are less ethical because they refuse to do is quite frankly sanctimonious and pretentious.

 

[autotroph]

This pretty much sums up my ideas without having to type paragraphs. 👍

I don't know if you caught my last post, but you do realize that grey area is what debate is meant for right? What is missing in this discussion is some logos from the side that says "let it slide." If you want to call this a grey area and move on...go for it, but that isn't a solution my any stretch of the imagination.

Saying this is a grey area is a cop out from discussion.

I personally wouldn't tell. I mean what's the point? You give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done and gain a sense of satisfaction knowing you've done the right thing.

Narcissism at its finest. No one here is saying that you should report her because it will make you feel good about yourself. What I and several others are saying is that she poses a risk of being a liability.

What you have to understand however, is that morality in and of itself is relative. What you think is right and what I think is right could be two different things. I think lying is wrong, but at the same time I realize I lie at times, does that make me a "bad person", I tend to think not, however to some crazed nun somewhere my actions qualify me to go to hell.

So you're saying that thou shalt not judge because peoples' moral compasses are different? The moral compass that matters in this case is the admissions committee--how many ADCOMs do you think would admit someone that they knew had lied profusely on their application? Your argument here is irrelevant.

Anyway, getting back to the topic, the reason I used sanctimony and hypocrisy is because it's true. Everyone lies, and whether it's a small or white lie, a lie is a lie.

Context, my friend. Of course everyone lies, but she lied on official documentation in hopes of obtaining a profession degree. I can tell you, sir or madame that I most definitely did not. I have told many a lie, but in my pursuit of my future profession I have been honest with both what I am and am not proud of. If she tells her mom she spent that $500 for books on booze instead, yeah sure that sucks, but its not the same. Lies are not equivalent, and lies in some context may be far more harmful than in others.

I'm not going to bore you with ethical/philosophical quandaries,

...wut?

but going around and saying that you would tell on the person and questioning the morals when you yourself have lied countless times is a fine example of lying, and then claiming others are less ethical because they refuse to do is quite frankly sanctimonious and pretentious.

Again, context. Lying to a profession school's admissions committee should affect how you are viewed in that professional circle, especially when honesty and integrity are particularly paramount in the field.

 

[Spatula]

I personally wouldn't tell. I mean what's the point? You give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done and gain a sense of satisfaction knowing you've done the right thing.
What you have to understand however, is that morality in and of itself is relative. What you think is right and what I think is right could be two different things. I think lying is wrong, but at the same time I realize I lie at times, does that make me a "bad person", I tend to think not, however to some crazed nun somewhere my actions qualify me to go to hell. Anyway, getting back to the topic, the reason I used sanctimony and hypocrisy is because it's true. Everyone lies, and whether it's a small or white lie, a lie is a lie. I'm not going to bore you with ethical/philosophical quandaries, but going around and saying that you would tell on the person and questioning the morals of others when you yourself have lied countless times is a fine example of hypocrisy, and then claiming others are less ethical because they refuse to do is quite frankly sanctimonious and pretentious.

I'm trying to disimpact your post. Have I got this straight?

Part 1. You're saying that morality is relative. "that morality in and of itself is relative"

Part 2. You're saying that morality is strictly black and white. "a lie is a lie".

 

[Neurosis]

I don't know if you caught my last post, but you do realize that grey area is what debate is meant for right? What is missing in this discussion is some logos from the side that says "let it slide." If you want to call this a grey area and move on...go for it, but that isn't a solution my any stretch of the imagination.

Saying this is a grey area is a cop out from discussion.

From my perspective it is the other side which is using ethos rather than logic. Most of them are fueled by what they think is right, whereas the "let it slide" is debasing the argument.

 

[Neurosis]

I'm trying to disimpact your post. Have I got this straight?

Part 1. You're saying that morality is relative. "that morality in and of itself is relative"

Part 2. You're saying that morality is strictly black and white. "a lie is a lie".

Yes I said morality is relative, and a lie is a lie no matter how small, HOWEVER, because morality is relative, certain lies may not appear as bad as others. I didn't say morality is black and white and I have no idea where your reasoning for that came from. I assume you're probably just contentious.

 

[autotroph]

From my perspective it is the other side which is using ethos rather than logic. Most of them are fueled by what they think is right, whereas the "let it slide" is debasing the argument.

The logic I (and others) have been employing is based on the fact that she brandishes a character flaw that is absolute red flag material for someone going into this profession. Someone with that attitude and track record of improper actions is probably more likely to harm someone in the future.

Also that this might set her straight or set her down a career path that tolerates a little bit looser integrity.

Last, see my edit to the above post.

 

[phltz]

I personally wouldn't tell. I mean what's the point? You give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done and gain a sense of satisfaction knowing you've done the right thing.
What you have to understand however, is that morality in and of itself is relative. What you think is right and what I think is right could be two different things. I think lying is wrong, but at the same time I realize I lie at times, does that make me a "bad person", I tend to think not, however to some crazed nun somewhere my actions qualify me to go to hell. Anyway, getting back to the topic, the reason I used sanctimony and hypocrisy is because it's true. Everyone lies, and whether it's a small or white lie, a lie is a lie. I'm not going to bore you with ethical/philosophical quandaries, but going around and saying that you would tell on the person and questioning the morals of others when you yourself have lied countless times is a fine example of hypocrisy, and then claiming others are less ethical because they refuse to do is quite frankly sanctimonious and pretentious.

I lie sometimes too. "No, you didn't screw it up, this cake is perfect," or "Sorry I can't hang out on Friday, I've already got plans." I'm prepared to deal with whatever fall out may come from this were it to somehow come to light.

I would submit to you, however, that there is a world of difference between lying to smooth over minor hiccups in your social life, and lying to get ahead in your medical career. I have no qualms about people who are prepared tell white lies of no real consequence to keep a friend happy. I have huge qualms about medical professionals who are prepared to lie and cheat to further their own careers. One is, at worst, a bit of a wimp who's too worried about other people being happy. The other is a hazard in the clinic and a giant disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Neurosis]

I lie sometimes too. "No, you didn't screw it up, this cake is perfect," or "Sorry I can't hang out on Friday, I've already got plans." I'm prepared to deal with whatever fall out may come from this were it to somehow come to light.

I would submit to you, however, that there is a world of difference between lying to smooth over minor hiccups in your social life, and lying to get ahead in your medical career. I have no qualms about people who are prepared tell white lies of no real consequence to keep a friend happy. I have huge qualms about medical professionals who are prepared to lie and cheat to further their own careers. One is, at worst, a bit of a wimp who's too worried about other people being happy. The other is a hazard in the clinic and a giant disaster waiting to happen.

Again: no one is arguing that what she did is wrong. but to take action against her, solely out of a "sense of justice", when: A) you have probably lied/cheated/stole and weren't caught and B)you have absolutely no stake in the matter, isn't really necessary. As an "obscure" religious icon would say "he without sin, cast the first stone"

 

[Neurosis]

The logic I (and others) have been employing is based on the fact that she brandishes a character flaw that is absolute red flag material for someone going into this profession. Someone with that attitude and track record of improper actions is probably more likely to harm someone in the future.

Also that this might set her straight or set her down a career path that tolerates a little bit looser integrity.

Last, see my edit to the above post.

this is why i said you were using ethos. you are basing your argument of her being a threat to medicine solely on one instance of dishonesty. You don't know her, you don't know this person, she could have been a saint otherwise and just very desperate. Without knowing the full situation you can't make such baseless arguments.

 

[phltz]

Again: no one is arguing that what she did is wrong. but to take action against her, solely out of a "sense of justice", when: A) you have probably lied/cheated/stole and weren't caught and B)you have absolutely no stake in the matter isn't really necessary. As an "obscure" religious icon would say "he without sin, cast the first stone"

Again, I think it's important to start adopting the norms of behavior that you'll need when you become a doctor. It's a long road, but if you're already applying to medical school, it's not too early to start.

Suppose your mother came down with cancer, and there were two hospitals you could send her to. In the first, doctors hold each other to high professional standards. If, from time to time, someone discovered that a doctor or medical student has falsified official documents to further his or her own career, they take action to somehow clear up the problem. In the second hospital, every doctor minds his or her own business when it comes to ethics. Doctors regularly falsify documents to further their own careers, lie about having done stuff that they really haven't done because it's too much work, and generally have a relaxed attitude about following the rules. Everyone looks the other way as long as no one is directly injured as a result, because, hey, who's perfect?

Which hospital are you going to want to send your mother to?

 

[autotroph]

Again: no one is arguing that what she did is wrong. but to take action against her, solely out of a "sense of justice", when: A) you have probably lied/cheated/stole and weren't caught and B)you have absolutely no stake in the matter isn't really necessary. As an "obscure" religious icon would say "he without sin, cast the first stone"

I think you are really missing out the reason people are saying to turn her in. It's a concern with her future patient interactions, not fueling my personal ego or sense of justice.

Of course I have lied/cheated and not been caught, but would you not expect me to be held accountable if I was? What if my lying/cheating/stealing could hurt someone?

I don't really see how your Bible quote is applicable in this case either. You cannot impose ancient theological morals on the medical school admissions process.

 

[autotroph]

this is why i said you were using ethos. you are basing your argument of her being a threat to medicine solely on one instance of dishonesty. You don't know her, you don't know this person, she could have been a saint otherwise and just very desperate. Without knowing the full situation you can't make such baseless arguments.

In this field, honesty and integrity are a big deal. Lacking one or both (especially where it matters--your application) is a deal breaker in most cases.

 

[Neurosis]

Again, I think it's important to start adopting the norms of behavior that you'll need when you become a doctor. It's a long road, but if you're already applying to medical school, it's not too early to start.

Suppose your mother came down with cancer, and there were two hospitals you could send her to. In the first, doctors hold each other to high professional standards. If, from time to time, someone discovered that a doctor or medical student has falsified official documents to further his or her own career, they take action to somehow clear up the problem. In the second hospital, every doctor minds his or her own business when it comes to ethics. Doctors regularly falsify documents to further their own careers, lie about having done stuff that they really haven't done because it's too much work, and generally have a relaxed attitude about following the rules. Everyone looks the other way as long as no one is directly injured as a result, because, hey, who's perfect?

Which hospital are you going to want to send your mother to?

I don't know why you would include my mother in this situation, but obviously most would choose the first rather than the latter. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you're imposing that because she lied in this instance she'll probably continue. And who's to know? Maybe she will maybe she wouldn't.

 

[Neurosis]

I think you are really missing out the reason people are saying to turn her in. It's a concern with her future patient interactions, not fueling my personal ego or sense of justice.

Of course I have lied/cheated and not been caught, but would you not expect me to be held accountable if I was? What if my lying/cheating/stealing could hurt someone?

I don't really see how your Bible quote is applicable in this case either. You cannot impose ancient theological morals on the medical school admissions process.

I really hate repeating myself, but as it seems you won't even bother to read my earlier posts I guess I have to. We don't know the full story, therefore we cannot conclude that she's likely to lie again. Is it possible though? Of course it is. But by all means if you feel the future patients are threatened by her falsifying info OP, go and tell on her.

 

[StoicJosher]

I don't know why you would include my mother in this situation, but obviously most would choose the first rather than the latter. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you're imposing that because she lied in this instance she'll probably continue. And who's to know? Maybe she will maybe she wouldn't.

The point is that it doesn't matter if she will continue or not. Because she lied now, she should be ready to face consequences that come her way.

 

[Neurosis]

The point is that it doesn't matter if she will continue or not. Because she lied now, she should be ready to face consequences that come her way.

Okay, you're saying that. But autotroph is concerned about the future so I was addressing him/her.

 

[Valadi]

This is YOUR field. These will be YOUR patients. This is YOUR responsibility. Do whatever it takes to fulfill that responsibility. THAT is "Do No Harm" -- it goes beyond simply not stealing your patients' "unnecessary" kidney during an operation or prescribing unnecessary medications for a patient to get a payout from the drug companies.

I suppose if you're doctor's in a dark alley in Sri Lanka...

Kidney steal

 

[phltz]

I don't know why you would include my mother in this situation, but obviously most would choose the first rather than the latter. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you're imposing that because she lied in this instance she'll probably continue. And who's to know? Maybe she will maybe she wouldn't.

If this situation has nothing to do with what you're saying, that what you're saying is missing the whole point. The reason we have professional ethics is not because we gain some satisfaction from being moral human beings. It's not because it lets us feel good about ourselves. It's not because it will make god or Jesus happy. It's because strong professional ethics are necessary for delivering good medical care to the patients who depend on us. It's because it's the only way for the system to work effectively. It's because otherwise people get hurt, or die, or are scammed, or have their privacy violated. And when some people are scammed or have their privacy violated, it means other people notice, avoid the medical system, and then are hurt or die.

This particular girl may or may not continue having serious ethical lapses in the future. But the smart money says that she's certainly a risk for it. And the longer she's allowed to get away with ethical lapses, the more inclined she will be to continue. And the more she gets away with bragging about it to everyone else, the more she spreads the idea that professional ethics are a silly formality.

As several other people in this thread have pointed out, doctors who really screw the pooch and end up in trouble for severe ethical lapses usually have a history of smaller ethical lapses that they've gotten away with. There's no guarantee that any given person will escalate their bad behavior, but just looking the other way and letting it slide is a terrible practice.

 

[Neurosis]

If this situation has nothing to do with what you're saying, that what you're saying is missing the whole point. The reason we have professional ethics is not because we gain some satisfaction from being moral human beings. It's not because it lets us feel good about ourselves. It's not because it will make god or Jesus happy. It's because strong professional ethics are necessary for delivering good medical care to the patients who depend on us. It's because it's the only way for the system to work effectively. It's because otherwise people get hurt, or die, or are scammed, or have their privacy violated. And when some people are scammed or have their privacy violated, it means other people notice, avoid the medical system, and then are hurt or die.

This particular girl may or may not continue having serious ethical lapses in the future. But the smart money says that she's certainly a risk for it. And the longer she's allowed to get away with ethical lapses, the more inclined she will be to continue. And the more she gets away with bragging about it to everyone else, the more she spreads the idea that professional ethics are a silly formality.

As several other people in this thread have pointed out, doctors who really screw the pooch and end up in trouble for severe ethical lapses usually have a history of smaller ethical lapses that they've gotten away with. There's no guarantee that any given person will escalate their bad behavior, but just looking the other way and letting it slide is a terrible practice.

Well, risking the chance of being called an amoral "narcissist", I still feel there's no point of telling, if there is no immediate harm or problem. OP. Just my opinion. Don't hate me for it.

 

[deleted307836]

Fantastic posts phltz.

It's somewhat depressing though to see an exchange where one states their opinion, fully backs it up, illustrates it with hypothetical situations, but is met with unsubstantiated opposition of little more than vague emotion. Obviously not worth your time.

 

[Neurosis]

Fantastic posts phltz.

It's somewhat depressing though to see an exchange where one states their opinion, fully backs it up, illustrates it with hypothetical situations, but is met with unsubstantiated opposition of little more than vague emotion. Obviously not worth your time.

It's 3 am here, give me a break. 🙁

 

[mauberley]

Fantastic posts phltz.

It's somewhat depressing though to see an exchange where one states their opinion, fully backs it up, illustrates it with hypothetical situations, but is met with unsubstantiated opposition of little more than vague emotion. Obviously not worth your time.

No, but there's studying to be avoided, so.

 

[phltz]

Fantastic posts phltz.

It's somewhat depressing though to see an exchange where one states their opinion, fully backs it up, illustrates it with hypothetical situations, but is met with unsubstantiated opposition of little more than vague emotion. Obviously not worth your time.

Thanks. I'm glad that what I'm saying actually makes sense to someone.

No, but there's studying to be avoided, so.

Yeah, exactly. I get sucked into these sorts of threads in almost perfect proportion to how much work I should be doing.

 

[TheBossDoctor]

First of all, don't you have to list a contact person for each of your activities (so that they can verify that you actually did them)? If so, then even if they haven't caught her yet, they can still find out later on when they review old applications (which isn't uncommon) and check the references/contact people listed. If she's already attending that school when they find out she lied, then she would probably get kicked out. Even if she has long since graduated and gotten her MD when they find out, they can still take that degree away. Basically, even though she's been accepted, they can still find out she lied without you having to snitch on her.

 

[music2doc]

First of all, don't you have to list a contact person for each of your activities (so that they can verify that you actually did them)? If so, then even if they haven't caught her yet, they can still find out later on when they review old applications (which isn't uncommon) and check the references/contact people listed. If she's already attending that school when they find out she lied, then she would probably get kicked out. Even if she has long since graduated and gotten her MD when they find out, they can still take that degree away. Basically, even though she's been accepted, they can still find out she lied without you having to snitch on her.

Do you honestly think the Admissions staff (or anyone else) at a given school has the time to go back through and check on old apps of current students (unless a pattern has emerged and there is a need to examine where Admissions missed something)? Unless you have hard evidence many schools actually do this, I highly doubt they do. It simply seems a bit unlikely. They are generally overworked as it is trying to sift through thousands of applications each year.

 

[SeminoleVesicle]

Do you honestly think the Admissions staff (or anyone else) at a given school has the time to go back through and check on old apps of current students (unless a pattern has emerged and there is a need to examine where Admissions missed something)? Unless you have hard evidence many schools actually do this, I highly doubt they do. It simply seems a bit unlikely. They are generally overworked as it is trying to sift through thousands of applications each year.

They could easily randomly choose 1 reference and call them, though I'm sure it's variable by school. To assume makes an ass out of you and an ass of out of me.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Even if she has long since graduated and gotten her MD when they find out, they can still take that degree away.

'Put down the scalpel, Doctor. We called that McDonald's you said you worked at 30 years ago, and they said they'd never heard of you. Please put your hands behind your back...'

 

[autotroph]

Okay, you're saying that. But autotroph is concerned about the future so I was addressing him/her.

Because here is the thing -- who are you or I to decide if that chance is worth taking? She may or may not. However, as I have stated twice before, where do you decide that the chance she will repeat this behavior is worth reporting her?

Say you KNOW she's going to repeat (100%) you obviously report her, right? Well that's not a realistic scenario, so what if there is a 50% chance...do you report her then? 25%? 10%...1%? Where is the line? No one has addressed this yet. The fact that you don't *know* if she is going to repeat this offense or not is exactly why acting conservatively in the best interests of the profession and possible future patients to report her IMO.

That and the whole, she messed up right now and should dance to her own music.

 

[Spatula]

Yes I said morality is relative, and a lie is a lie no matter how small, HOWEVER, because morality is relative, certain lies may not appear as bad as others. I didn't say morality is black and white and I have no idea where your reasoning for that came from. I assume you're probably just contentious.

I apologize, I realized after I posted that it was completely the wrong tone. My reasoning however was that you said a lie is a lie. By saying it is hypocritical for anyone who lies at all to accuse anyone else of lying regardless of the situation is what I meant by black and white. To me that removes all room for moral relativity.

 

[Neurosis]

Nvm

 

[Neurosis]

I apologize, I realized after I posted that it was completely the wrong tone. My reasoning however was that you said a lie is a lie. By saying it is hypocritical for anyone who lies at all to accuse anyone else of lying regardless of the situation is what I meant by black and white. To me that removes all room for moral relativity.

Accusing others of lying when one lies is not hypocritical by itself, it becomes hypocritical when one questions the morals of others when they themselves have committed the same action. basically, if i were to lie, and went up to someone who lied and pointed it out, i wouldn't be a hypocrite, but, if I question their morals or hold myself to a higher standard I would be.
Hypocrisy: the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have

 

[phltz]

Accusing others of lying when one lies is not hypocritical by itself, it becomes hypocritical when one questions the morals of others when they themselves have committed the same action. basically, if i were to lie, and went up to someone who lied and pointed it out, i wouldn't be a hypocrite, but, if I question their morals or hold myself to a higher standard I would be.
Hypocrisy: the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have

This whole argument is about ethics, not morals. They aren't the same.

The medical system is staffed entirely by humans. Humans are flawed. All of us make mistakes. That means we need to work together to help each other to improve so we can make fewer mistakes. One of the best ways we can do this is by holding each other accountable. We catch each other's mistakes, sometimes to teach, sometimes to punish, not despite our own flaws but because of them. If I hold you accountable for mistakes in the clinic, it isn't because I think I'm perfect, it's because I know I make mistakes too. It's because I want you to do the same for me. It's the only way I can reach my full potential. It's precisely because I aspire to a high standard that I want to work in a medical system set up this way.

This isn't hypocrisy, it's just practical planning. It's like washing your hands before you see a patient. It just works better that way.