"THE DO" JAN 07- "Champions for Change?" OR BRING US BACK TO THE DARK AGES

[kelaskov]

Has anyone read the recent, "The DO" Jan2007- "Champions For Change"?
On page 38 under the subheading "Courage of Convictions" the article compares "pro-life" DO's as being equivalent to abolitionists in the days of Abraham Lincoln. Am I the only one who finds this outrageous????? Why is this journal, which is an official publication of the AOA, publishing such biased articles? Why are they surprised that so few DO's join the AOA when they pull crap like this.
There is a reason elective abortion is legal in the US- why are they supporting someone who advocates for return to the dark ages when women became septic and infertile after seeking illegal abortions in dark alleys and foreign countries like Mexico?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Old_Mil]

Has anyone read the recent, "The DO" Jan2007- "Champions For Change"?
On page 38 under the subheading "Courage of Convictions" the article compares "pro-life" DO's as being equivalent to abolitionists in the days of Abraham Lincoln. Am I the only one who finds this outrageous?????

Actually, I think it's a fairly accurate comparison. If there is an error in the comparison, it probably is this: *some* slave owners probably had a higher regard for the lives of their slaves than abortion advocates have for the lives of the pre-born babies they discard.

I didn't go to medical school to take lives, I went to save them - and I suspect that planned parenthood isn't competing with too many Orthopedic Surgery residencies for quality people.

 

[the1doc]

Actually, I think it's a fairly accurate comparison. If there is an error in the comparison, it probably is this: *some* slave owners probably had a higher regard for the lives of their slaves than abortion advocates have for the lives of the pre-born babies they discard.

I didn't go to medical school to take lives, I went to save them - and I suspect that planned parenthood isn't competing with too many Orthopedic Surgery residencies for quality people.

Oh Good La-ha-ha-ORD. Now slave owners are taking the high road compared to abortion advocates...for your daily dose of comedy, just come to SDN, folks....

 

[the1doc]

As the tears stream down my face, Enya blaring in the background, I can't help but read this beautiful line, over and over:

"I didn't go to medical school to take lives, I went to save them."

Pulitzer material, really.

 

[olliemctuffy]

I didn't go to medical school to take lives, I went to save them - and I suspect that planned parenthood isn't competing with too many Orthopedic Surgery residencies for quality people.

This is too much, the almighty future orthopod is putting the smack down! Really, I'm not in it for the money, I just like screwing bones together. Please enlighten us as to what you mean by quality people and realize the thread is about whether or not it's appropriate for the AOA to be publishing an article like this.

The AOA is so republican it's ridiculous, when Phil Shettel was president of the AOA he came to our school and told us to vote only for republicans, now this bs, plus in the same issue you can see the AOA's position on universal health care, a real laugher.

Here's one of their points: "The AOA opposes establishing a single payer healthcare system in which the federal or state government is the primary source of funding for healthcare services, excluding such federal and state programs as Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP."
Wow- way to make a stand and call for change

....later on..."For example, physician compensation for care provided must not be jeopardized by federal, state or local policies"
What does this even mean??? Let's just have it jeopardized by manage care instead??? Good thing the AOA has its priorities straight!

 

[Old_Mil]

....later on..."For example, physician compensation for care provided must not be jeopardized by federal, state or local policies"
What does this even mean??? Let's just have it jeopardized by manage care instead??? Good thing the AOA has its priorities straight!

Nothing like a discussion that digresses. I'm no fan of the AOA, but I have to admit that this is one area in which they have their priorities straight. Socialized health care in America would be a disaster for doctors. Think of the worst aspects of managed care. Now multiply that by a hundred, and make that managed care entity - though not necessarily the doctors it pays - lawsuit proof. Throw in the sort of rationing that's going on in England and Canada.

By the time it's all said and done, Hillarycare will make you wish that you'd gone to law school.

Also, it's not just the AOA that is opposed to socialized medicine, the AMA is as well...

A message to all physicians from AMA President Donald J. Palmisano, MD:

I was surprised recently to read an article in the Aug. 13 Journal of the American Medical Association written by a small number of physicians and medical students who advocate a single-payer national health system.

It wasn't that the article ran in JAMA -- the journal is editorially independent from the AMA, and is free to publish articles at odds with AMA policy. My surprise was directed at the authors of this article who don't want market competition, but instead seek a rigid, coercive, government-controlled system.

The AMA has long-standing policy in support of pluralism, and against a single-payer system because it would create long lines for services, is slow to adopt new technologies and maintain facilities, and generally is less adaptive, less responsive, more bureaucratic. Such a system is bad for patient care because it invariably leads to rationing.

Just this past July, I attended a meeting of the British Medical Assn., where Dr. Ian G. Bogle, BMA's chair of council, characterized his nation's single-payer health care system as "the stifling of innovation by excessive, intrusive audit ... the shackling of doctors by prescribing guidelines, referral guidelines and protocols ... the suffocation of professional responsibility by target-setting and production-line values that leave little room for the professional judgment of individual doctors or the need of individual patients." His words come from long experience with a single-payer health system that has increasingly been criticized for not keeping up with the needs of its patients.

Unlike the United Kingdom system where private insurance can co-exist, Canada's single-payer model forbids the existence of competing private insurance. No wonder I recently heard a delegate speaking on the house floor at the Canadian Medical Assn. annual meeting state that her patients are "suffering and dying on wait lists," and the only escape for them is to go to the United States.

 

[dctrgreen]

While I am not sure that universal coverage is the way the U.S. healthcare system needs to go, I have yet to hear of one reasonable alternative that would help with the major problem facing our system today: inadequate/limited coverage for so many people.

Is the concern over universal care purely due to the fear that doctors will not be justly compensated? People offer up other reasons, but I cannot help but wonder if money is the driving force behind the opposition.

If the concern is people having to wait a long time for health care, then where is your concern about our current system, where so many cannot even get in that line to begin with.

As far as not being able to attract talented, bright individuals to pursue medicine, do we only want smart people who go into medicine because of the money?

I view this as a complicated issue, with both moral and financial implications. I guess the solution will come down to what our society values most. Right now, it is very obvious which side most people in this country are on. It is interesting that in our society,where most consider themselves to be pious, that we act very differently when money is involved.

 

[toothless rufus]

Universal healthcare is not a good idea, and yes of course money plays a large role. I would not go into medicine if it did not pay well. I would be bummed about it, but oh well. It is a long road of education ending with a high level of responsibility, and there should be very good compensation offered. Besides, you could (should?) triple the salaries of all physicians, and it still would not amount to much in terms of total healthcare dollars spent. Doctors making money is not the problem, and reducing their salaries is not the solution, unless the question is: how do you produce lower quality doctors?

 

[DragonWell]

Has anyone read the recent, "The DO" Jan2007- "Champions For Change"?
On page 38 under the subheading "Courage of Convictions" the article compares "pro-life" DO's as being equivalent to abolitionists in the days of Abraham Lincoln. Am I the only one who finds this outrageous????? Why is this journal, which is an official publication of the AOA, publishing such biased articles? Why are they surprised that so few DO's join the AOA when they pull crap like this.
There is a reason elective abortion is legal in the US- why are they supporting someone who advocates for return to the dark ages when women became septic and infertile after seeking illegal abortions in dark alleys and foreign countries like Mexico?

Although I agree with your point, out of fairness, I think it's imp't to point out that it is a physician quoted in the article who makes the comparison btwn. abolitionists and pro-lifers.

Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous this article is. I can live with the AT Still ancestor worship, the "holistic" rhetoric, even the TRI, but the thinly veiled neo-conservatist agenda is just too much. AOA stock just went way down in my book...

 

[Cuthbert]

Actually, I think it's a fairly accurate comparison. If there is an error in the comparison, it probably is this: *some* slave owners probably had a higher regard for the lives of their slaves than abortion advocates have for the lives of the pre-born babies they discard.

I didn't go to medical school to take lives, I went to save them - and I suspect that planned parenthood isn't competing with too many Orthopedic Surgery residencies for quality people.

Agreed. Funny that nobody had any constructive criticism of this.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Has anyone read the recent, "The DO" Jan2007- "Champions For Change"?
On page 38 under the subheading "Courage of Convictions" the article compares "pro-life" DO's as being equivalent to abolitionists in the days of Abraham Lincoln. Am I the only one who finds this outrageous????? Why is this journal, which is an official publication of the AOA, publishing such biased articles? Why are they surprised that so few DO's join the AOA when they pull crap like this.
There is a reason elective abortion is legal in the US- why are they supporting someone who advocates for return to the dark ages when women became septic and infertile after seeking illegal abortions in dark alleys and foreign countries like Mexico?

I have not yet read this article.

Was it sort of like a senior editorial attack on those of you who support pro-choice? ie -was it like a communist manifesto propoganda piece that painted capitalist as wicked evil money lovers? - or are you guys upset simply because it was a pro life article?

If it was an article that unfairly slanders and paints a false picture of the pro-choice argument, then I would agree with you that it was a bad article and you should be indignant. However if it was not the case, and you are simply reacting with indignation that the article was against your set of beliefs, then perhaps it was somewhat reactionary to get soo upset over it.

I take it that you have written that "why are they supporting someone who advocates for return to the dark ages " as a way of painting the pro life crowd as backwards and primitive people. Was this the same way the article you have just read portraying the pro choice crowd?

I can appreciate a good pro life article. And I can appreciate a good pro choice article. So, I'm interested to see how this thread turns out - I'm looking for it right now.

 

[Cuthbert]

I have not yet read this article.

Here it is: https://www.do-online.org/pdf/pub_do0107activism.pdf

 

[Cuthbert]

On page 38 under the subheading "Courage of Convictions" the article compares "pro-life" DO's as being equivalent to abolitionists in the days of Abraham Lincoln.

The article itself does not make that comparison. It is Dr. Burns who makes it. Hense the quotation marks at the beginning of the paragraph and the direct referrence to Dr. Burns at the end.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Thanks Cuthbert!

I thought the article was going to be some sort of revolutionary manifesto or something....Alas! my apetite for political controversy has been dissapointed. I was hoping for a long drawn out nasty one.

 

[julia645]

I can't believe that you are using that article as a basis for bashing the AOA for being too conservative. They interviewed environmentalists, peace activists, illegal immigrant advocates, affirmative action supporters, and ONE pro-lifer. If anything, I think it gives the article some balance, because the all the rest of them have liberal social views.

And, I'm anti-slavery and pro-choice, but I can certainly see the parallels between abolishonists and pro-lifers. Doesn't mean that I want or believe that the pro-lifers were prevail, but both are advocates for one side of a hotly contested issue in their time.