People also have the right to protest. I don't see anything cancel-culture about this, especially given the current geopolitical climate. Plus, how do you suggest medical students engaging with the keynote speaker? Students as individuals cannot speak up due to the power dynamic (and just starting medical school) but I applaud the class for doing it as a collective action.
Except that the message of walking out while someone is giving a speech at a professional engagement is contrary to what you say. Walking out is disrespectful. Even if you say it is a form a protest, what is being protested is her personal character or her professional opinions.
And students have the right as individuals to protest so. We might not have as much professional experience as you, but we have just as much free will.
How exactly are students supposed to engage with this speaker of different views during this White Coat Ceremony speech? This is a White Coat Ceremony, not a Medical Humanities course.
By listening to them and considering their perspective and point of view. You know, the classic definition of “engagement” . . .
I don't think it would be fair to say students are unaware of the speaker's perspectives and point of view. Again, Dr. Collier is outspoken on social media and multiple faucets. Just because the students refuse to listen on this occasion does not mean this decision did not come after "engaging" with her words.
I never said that. I believe there needs to be discourse. I would, however, say that I have a choice as to when I can respectfully decline to listen to them. They are allowed to speak all they want to all those who listen, but I am not forced to listen to what everybody has to say all the time if I don't want to.
I’d argue that they do a great service to their cause by showing they care about their patents’ right to bodily anatomy, which the speaker has previously denounced on religious principles. Upholding patients’ choices is the exact opposite of walking away from patients who disagree with you.
I mean, they did start a petition asking the school to uninvite her from speaking in the first place...
I agree, however, I do not feel we will ever get back to actual discourse because there are too many extremists on both sides that will not open up their minds. They have zero respect for opposing opinions no matter what the subject is.
So, the ones that started a petition should overrule everyone else, why?
Hateful viewpoint, really, according to you. Again, you showed zero tolerance for opposing views, just by saying that those views are HATEFUL. Should anti-abortionists say that those who perform abortions are committing murder...again, trying to make a point that these extreme views on both sides need to stop.
Precisely. I'd be fascinated to learn how this decision was made. Like graduation, white coat is a feel good ceremony that should be devoid of any conflict or controversy. Save the hard stuff for the actual curriculum.
I don’t think the principles are similar. COVID deniers are rejecting facts about reality. People who are anti-abortion have a different perspective on a complicated bioethical topic. The view that life begins to deserve independent consideration at some point before birth or even before viability is a perfectly legitimate one. Only in this crazy groupthink bubble would someone think that it isn’t.
This is obviously correct, but remember when you live in a milieu where you can just thoughtlessly retort "anti-science", "anti-medicine" to anything you disagree with and walk out of venues with disdain to the praise of your peers, you tend to not develop the sharpest reasoning faculties.
Those are not at all similar.
I was refuting the idea that the students involved weren't trying to cancel the speaker. They clearly were.
So anyone who holds a public view on anything political is controversial? Do you think if this speaker was publicly pro choice that it would be controversial as well?
Those are not the same thing though. As you said, doctors have to be non-judgemental, so at the end of the day, they must uphold a patient's choice without judgment, if abortion is what they want, even if that goes against the doctor's own morals. If they refuse, one can argue they are imposing their own moral values onto the patient. Doctors have the power to harm their patients by refusing abortion care. Who does a trans person harm by existing, as long as they aren't demanding everybody to transition against their will (like if doctors denied patients abortion)?
Wow. How childish. Complaining about people participating in civil dissent.
It’s a much grayer topic. At the most extreme, to a doctor that views abortion as murder, referring someone to another physician who will perform abortions is akin to saying “here is a referral to a hitman to take care of that pesky spouse.”
Again, that would be the doctor's personal belief, so it ideally should not be relevant in them fulfilling their duty as care providers.
Still, viewing the pregnant patient and the fetus as two patients is based on the doctor's own value system. If their pregnant patient doesn't agree with them, and yet the doctor still sticks to it and compromises the pregnant patient's health against their best interests, how is that not letting your value interfere with care? Or should we let doctors always prioritize their value system over their pregnant patients?
