Video shows medical students walking out of their white-coat ceremony before an anti-abortion professor made the keynote speech

[DarkBluMage]

Wow. How childish. Complaining about people participating in civil dissent.
I see you are an M2, so I assume you have all the qualifications and experience in life to call those a year below you in med school childish and immature.

Lmbo this was honestly such a waste of a response. Is this supposed to bother me? If you wouldn’t take the same attitude with a colleague anytime they tried to speak to you or around you then I call bs on this being anything else than a lack of maturity for doing this during an important ceremony just to prove a point that some students didn’t want her there. The class was not unanimous in wanting this speaker removed. Many students stayed. They hijacked this ceremony from them and their families and for what? This speech didn’t involve anything concerning abortion. Are they going to do the same thing when they run into professors teaching them that aren’t pro-choice? Residents? Attendings? Fellow colleagues? What they did was immature. There is a time and place for everything and being an adult involves recognizing that not everyone will think the way you do and tolerance is important for the growth and productivity of society. Being a physician involves understanding that some issues in medicine are nuanced and not everyone agrees on everything. If you as an adult can’t even tolerate being in the same room or granting a basic level of respect to someone that doesn’t believe what you do on a topic that is not clear cut then that shows a serious lack of maturity.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

Lmbo this was honestly such a waste of a response. Is this supposed to bother me? If you wouldn’t take the same attitude with a colleague anytime they tried to speak to you or around you then I call bs on this being anything else than a lack of maturity for doing this during an important ceremony just to prove a point that some students didn’t want her there. The class was not unanimous in wanting this speaker removed. Many students stayed. They hijacked this ceremony from them and their families and for what? This speech didn’t involve anything concerning abortion. Are they going to do the same thing when they run into professors teaching them that aren’t pro-choice? Residents? Attendings? Fellow colleagues? What they did was immature. There is a time and place for everything and being an adult involves recognizing that not everyone will think the way you do and tolerance is important for the growth and productivity of society. Being a physician involves understanding that some issues in medicine are nuanced and not everyone agrees on everything. If you as an adult can’t even tolerate being in the same room or granting a basic level of respect to someone that doesn’t believe what you do on a topic that is not clear cut then that shows a serious lack of maturity.

Did they shout and stop the speech from going on? Did they yell for everybody else to head out? Did they disrupt the ceremony in any way except for quietly removing themselves? How did they "hijack" the ceremony if they did none of that?
Being adults means they are allowed to dissent peacefully in any situation.

 

[DarkBluMage]

Did they shout and stop the speech from going on? Did they yell for everybody else to head out? Did they disrupt the ceremony in any way except for quietly removing themselves? How did they "hijack" the ceremony if they did none of that?
Being adults means they are allowed to dissent peacefully in any situation.

You’re joking right? Simply choosing to leave the ceremony while she was speaking was a disruption itself. They could have chosen to not even show up at all. Instead they chose to attend and then leave because they wanted to make a point and it distracted the entire ceremony. The focus was no longer on celebrating the accomplishment of acceptance into medical school for the class but rather on those who chose to leave during the speakers speech for something that wasn’t even being spoken about. Are you deliberately being obtuse and acting like that had no effect on the ceremony? Once again, will they continue to have the same attitude towards those who will be in charge of their education or their future colleagues? It was immature, pure and simple.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

You’re joking right? Simply choosing to leave the ceremony while she was speaking was a disruption itself. They could have chosen to not even show up at all. Instead they chose to attend and then leave because they wanted to make a point and it distracted the entire ceremony. The focus was no longer on celebrating the accomplishment of acceptance into medical school for the class but rather on those who chose to leave during the speakers speech for something that wasn’t even being spoken about. Are you deliberately being obtuse and acting like that had no effect on the ceremony? Once again, will they continue to have the same attitude towards those who will be in charge of their education or their future colleagues? It was immature, pure and simple.

"They could have chosen to not even show up at all."
Exactly

 

[RangerBob]

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?

Yes, it's absolutely a personal belief--much in the same that most people believe murder, adultery, stealing, etc. are wrong.

For argument's sake here, if I genuinely think I'm murdering a child by performing an abortion, I should not be forced to carry through with it anymore than I can be forced to murder any other random person on the street--assuming of course that the mother is not in imminent danger. Then it gets real grey--if mother will die, but baby could live, then which solution is right? Which is wrong? If Mom has 12 kids at home, I think most would agree 12 kids losing their mother is a much bigger loss than the loss of the baby, as sad as that is. What if the situation is different? We're being asked to make a judgement call on who's life matters more in these scenerios.

Patients' beliefs don't necessarily mean I have to suspend my morals. We have an obligation to treat (ie, treat the drug addict who caused their own endocarditis, the drunk driver who put the kid in the next bed into a coma, etc.), but when that treatment gets to abortion it gets grey very quickly. I can very much see how a doctor not wanting to provide a referral for an elective abortion (ie, one that's not threatening the life of the mother) as being entirely consistent with medical ethics.

Our profession is nothing without our own moral guidance. There is room for all sorts of beliefs. But until society says life starts at conception or birth (or other), there is really no way to avoid us talking in circles on this topic. Body autonomy is meaningless if the fetus is a true human life. And protesting abortions at all costs is pointless is the fetus isn't actually "alive/human" until birth--then it's clear body autonomy wins.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

You’re joking right? Simply choosing to leave the ceremony while she was speaking was a disruption itself. They could have chosen to not even show up at all. Instead they chose to attend and then leave because they wanted to make a point and it distracted the entire ceremony. The focus was no longer on celebrating the accomplishment of acceptance into medical school for the class but rather on those who chose to leave during the speakers speech for something that wasn’t even being spoken about. Are you deliberately being obtuse and acting like that had no effect on the ceremony? Once again, will they continue to have the same attitude towards those who will be in charge of their education or their future colleagues? It was immature, pure and simple.

It was their ceremony. It was supposed to celebrate them. They chose to make a point using their ceremony. If you (who aren’t even one of the students at the ceremony) feel like they disrupted the ceremony, well I can’t change how you feel and I won’t try to.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

I never said they don’t have the right. I actually said the opposite: “Cancel culture is not about a violation of anybody’s technical rights, it is about an attitude of marginalizing rather than engaging with those with different views.”

Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should. This is a very immature way of looking at the world where one thinks that every person or thing they disagree with warrants a demonstration. I think that being closed to alternative viewpoints is unbecoming of a physician. If you want to be a partisan hack who ignores the other side and yells at them from the other side of a picket line, you should go become a politician rather than a doctor.

Collier is the one bringing politics (and religion) into the medical field. Not the students. Abortion rights are healthcare rights. Shame on her.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

They don’t necessarily have to engage them in that very moment either. World can do with a little more delayed gratification.

Listen, learn, reflect, email afterwards to set up a time to talk like adults.

Unless we’re saying it’s now cool to then walk away from peers we disagree with? Is it then okay to walk away from our patients we disagree with?

I respect and will fight for anyones right to protest and hold the value of free speech very near and dear to my heart. But the students do an absolute disservice to their cause by refusing to engage with someone who sees the world differently than they do, and actively petitioned to take away their right to speak at all.

It'd be one thing if Collier held her opinions and personal beliefs to herself. She does not, and with such social media presence she brought it on herself. It's a healthcare issue, but she treats it as a religious issue. That's the rub.

 

[DarkBluMage]

It was their ceremony. It was supposed to celebrate them. They chose to make a point using their ceremony. If you (who aren’t even one of the students at the ceremony) feel like they disrupted the ceremony, well I can’t change how you feel and I won’t try to.

You’re literally talking in circles. First you say it wasn’t a disruption and now you’re saying they had a right to hijack and disrupt it. What about the respect for the other students? Their families? Not even basic respect for the speaker? I guess none of that matters so long as some students wanted to get a point across regarding something that had nothing to do with the ceremony itself. What they did was something they would never do to someone in charge of their day to day education either which makes it an even more empty gesture. Like I said, immaturity. Have a good day.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

But the students do an absolute disservice to their cause by refusing to engage with someone who sees the world differently than they do, and actively petitioned to take away their right to speak at all.

What? It's exactly the opposite. Students showed how much concern they have for their patients’ right to bodily atonomy. Collier bashes such concern on religious principles. They're not walking away from patients, they are upholding the right to patient choice. And I applaud them for it. If I want religious advice or teachings, I'll talk to my pastor, reverend, priest, rabbi, etc. I expect top notch healthcare from Dr. Collier, nothing else.

And as someone upthread aptly put it...."Your freedom of speech does not include forcing other people to listen to you."

 

[Wordead]

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.

Those are not at all similar.

To me they're pretty much the same. Maybe not COVID deniers, but certainly the anti vaccine crowd. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who are anti COVID vaccine. They're good doctors. They even have some "evidence" for why they're against getting the vaccine or some other rationalization just as the pro-life crowd does. By the way, COVID deniers also have a different perspective on a complicated bioethical topic.

Im not religious nor do I really care about the abortion debate in all honesty. But I think it's hypocritical to apply the standard in one situation and not another. We give a platform to the issues we think are important. Yes, I also agree that cancel culture has run amok and is more a negative overall cultural shift than any positives. But I really don't see any difference in giving a platform to anti-vax people vs anti-abortion people. Both are people trying to impose their wills on how we practice medicine and public health. That, I'm very much against. Especially religious people trying to impose their will on society.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Newly minted medical students at a white coat ceremony displayed disrespect for their fellow classmates, family, faculty and the speaker, all because they disagreed with the personal views of the speaker, that is not bravery. They ruined the ceremony for the rest of the students and families. Regardless of whether you are for or against abortion, there needs to be a sense of tolerance for other views, period!

There will always be a place and time to express your views and that was not the time nor the place.

No. They already petitioned to have another speaker and were not heard. Shame on the school. The students voiced their concern and the school turned away.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

So, the ones that started a petition should overrule everyone else, why?

Only because it is the most politically charged topic in the country right now with the Supreme Court decision. Why would one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country (and a public one at that) choose a speaker with such known views (anti-patient choice and religious opinions) to speak at such an event ? And after a petition, they still failed to act ? It is medicine for crying out loud. Science, not religion. That's why. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

It's fascinating watching part of this community somehow rationalize this behavior as a "right", when anybody with any sense of honesty would admit that a bunch of conservative students walking out on a speaker who may be pro-choice, pro gun-control etc. would be totally different. I assure you we would not hear neutral calls for tolerance and that they have the "right" to behave this way - (btw, I would think them walking out is just as immature and ignorant).

Furthermore, half the people in this sub beg the question when they try to rationalize their reaction. "Why is what the students did okay"? "Well because the speaker's view is hateful and anti-medicine". Sorry for the newsflash, although I am not endorsing this view per se, I could say that the pro-choice position is hateful insofar as it denies the right to life to a class of human beings. You may disagree with this characterization, but again this is a different question altogether that this sub (and other areas on Twitter), seem to take as "settled". Unlike what this sub may think, there is a reason that this issue remains universally controversial, and public opinion is generally in favor of some restrictions on abortion unlike what it seems here.

Lastly, someone above said that the speaker put "religion above science", this is just manifestly wrong and unfortunately reveals a lack of interest in the subject itself.

Ok, sure. But why select a speaker know for this anti-choice position and religious zealotry ? It's a white coat ceremony. Pick someone that doesn't have this baggage., Especially right now, less than 30 days after Roe was overturned. Shame on Michigan.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

Ok, sure. But why select a speaker know for this anti-choice position and religious zealotry ? It's a white coat ceremony. Pick someone that doesn't have this baggage., Especially right now, less than 30 days after Roe was overturned. Shame on Michigan.

It was current students and members of the GHHS that picked the speaker i believe. If such a terrible anti-abortion physician is selected by other local students of the community, there must be SOME reason they did so right?

 

[Lifeblood_20]

Yes, it's absolutely a personal belief--much in the same that most people believe murder, adultery, stealing, etc. are wrong.

For argument's sake here, if I genuinely think I'm murdering a child by performing an abortion, I should not be forced to carry through with it anymore than I can be forced to murder any other random person on the street--assuming of course that the mother is not in imminent danger. Then it gets real grey--if mother will die, but baby could live, then which solution is right? Which is wrong? If Mom has 12 kids at home, I think most would agree 12 kids losing their mother is a much bigger loss than the loss of the baby, as sad as that is. What if the situation is different? We're being asked to make a judgement call on who's life matters more in these scenerios.

Patients' beliefs don't necessarily mean I have to suspend my morals. We have an obligation to treat (ie, treat the drug addict who caused their own endocarditis, the drunk driver who put the kid in the next bed into a coma, etc.), but when that treatment gets to abortion it gets grey very quickly. I can very much see how a doctor not wanting to provide a referral for an elective abortion (ie, one that's not threatening the life of the mother) as being entirely consistent with medical ethics.

Our profession is nothing without our own moral guidance. There is room for all sorts of beliefs. But until society says life starts at conception or birth (or other), there is really no way to avoid us talking in circles on this topic. Body autonomy is meaningless if the fetus is a true human life. And protesting abortions at all costs is pointless is the fetus isn't actually "alive/human" until birth--then it's clear body autonomy wins.

I appreciate the perspective, and I suppose the complicated part is it is more case-by-case than other aspects of medicine. Like, by “threatening the life of the mother,” does that mean abortion can be only allowed if the pregnant patient is literally on the verge of death? How sick do they have to be then? Who is to decide? And doesn’t medicine exist so we can avoid people getting so close to death in the first place? Does it apply if the pregnancy is compromising the health of the patient and might endanger their life but is not currently — wouldn’t the pregnant patient get a say in how they choose to improve their health?

For elective abortions, if hypothetically, in the small (yet not impossible) chance that patient actively tried to avoid pregnancy but contraception fails, and patient doesn’t want to carry the fetus, doctor says, well, rough luck, I’m not giving you a referral for an abortion, life is beautiful and you should appreciate it etc etc, I would personally be hard pressed to see the doctor doing what is best for the pregnant patient. Who is to say this fetus comes before the patient’s education, financial situation, and health?

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

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?

It wasn't just "anything political" ---- her widely known beliefs are specifically about our most politically-charged hot issue at the moment that happens to be embedded in the practice of providing healthcare. And her view is one that is "anti-patient" ---- had she been pro-choice and not outwardly religious in her views, then no, it would not have been an issue. And that's because doctors who favor patient choice and favor keeping their religious views out of healthcare decisions are what most of this country wants.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

It is no more controversial than being pro-choice.

Yes it is more controversial than being pro-choice. 70% of the country supports a woman's right to choose.

 

[Browns99]

No. They already petitioned to have another speaker and were not heard. Shame on the school. The students voiced their concern and the school turned away.,

No. They already petitioned to have another speaker and were not heard. Shame on the school. The students voiced their concern and the school turned away.

So, the ones petitioning should have more say than the ones who wanted her to speak....As I have been saying all long, some people, like you, believe that only your view matters. Wake up son, for serious civil discourse, both sides matter.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Her speech was not about abortion, and even if it was, approximately 50% of the country agrees with her pro-life stance.

Uh no. Like 32%.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

It wasn't just "anything political" ---- her widely known beliefs are specifically about our most politically-charged hot issue at the moment that happens to be embedded in the practice of providing healthcare. And her view is one that is "anti-patient" ---- had she been pro-choice and not outwardly religious in her views, then no, it would not have been an issue. And that's because doctors who favor patient choice and favor keeping their religious views out of healthcare decisions are what most of this country wants.

So because she holds a view that half the country agrees with makes her a ti-patient? And just because it is the biggest political topic today shouldn't impact her ability to give a white coat ceremony speech that is NOT on the abortion topic, a speech she was nominated for by current students at the school?


So any current medical student or resident in the country that is anti abortion should not be allowed to give speeches at ceremonies?

 

[Captain_Falcon]

Uh no. Like 32%.

Okay 32%. She holds an unrelated opinion that is publicly known. Does that ban her from speaking in public?

 

[Browns99]

Yes it is more controversial than being pro-choice. 70% of the country supports a woman's right to choose.

Dude, you are not making any sense.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Medical professionals are held to a higher standard in the world, undoubtedly because we must form close bonds with patients and earn their trust. For this reason we can't get away with the same things that the rest of the public can. Although there is a lot of individuals who are pro-choice there are also a lot of individuals who are pro-life. It is not our job to or duty to comment on the matter nor judge others for their beliefs. I guarantee that the majority of you defending these students would be appalled if a transwoman was the keynote speaker and students decided to walk out and leave. You can cite the differences between these comparisons, but in essence they are both similar because they both revolve around the values that one holds. As medical professionals, we are expected to be open and understanding to others opinions/values without injecting our own biases and beliefs into the mix.

Not when it comes to supporting eliminating the choice of your patients. That's what's different here.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

To me they're pretty much the same. Maybe not COVID deniers, but certainly the anti vaccine crowd. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who are anti COVID vaccine. They're good doctors. They even have some "evidence" for why they're against getting the vaccine or some other rationalization just as the pro-life crowd does. By the way, COVID deniers also have a different perspective on a complicated bioethical topic.

Im not religious nor do I really care about the abortion debate in all honesty. But I think it's hypocritical to apply the standard in one situation and not another. We give a platform to the issues we think are important. Yes, I also agree that cancel culture has run amok and is more a negative overall cultural shift than any positives. But I really don't see any difference in giving a platform to anti-vax people vs anti-abortion people. Both are people trying to impose their wills on how we practice medicine and public health. That, I'm very much against. Especially religious people trying to impose their will on society.

OK, the clarification does help.

I wouldn't want to listen to them talk as a general rule, but I don't think they should be forbidden from doing so, especially if the speech was pure generic white coat ceremony stuff and didn't bring up COVID at all.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

But it’s clear that there will never be a consensus on abortion so as a society we really need to figure out how to avoid the issue in the first place.

Exactly, so why on earth would Michigan allow such a speaker and not honor the petition ? Just pick someone else.

 

[Wordead]

OK, the clarification does help.

I wouldn't want to listen to them talk as a general rule, but I don't think they should be forbidden from doing so, especially if the speech was pure generic white coat ceremony stuff and didn't bring up COVID at all.

But their stances are part of who they are - I mean pre-government pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson was someone I think most people would've gone out of their way to listen to talk. Would you still? And raising their notoriety inherently raises their platform for their other talking points. I don't think you'd say "well, sure, he's the grand wizard of the KKK, but he's not going to talk about it and has a pretty dang good motivational speech so let him come", right?

 

[Browns99]

Exactly, so why on earth would Michigan allow such a speaker and not honor the petition ? Just pick someone else.

Because that is not how things work, cowards would have just picked someone else and that has been happening all over America in the last two years. Good for them for allowing her to speak, apparently she was chosen for good reason, despite your objection to her personal views.

 

[Browns99]

But their stances are part of who they are - I mean pre-government pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson was someone I think most people would've gone out of their way to listen to talk. Would you still? And raising their notoriety inherently raises their platform for their other talking points. I don't think you'd say "well, sure, he's the grand wizard of the KKK, but he's not going to talk about it and has a pretty dang good motivational speech so let him come", right?

Apples to Oranges, stick to the facts associated with this event that we are talking about. Insulting that you would try to make an analogy of a person who is a racist grand wizard with a professor who is pro-life, my gosh, what is with people.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

It was current students and members of the GHHS that picked the speaker i believe. If such a terrible anti-abortion physician is selected by other local students of the community, there must be SOME reason they did so right?

From what I can tell it was a small minority of students that did the choosing, smaller than the number that signed the petition.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

So because she holds a view that half the country agrees with makes her a ti-patient? And just because it is the biggest political topic today shouldn't impact her ability to give a white coat ceremony speech that is NOT on the abortion topic, a speech she was nominated for by current students at the school?


So any current medical student or resident in the country that is anti abortion should not be allowed to give speeches at ceremonies?

No, but a poor choice for a white-coat ceremony and with the current timing with Roe. The school could have done better, especially after the petition.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Because that is not how things work, cowards would have just picked someone else and that has been happening all over America in the last two years. Good for them for allowing her to speak, apparently she was chosen for good reason, despite your objection to her personal views.

OK, but just don't call the students who walked out cowards. The right to dissent can be exercised.

 

[Browns99]

OK, but just don't call the students who walked out cowards. The right to dissent can be exercised.

Dd you actually read my post? They as in the decision makers, which would be UMich.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Dd you actually read my post? They as in the decision makers, which would be UMich.

Yeah, I read it. You think the university did the right thing and didn't fold to pressure. I disagree. They, as a public institution, should have gone with someone less controversial and without the publicly espoused religious leanings on this issue.

 

[RangerBob]

I appreciate the perspective, and I suppose the complicated part is it is more case-by-case than other aspects of medicine. Like, by “threatening the life of the mother,” does that mean abortion can be only allowed if the pregnant patient is literally on the verge of death? How sick do they have to be then? Who is to decide? And doesn’t medicine exist so we can avoid people getting so close to death in the first place? Does it apply if the pregnancy is compromising the health of the patient and might endanger their life but is not currently — wouldn’t the pregnant patient get a say in how they choose to improve their health?

For elective abortions, if hypothetically, in the small (yet not impossible) chance that patient actively tried to avoid pregnancy but contraception fails, and patient doesn’t want to carry the fetus, doctor says, well, rough luck, I’m not giving you a referral for an abortion, life is beautiful and you should appreciate it etc etc, I would personally be hard pressed to see the doctor doing what is best for the pregnant patient. Who is to say this fetus comes before the patient’s education, financial situation, and health?

Right--lots of grey questions. I don't pretend to have the answers here, but I think it should really be up to the patient and physician to decide in those situations you list.

Truly elective abortions bother me--actions unfortunately have consequences. Sex often leads to pregnancy--so people should have sex unless they're willing to have kids. And people shouldn't have sex unless they're willing to have a kid with that other person! When the health of the mother is involved, I think there's a debate and I think either side is justified (and should thus be up to the parents to decide what's best for their family). Self-preservation goes both ways--the fetus has a right to live, but the mother also has a right to live (and not be killed by the fetus). Legally I'm sure we'll see some self-defense arguments in cases like that.

I guess I'm betraying my beliefs here (I'm generally a moderate left-of-center), but when it's totally elective, I side with the fetus. I think it's probably a life, though I can't know for sure, but what I do know is it's not right to toss it aside because Mom/Dad didn't plan well/weren't careful enough and are now financially inconvenienced. Maybe it's a severe financial issue and they're really going to struggle--I get that, but it's not the baby's fault. I don't kick my kid to the street because he costs me too much money/contributes to my grey hairs.

I think society at large misses the point with the whole abortion debate. People argue about what's right/wrong. But no woman wants to be in that situation where she's even thinking about it in the first place. A true pro-life policy would include comprehensive sex ed, free birth control (ideally IUDs--OCP's are not a good choice for teenagers without fully developed frontal lobes), free prenatal/maternity care and early childhood education, among others. And for the women that accidentally (whether by an "oops" mistake or just bad luck--even IUDs + condoms still aren't 100% preventative) get pregnant and just don't want to raise a kid, maybe making giving it up adoption a viable option for them--pay their living expenses and give them whatever support they need so they can carry the child to term.

As a Christian myself, I find it sad how often some of those solutions (sex ed, free birth control) are shunned by the Church.

 

[Billiam95]

No, but a poor choice for a white-coat ceremony and with the current timing with Roe. The school could have done better, especially after the petition.

What other aspects of civic life are pro-life physicians not allowed to take part in?

 

[Banco]

So they disagreed with her inclusion as the speaker and walked out. What's the big deal? They're within their rights and the school isn't going to expel them. Sounds like protesting 101.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

And people shouldn't have sex unless they're willing to have a kid with that other person!

Unfortunately, not enough men (and women, but more men, in general) gets this and does this. Talking about men who refuse to use condoms, etc, and pressure unprotected sex on their gf/hookup whatever. And we know which side commits more domestic abuse over being withheld sex. No contraception is 100% effective. And when pregnancy happens, women are, for the most part, forced to bear the entirety of the consequences on their health/future. So I guess tend to side with the mother but I’d agree with you that abortion debate is byproduct of social issue surrounding sex.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

But their stances are part of who they are - I mean pre-government pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson was someone I think most people would've gone out of their way to listen to talk. Would you still? And raising their notoriety inherently raises their platform for their other talking points. I don't think you'd say "well, sure, he's the grand wizard of the KKK, but he's not going to talk about it and has a pretty dang good motivational speech so let him come", right?

And if Carson was giving a talk on his career as a neurosurgeon, I would still be interested in what he had to say.

I have a partner who is super anti-abortion. Calls it murder and so on. I ignore him when he talks about that but if he's talking diabetes or billing/coding he's still worth listening to.

Everyone will have their own threshold about when its no longer appropriate to give someone a platform based on their personal beliefs.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

What other aspects of civic life are pro-life physicians not allowed to take part in?

Teaching (or guest lecturing) in health education class in public middle and high schools comes to mind. The religious element associated with this physician contributes to the issue here.

 

[deleted905798]

Ok, sure. But why select a speaker know for this anti-choice position and religious zealotry ? It's a white coat ceremony. Pick someone that doesn't have this baggage., Especially right now, less than 30 days after Roe was overturned. Shame on Michigan.

I mean this goes beyond the picking of a specific speaker, but you seriously think the only possible underlying rationale or motivation for being pro-life is "religious zealotry"? Like seriously? I get that religious people tend to lean pro-life but it doesn't follow that the position itself is rooted in religion any more than the fact that many famous abolitionists were religious (William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, et al.) indicates that being anti-slavery is solely a product of "religious zealotry". It's obvious in the latter example that despite the overlap, there are entirely secular reasons to be in support of abolition and see slavery as unethical.

I'm not trying to be a jerk but have you done any reading on this topic beyond Twitter?

 

[NegativeMargin]

If one’s response is to ostracize those who disagree with them instead of engaging with them, that is cancel culture to me. The spirit of that action is a pernicious closed-mindedness. Cancel culture is not about a violation of anybody’s technical rights, it is about an attitude of marginalizing rather than engaging with those with different views.

It's fascinating watching part of this community somehow rationalize this behavior as a "right", when anybody with any sense of honesty would admit that a bunch of conservative students walking out on a speaker who may be pro-choice, pro gun-control etc. would be totally different. I assure you we would not hear neutral calls for tolerance and that they have the "right" to behave this way - (btw, I would think them walking out is just as immature and ignorant).

Furthermore, half the people in this sub beg the question when they try to rationalize their reaction. "Why is what the students did okay"? "Well because the speaker's view is hateful and anti-medicine". Sorry for the newsflash, although I am not endorsing this view per se, I could say that the pro-choice position is hateful insofar as it denies the right to life to a class of human beings. You may disagree with this characterization, but again this is a different question altogether that this sub (and other areas on Twitter), seem to take as "settled". Unlike what this sub may think, there is a reason that this issue remains universally controversial, and public opinion is generally in favor of some restrictions on abortion unlike what it seems here.

Lastly, someone above said that the speaker put "religion above science", this is just manifestly wrong and unfortunately reveals a lack of interest in the subject itself.

I love the fact that people are capable of downvoting these comments, but can't actually formulate a retort as to why they are wrong. Because everyone with a brain knows they are in fact 100% right. People saying just as rationale things as these on other social platforms are being banned for them.

If people can't wrap their head around how dangerous of a precedent that sets, then they are worth opposing on general principle even if I agree with their views, and even if I appreciate future generations taking a stand against something they believe in within their rights on a public campus. Those social precedents appear far more dangerous to me than walking out of a white-coat ceremony.

A bit silly to do it in this context, given part of the student body voted for the speaker before-hand, the state itself still allows abortions, and the school itself put out multiple statements that they stand with a woman's right to choose. Just another thing that's only going to embolden both extremes, while reminding people like me who can see both sides that a fickle mob is to be opposed regardless of what they stand for.

 

[Browns99]

Teaching (or guest lecturing) in health education class in public middle and high schools comes to mind. The religious element associated with this physician contributes to the issue here.

I think you really have no clue about the issues...IMHO.

 

[NegativeMargin]

But their stances are part of who they are - I mean pre-government pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson was someone I think most people would've gone out of their way to listen to talk. Would you still? And raising their notoriety inherently raises their platform for their other talking points. I don't think you'd say "well, sure, he's the grand wizard of the KKK, but he's not going to talk about it and has a pretty dang good motivational speech so let him come", right?

Subtextually comparing a black man to the KKK is exactly the kind of response people should be avoiding if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[NegativeMargin]

Yes it is more controversial than being pro-choice. 70% of the country supports a woman's right to choose.

Yes, but why do people always stop there with that statistic? There's far more to the story, like the majority of people saying they are for a woman's right to choose, but they'd only get an abortion themselves if there were added physical or mental effects present, or if they were raped, or any number of these sorts of circumstances. And yet of the 1,000,000+ abortions that are going to happen this year, all those categories account for less than 10% of all abortions.

So if you asked those people what they thought of those 900,000 aborted fetuses that were only aborted because of the preferences of the mother to not deal with the consequences of her actions, 850,000+ of which would statistically grow up to live a normal life, wouldn't that be a much more accurate representation of the reality of most people's actual views, than one stupid question that doesn't account for any of the complexity this situation actually holds?

And all this without mentioning real culprits like the social determinants of health, the fact that the majority of these abortions are had by underserved women in the low-class environments who have more than one abortion per year. For some reason it's socially praiseworthy to use short-sighted statistics but it's a faux pas to say we could drastically reduce the number of abortions if half the people virtue signaling on social media actually gave enough of a damn to help these women out.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

I mean this goes beyond the picking of a specific speaker, but you seriously think the only possible underlying rationale or motivation for being pro-life is "religious zealotry"? Like seriously? I get that religious people tend to lean pro-life but it doesn't follow that the position itself is rooted in religion any more than the fact that many famous abolitionists were religious (William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, et al.) indicates that being anti-slavery is solely a product of "religious zealotry". It's obvious in the latter example that despite the overlap, there are entirely secular reasons to be in support of abolition and see slavery as unethical.

I'm not trying to be a jerk but have you done any reading on this topic beyond Twitter?

I said "AND" ---- anti-choice AND religious zealotry. You can have one without the other of course. Collier happens to possess both. I don't have a Twitter account.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Yes, but why do people always stop there with that statistic? There's far more to the story, like the majority of people saying they are for a woman's right to choose, but they'd only get an abortion themselves if there were added physical or mental effects present, or if they were raped, or any number of these sorts of circumstances. And yet of the 1,000,000+ abortions that are going to happen this year, all those categories account for less than 10% of all abortions.

So if you asked those people what they thought of those 900,000 aborted fetuses that were only aborted because of the preferences of the mother to not deal with the consequences of her actions, 850,000+ of which would statistically grow up to live a normal life, wouldn't that be a much more accurate representation of the reality of most people's actual views, than one stupid question that doesn't account for any of the complexity this situation actually holds?

And all this without mentioning real culprits like the social determinants of health, the fact that the majority of these abortions are had by underserved women in the low-class environments who have more than one abortion per year. For some reason it's socially praiseworthy to use short-sighted statistics but it's a faux pas to say we could drastically reduce the number of abortions if half the people virtue signaling on social media actually gave enough of a damn to help these women out.

Sure, yes, it is more complex. I was just responding to a 50/50 comment and the fact that there are more pro-choice supporters than pro-life. But, yes, some middle ground is where a lot of the nation, myself included, would stand. But places like TX, OK, etc. aren't going to allow for any middle ground discussion. Life is all about nuance and subtleties and it's hard to get the entire electorate to step back from the black and white and into the grey.

 

[deleted905798]

I said "AND" ---- anti-choice AND religious zealotry. You can have one without the other of course. Collier happens to possess both. I don't have a Twitter account.

"It is medicine for crying out loud. Science, not religion"; ".... without the publicly espoused religious leanings on this issue"; "And that's because doctors who favor patient choice and favor keeping their religious views out of healthcare decisions are what most of this country wants"; "Collier bashes such concern on religious principles"; "If I want religious advice or teachings, I'll talk to my pastor, reverend, priest, rabbi, etc"

All of these quotes of yours across your comments suggest that you see religion as the primary motivation for the pro-life position.

As for "anti-choice", that is just a hollow assertion. We are all "anti-choice" for certain things, that's why we live in a civilization with a legal system. The abolitionists during the Antebellum period could also be called "anti-choice" because they firmly believed you shouldn't have the "choice" to hold human beings as slaves...does that mean they were wrong because they were "anti-choice"? Sounds a lot like "states rights" when you think about it.

If you disagree with the pro-life position, then fine, but don't couch your arguments in vague statements about "choice". The pro-choice position represents an affirmative stance that a certain class of human beings should not have protection under the law from lethal violence. The pro-life side has genuine disagreements. I think that there are good arguments on both sides and a lot of nuance involved. However I feel like all I have seen on SDN and Reddit (not from you, speaking generally here), are cringe memes and cheap-shots aimed at dunking on people without any concern for truth.

 

[LunaOri]

If one’s response is to ostracize those who disagree with them instead of engaging with them, that is cancel culture to me. The spirit of that action is a pernicious closed-mindedness. Cancel culture is not about a violation of anybody’s technical rights, it is about an attitude of marginalizing rather than engaging with those with different views.

So what, if some physician previously endorsed an opinion about the Iraq War with which some students disagreed, it would be appropriate for the students to refuse to attend any of his lectures or listen to him talk about other topics?

Those students were a captive audience who did not have the opportunity to debate. Their only options were to stay or leave.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

Those students were a captive audience who did not have the opportunity to debate. Their only options were to stay or leave.

Or not show up