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

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I mean, it is a group of cells. Don't know what you want me to say.

Isn’t every human at every stage of life just a group of cells then?

This is an overly rationalistic view that has dangerous consequences if taken to its logical conclusion. Read dialectic of enlightenment

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Browns99]

I don't show zero tolerance for opposing views. I show zero tolerance for hateful views. Most of my family, save two people are conservatives. If I showed zero tolerance for their views I wouldn't be with them nearly every weekend and holiday. My problem isn't with someone being anti-abortion necessarily. My problem is with a doctor putting religious beliefs ahead of science. And in this chaotic partisan world, where women WILL die thanks to state laws that are neither based on science nor best medical practices, I have zero tolerance for any doctor who props up that viewpoint. There are plenty of anti-abortion people out there who have joined the pro-choice crowd because these laws go too far. Those are the ones I tolerate and respect.

You absolutely are in denial.."Putting religious beliefs ahead of science"....ridiculous statement yet and the only one with hate in their heart, is you my friend.

 

[Browns99]

Really? You don't see how that's different? Do you also think it's the same as if students walked out on a black person being the keynote speaker?

Another head-scratching statement, now we will incorporate a "black person" comparison, you are digging yourself a bigger whole, quit while you are ahead.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Agreed. This isn't a generic event. It's a very important ceremony that many people will remember forever and it's inconsiderate to put such a controversial figure as a keynote. It's not like this is a Catholic med school. Just put in someone likeable who will bring only positive thoughts so that the focus remains on the students.

That's not universally true.

 

[Browns99]

Umm, some of us are attendings and think you're wrong. And by the by I just honored a student last month who began to discuss his pro-life stance with me until I didn't engage. I don't care what my students or residents political views are. I judge them on whether or not they're good clinicians. If they let their political beliefs keep them from doing their jobs, then I will dock them. Otherwise, I don't give a damn.

So, your beliefs about the personal views of the speaker should be ok, as long as they don't interfere with her teaching medicine, correct?

 

[Mad Jack]

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

Only 37% of the country thinks abortion should be illegal in all our most cases.

 

[Mad Jack]

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.

The issue is that the whole idea of Roe v Wade was that respect- that physicians who agreed with abortion could provide care to patients who held similar values without interference by those who did not. Attacks on women's reproductive health are no small matter, and represent an inherent violation of the rights of patients and physicians. Those that support and very openly and strongly advocate this violation should not be keynote speakers. If the school chooses to make them keynote speakers for an event to celebrate the accomplishments of students, they should expect students that do not appreciate the manner in which the school has chosen to celebrate to walk out.

By the same token, as has been mentioned before, someone that was a strong and public advocate for abortion should also expect physicians that believe it to be a violatiom of a right to life to walk out if that individual were there keynote speaker. Protesting an event that is literally about your own accomplishments is a reasonable form of protest.

 

[sloop]

Only 37% of the country thinks abortion should be illegal in all our most cases.

So if one holds a minority opinion, they are all of a sudden a “controversial figure” and shouldn’t be invited to give talks, speeches, etc.? Nonsense.

 

[sloop]

The issue is that the whole idea of Roe v Wade was that respect-

No, the whole idea of Roe v. Wade was that there exists a nebulous “penumbra” of the Constitution which justifies a bunch of unelected judges declaring things constitutionally protected even when they are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

Again, as a policy matter, I believe abortion should be safe and legal. That doesn’t mean we should pretend that Roe v. Wade was a good legal decision. If you actually read the damn case, you would recognize that the legal justification was terrible.

 

[IR3A4]

Honestly, it doesn't matter your view on abortion, what does matter is laws that are directly harmful to patients and antithetic to evidence-based medicine.

At a medical school, as a WCS speaker, it doesn't matter what your views or opinions are on many topics but if you're someone who supports something that goes against evidence-based medicine and directly harms patient care walking out makes sense. There's nothing political about this, it's about someone's views on patient safety. This is happening within the same hour where students will be taking their oaths.


I'd walk out of Dr. Oz was my speaker. I'd walk out if a chiropractor was my speaker. (Actually, I'd probably just not go, though I know some med schools make attendance mandatory).

 

[ACSurgeon]

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 should try it as a student on a surgery rotation. When the surgeons do a “wasting your time” try to dissent peacefully in that situation. Come back and tell us how that goes. Also make sure you visit that thread do “dislike” my comment there

 

[IR3A4]

You should try it as a student on a surgery rotation. When the surgeons do a “wasting your time” try to dissent peacefully in that situation. Come back and tell us how that goes. Also make sure you visit that thread do “dislike” my comment there

?

What's the purpose of adding a false equivalence to this discussion?

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

No, the whole idea of Roe v. Wade was that there exists a nebulous “penumbra” of the Constitution which justifies a bunch of unelected judges declaring things constitutionally protected even when they are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

Again, as a policy matter, I believe abortion should be safe and legal. That doesn’t mean we should pretend that Roe v. Wade was a good legal decision. If you actually read the damn case, you would recognize that the legal justification was terrible.

It's what's known as an unenumerated right in the Constitution (ninth amendment). Most established by Supreme Court rulings in the last 100 years or so. These include the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, the right to travel within the country and the right to privacy, especially marital privacy. Even the right to vote. You might brush up on it.

 

[sloop]

It's what's known as an unenumerated right in the Constitution (ninth amendment). Most established by Supreme Court rulings in the last 100 years or so. These include the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, the right to travel within the country and the right to privacy, especially marital privacy. Even the right to vote. You might brush up on it.

I know what unenumerated rights are, but it is debatable whether penumbral reasoning has been part of Constitutional jurisprudence for 100 years. There are some earlier examples, particularly in circuit courts, but the most prominent use of penumbral reasoning by the Supreme Court, which spurred other similar decisions later, including Roe that same year, was Griswold v. Connecticut (1973).

In any case, it doesn’t matter whether rulings have cited penumbral reasoning for 100 years. They certainly did not cite penumbral reasoning at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which contains the ostensible root of the various unenumerated rights established by penumbral reasoning. The Ninth Amendment rests on problematic reasoning in the sense that conflicts with the general framework of the Constitution and thus has poor applicability. Specifically, the Constitution allows the States to regulate those issues for which there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate them. Unless the founders were seeking to completely dismantle the federalism they were explicitly establishing, the Ninth Amendment cannot be construed to mean that all unenumerated rights fall under the purview of the federal Constitution. It is for these reasons that legal scholars considered the Ninth Amendment to be largely irrelevant until the late 1970s and 1980s when the Court started citing the aforementioned penumbral reasoning in decisions.

I think it is you who needs to brush up on constitutional law.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Alright, I think we have passed the point where any rational debate on this speaker has been exhausted and we’re getting into political territory when we start talking about constitutional law. Accordingly, this thread is being closed.