Worried I messed up by criticizing a doctor in my personal statement

[applepie22]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey everyone,

I’m a current applicant and need some perspective. In my original personal statement, I talked about an experience where an attending physician spoke negatively about a patient. I described how the comment shifted the tone of the whole team and how that moment made me realize the role model and leadership potential a physician has, and how I want to use it positively.

For context:

• I’ve gotten 1 II → waitlist
• A couple more pre-II waitlists
• No acceptances yet
• Considering reapplying

My big concern is: if I reapply next cycle and completely revise my PS to remove anything that could be interpreted as negative toward physicians, will schools hold my old statement against me? Like, is being “judgmental” in a PS a fatal red flag that could get my future application dismissed?

I didn’t mean it in a “I’m better than this doctor” way. It was more about realizing how much patient care can be shaped by the attitudes we bring into the room, and wanting to practice medicine with empathy and awareness. But now I’m spiraling, thinking adcoms might have taken it the wrong way.

Has anyone else had a similar situation and still gotten acceptances or successfully re-applied after revising a PS with tone issues? Am I overthinking this?

Any honest advice would be really appreciated.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

Hopefully that one WL turns into an A and you won't even need to worry about it!

If you do have to reapply, they are not going to go back and do a complete 1 to 1 comparison of your old personal statement to your new one. I don't know if your PS is what what could have negatively impacted your application as I don't know how you worded things or how much of the PS this took up, but there are also so many other factors that go into an application that could have impacted your success. I would recommend adding more details about your application in a WAMC style to get a better idea.

Overall, though, I don't think how you handled your PS would be a deal breaker (and it obviously wasn't if you got an II).

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Welcome to the forums.

Your personal statement may have absolutely nothing to do with how schools moved on your application. We don't have your PS or your application to see if your story was bad. Who reviewed your PS before you submitted it?

 

[polymerization]

Just based on the narrative, I think a reasonable way to look at it is that we're all entitled to having bad days. Medicine can be a consuming career that can fill virtually any void in your life. It overwhelms everyone at some point. Not everyone is capable of using their interpersonal tools under that kind of extreme duress, and that can really create some uncomfortable situations for others.

I acknowledge and concede that it really is within that physician's responsibility to apologize and make it right for the sake of the team, but I don't think that it's appropriate to flagellate them in perpetuity.

What I get from your story is that, whatever it was that this physician did or said was so bad that it constellated some kind of existential self-definition for you immediately, in a bad way (as in, you are such a detestable individual that I vow never to be like you).

Objectively, could it have been that bad? Yep. Not denying that at all. Is it valid to write about it? Also yes.

But, rhetorically, it sounds like punching down from a place of moral superiority (and from the outside). It's possible that your readers will have psychological defenses go up, not because they see themselves in you, but because they see themselves in the physician.

I straddled that line in my own essays and I found that I had to do a lot of work around finding ways to make the point that I wanted to make (why I was inspired to become a physician in light of negative experiences with the healthcare system) without implicating individual physicians, which comes across like petty outsider criticism.

I found that the the best way to do that is not to criticize individual psychology, but sociology. Instead of claiming moral outrage at individual physician behavior, you can talk about all of the things that facilitate and reward that behavior inherent to the job. Like, yeah, if you deprive someone of sleep for more than 24 hours, load them with caffeine, force them to skip meals, and compensate them with "if you don't, people will die," my guess is that the kinds of behaviors you described would actually be pretty common... this explains the behavior at an analytical distance so you don't have to put someone down personally.

 

[AJ25]

It is certainly tempting to criticize medicine in a personal statement, and you would not be wrong to, but it is discouraged because that's not the point of the personal statement. Criticize medicine when you become a doctor.

I did the same thing but I had access to all the resources at my school, when I was in an MS program, so I understood early on what the school was looking for and what didn't look good, and why I should stay away from the criticisms.

Having said that, there is some committee member out there that would find such a statement extraordinary.

I guess play it safe and don't include the criticisms. You're better off using the space to talk about yourself anyway.

 

[applepie22]

Hopefully that one WL turns into an A and you won't even need to worry about it!

If you do have to reapply, they are not going to go back and do a complete 1 to 1 comparison of your old personal statement to your new one. I don't know if your PS is what what could have negatively impacted your application as I don't know how you worded things or how much of the PS this took up, but there are also so many other factors that go into an application that could have impacted your success. I would recommend adding more details about your application in a WAMC style to get a better idea.

Overall, though, I don't think how you handled your PS would be a deal breaker (and it obviously wasn't if you got an II).

Thank you I appreciate the insight!!

 

[applepie22]

Just based on the narrative, I think a reasonable way to look at it is that we're all entitled to having bad days. Medicine can be a consuming career that can fill virtually any void in your life. It overwhelms everyone at some point. Not everyone is capable of using their interpersonal tools under that kind of extreme duress, and that can really create some uncomfortable situations for others.

I acknowledge and concede that it really is within that physician's responsibility to apologize and make it right for the sake of the team, but I don't think that it's appropriate to flagellate them in perpetuity.

What I get from your story is that, whatever it was that this physician did or said was so bad that it constellated some kind of existential self-definition for you immediately, in a bad way (as in, you are such a detestable individual that I vow never to be like you).

Objectively, could it have been that bad? Yep. Not denying that at all. Is it valid to write about it? Also yes.

But, rhetorically, it sounds like punching down from a place of moral superiority (and from the outside). It's possible that your readers will have psychological defenses go up, not because they see themselves in you, but because they see themselves in the physician.

I straddled that line in my own essays and I found that I had to do a lot of work around finding ways to make the point that I wanted to make (why I was inspired to become a physician in light of negative experiences with the healthcare system) without implicating individual physicians, which comes across like petty outsider criticism.

I found that the the best way to do that is not to criticize individual psychology, but sociology. Instead of claiming moral outrage at individual physician behavior, you can talk about all of the things that facilitate and reward that behavior inherent to the job. Like, yeah, if you deprive someone of sleep for more than 24 hours, load them with caffeine, force them to skip meals, and compensate them with "if you don't, people will die," my guess is that the kinds of behaviors you described would actually be pretty common... this explains the behavior at an analytical distance so you don't have to put someone down personally.

Thank you, this makes a lot of sense!!

 

[applepie22]

It is certainly tempting to criticize medicine in a personal statement, and you would not be wrong to, but it is discouraged because that's not the point of the personal statement. Criticize medicine when you become a doctor.

I did the same thing but I had access to all the resources at my school, when I was in an MS program, so I understood early on what the school was looking for and what didn't look good, and why I should stay away from the criticisms.

Having said that, there is some committee member out there that would find such a statement extraordinary.

I guess play it safe and don't include the criticisms. You're better off using the space to talk about yourself anyway.

I think you're right, thank you for the respose

 

[doctorendgame]

I’m a current applicant and need some perspective. In my original personal statement, I talked about an experience where an attending physician spoke negatively about a patient. I described how the comment shifted the tone of the whole team and how that moment made me realize the role model and leadership potential a physician has, and how I want to use it positively.

Never talk about that. Until you've dealt with dozens of patients a day, you never know what it's like or how hard it is to not bash on a patient. The reality is some patients are complete m*rons. Medicine is a team effort and I don't mean the healthcare staff, I mean the patient too. They have to be actively involved in their own care. The reality is you'll think about that about more than a few patients throughout your career.

Inexperienced people always think they can do better until they face the complexities of a field and the world and they realize they knew nothing. Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Why do you think there's so much unmet need in medicine? Because it's not profitable to meet those needs. Yes, profit matters. How else are you going to pay your employees, keep the lights on, etc? When you criticize companies that prioritize profit over patients, it makes me cringe because you would not pursue a medical career, take on all that debt, if it didn't pay six figures and had job security. Why? Because you need to eat, pay your bills, etc. That's why medical innovations need a viable business model.

Here's an example of an unmet need due to a lack of profitability. Anyone who's had a lidocaine injection knows it hurts like a b*tch. The reason for the burn is because of the hydrochloric acid, which ensures its sterility and prolonged shelf-life. You can actually reduce the pain from lidocaine injection by dilution it with a 3:1 ratio of lidocaine and sodium bicarbonate, which neutralizes the acid and also reduces the time needed for lidocaine to have an effect since its positive charge is neutralized and it can pass through the cell membrane faster. So why isn't this standard protocol? For reasons already stated. The sodium bicaronate neutralizes the acid, which reduces the shelf-life to just one week. Even if there's a new billing code that allows doctors to charge for the use of sodium bicarbonate, they would have to toss unused lidocaine after a week and lose a ton of money, unless they have a high frequency of patients that need lidocaine injections.

There's also the fact the antibotic market is broken. It costs hundreds of millions to billions to develop drugs and antibiotics aren't used right away. They're shelved to prevent the spread of infection. That's why no one is developing antibiotics because it won't turn profit for decades and if that is their sole drug, they will go bankrupt. That's what happened to Achaogen after they spent over $1 billion developing Zemdri.

I know you've all been fed the patients over profits narrative but in reality, profits matter more than patients. You can't care for patients if you go bankrupt. This is true even for non-profit clinics and hospitals. This is not something you think about when all you do is do clinical duties and make a paycheck. That money has to come from somewhere. This is something only people who understand the business side of medicine would realize.

That was a bit of a tangent but it was to illustrate how you're in for a rude awakening when you see how complex the medical field really is and you will not have the impact you expect to. At least not until you actually learn more about the non-clinical aspects of medicine.

When you encounter these situations, 99% of the time, it's not because you know better, it's because you're missing something. Adopting the mindset of "what am I missing" will do you a lot more good.

I found that the the best way to do that is not to criticize individual psychology, but sociology.

Even that is not a good thing because it shows a lack of understanding of how complex society is. Everyone knows these problems exist and there's a reason it hasn't been fixed and you will not be the messiah that fixes it. Refer to what I said above. But then again, I am an outlier so there's a good chance most people in adcoms won't share my opinion. But I can say it is an absolute fact you achieve nothing by criticizing society but you may get something done by understanding society as a whole: the good and the ugly.

The reality of it is a lot of things in society have trade-offs: they have pros and cons and it comes down to weighing them. If you hastily remove something you thought was harmful, you may end up doing more harm than good the good it did. That's why you want to implement change slowly.

I'm going to dive into a little bit of history here so mods, please bear with me. After the Revolutionary War ended, Northern States moved to end slavery, but they didn't do it overnight. They gradually phased it out: no new slaves would be owned, all children of slaves would be freed once they reached age 21, but adult slaves remained slaves when these laws were enacted remained slaves for the rest of their lives. They did this because slavery was deepy rooted into their economies that to get rid of it overnight would destabilize their economies. One could argue freeing all those slaves into a wrecked economy would have been worse. From a humanitarian standpoint, it was obviously messed up. But from an economics standpoint, it made perfect sense.

Sorry for having to go off-topic, but it was the best example I could think of to show when you criticize society to me, you sound like an ignorant child who doesn't understand how the world works. It's when you understand why it happened that you will start to show the potential to impact society because you understand the merits of both sides. Keep in mind understanding =/= agreeing. I don't necessarily agree with it but I do understand it was important for society's stability. People who undersand don't really openly criticize imo because they see its merits even if they don't agree with it. Most issues fall under these grey areas and less than 1% of issues are 100% good or 100% bad. Likewise, in medicine's case, it's balancing humanitarian efforts and a viable business model.

Using a more relevant example and this may ruffle some feathers, when Roe V. Wade was overturned, I didn't agree with it, but I understood why it happened. It was never about a nationwide ban on abortion, it was about giving power back to the states. Our Constitution was set up so that for something to be the supreme law across all states, it must be made part of the Constitution via an amendment. Passing an amendment requires 2/3 of Congress. After that, it must be ratified by 3/4 of states. In other words, states have a say in which law becomes the supreme law of the US. Roe V. Wade was unconstitutional in the fact it unilaterally enforced a law on all 50 states without giving states any say in the matter.

Relating to this, I feel like the MCAT emphasizes a lot on Social Conflict Theory, but it doesn't focus enough on the merits of Structural Functionalism.

 

[Med Ed]

I talked about an experience where an attending physician spoke negatively about a patient. I described how the comment shifted the tone of the whole team and how that moment made me realize the role model and leadership potential a physician has,

IMHO, if there is a problem here, it's not that you criticized a physician. Doctors get criticized all the time (often by each other). It comes with the territory.

No, the problem may be that your observation is just a trite one. You essentially witnessed that the behavior of a team leader can affect the members of the team, which is a universal phenomenon. It's a fairly naive take.

You certainly aren't the first person to do this. The taxonomy of personal statements has an entire branch dedicated to witnessing physician misbehavior.

Either way, when reapplying it is always advisable to consider a rewrite of the PS. Hopefully your II turns into an A and you can just move forward.

 

[polymerization]

Even that is not a good thing because it shows a lack of understanding of how complex society is [...]

I can see you've gone very much out of your way to make your point, and I respect that.

I will need to ask you to clarify, though, because what I'm reading comes across like an apologistic argument in favor of slavery, and, by extension, virtually any malicious behavior or dynamic that has ever or could ever happen in society, carte-blanche.

Surely any and all exploitation serves a function to the people doing the exploiting. That does not at all mean that the exploitation was objectively legitimate, correct, or morally upright to enact on a categorically docile population of human beings (who are often made that way by force).

There's so much to respond to here if you are headed where I think you're going. Please tell me that I'm wrong.

 

[doctorendgame]

I can see you've gone very much out of your way to make your point, and I respect that.

I will need to ask you to clarify, though, because what I'm reading comes across like an apologistic argument in favor of slavery, and, by extension, virtually any malicious behavior or dynamic that has ever or could ever happen in society, carte-blanche.

Surely any and all exploitation serves a function to the people doing the exploiting. That does not at all mean that the exploitation was objectively legitimate, correct, or morally upright to enact on a categorically docile population of human beings (who are often made that way by force).

There's so much to respond to here if you are headed where I think you're going. Please tell me that I'm wrong.

I literally said I didn't agree with it, but I understood it. By phasing out of slavery, the northern states eventually eliminated slavery while minimizing harm to their economies after the Revolutionary War.

This is why politically illiterate people, which are over 90% of people in my experience, annoy me. Just because you understand why something like that happened, doesn't mean you support it, you just undersood why it had to happen. The reality of it is, there was no absolute win in that scenario. It was either slowly phase out of slavery and minimize economic harm or get rid of it overnight and cause severe economic harm. But if I had to pick, I do think gradual emancipation was the lesser of the two evils. But let's not get too deep into that. All you need to know is I was for them getting rid of slavery and I wasn't a big fan of doing it gradually but I was also not a big fan of causing economic harm from getting rid of it overnight either.

Likewise, criticizing society instead of trying to understand why it is the way it is makes you look ignorant to me and using this example, criticizing gradual emancipation instead of understanding why it had to happen, makes you look ignorant to me. Your comment also comes off as ignorant (sorry to say) if you thought I was being apologetic as opposed to understanding.

You do a good job of embodying the saying "Seek to understand before seeking to be understood." with me. You just need to apply that to society and you'll be good to go.

 

[polymerization]

I literally said I didn't agree with it, but I understood it. By phasing out of slavery, the northern states eventually eliminated slavery while minimizing harm to their economies after the Revolutionary War.

This is why politically illiterate people, which are over 90% of people in my experience, annoy me. Just because you understand why something like that happened, doesn't mean you support it, you just undersood why it had to happen. The reality of it is, there was no absolute win in that scenario. It was either slowly phase out of slavery and minimize economic harm or get rid of it overnight and cause severe economic harm.

Likewise, criticizing society instead of trying to understand why it is the way it is makes you look ignorant to me and using this example, criticizing gradual emancipation instead of understanding why it had to happen, makes you look ignorant to me. Your comment also comes off as ignorant (sorry to say) if you thought I was being apologetic as opposed to understanding.

You do a good job of embodying the saying "Seek to understand before seeking to be understood." with me. You just need to apply that to society and you'll be good to go.

OK, so what I understand here is that your position is doubling down and arguing that continuing to literally own humans "makes perfect sense" to avoid "economic harm." The core issue within your logic is that explanation does not imply justification or validity.

We all know why slavery persisted for so long (greed and economic dependency, not just overutilization). The fact that you view the avoidance of "economic harm" as a valid counterargument to literal human bondage—and that you view anyone who prioritizes the human side as "illiterate" tells me a lot about who you are.

You started this thread by telling the OP that they were naive for criticizing a doctor. You end it by proving that you view human suffering as instrumental, arguably necessary, and something that is just abstractly experienced by others. At the same time, you call patients "m*rons," claim "profits over patients" is the most intellectually astute position, and condescend from up high about what are simply unacceptable outcomes in any society.

We're on a forum for future physicians.

The fact that you can't discern systemic analysis from rationalizing atrocity suggests you will struggle immensely with the inherently relational and human side of medicine.

You're not displaying intellectual profundity or superiority here, just an overwhelming lack of empathy and ethical reasoning which are literal documented requirements for this profession.

I hope for your future patients' sake that you never have to choose between their well-being and the "bottom line."

 

[doctorendgame]

You're not displaying intellectual profundity or superiority here, just an overwhelming lack of empathy and ethical reasoning that is literal documented requirement for this profession.

And this is why you are profoundly ignorant. We're talking about society, not individual patients. There's a differnce between making choices that affect individuals vs affecting society as a whole. Apples and oranges.

Do you really think that balance isn't happening today? It is.

We're on a forum for future physicians.

You do realize you're implying you're a one trick pony who only knows medicine and doesn't understand how society works, right? Your reply proves it.

There's a reason people like you never achieve social change.

 

[polymerization]

I'm willing to argue with you on the substantive points, not subject myself to ad hominem attacks. Some specific points you've made about individual patients include:

you never know what it's like or how hard it is to not bash on a patient

The reality is some patients are complete m*rons.

in reality, profits matter more than patients

It's actually not that hard to avoid behaving in an unprofessional way around patients, at least for me personally. It helps that I view them as human beings that compose our society who deserve the right to live.

 

[doctorendgame]

I'm willing to argue with you on the substantive points, not subject myself to ad hominem attacks. Some specific points you've made about individual patients include:

Have you not heard of empathy burnout?

Am I wrong about some patients being absolute m*rons? Have you seen the ER admits during Independence Day?

I love how you took "in reality, profits matter more than patients" out of context and conveiniently left out "You can't care for patients if you go bankrupt." Like you would pursue medicine if it didn't pay a six figure salary and has good job security. I'm curious, where do you think that money comes from? Also notice how you left out the part where I said a company literally went bankrupt for trying to develop an antibiotic because the antibiotic market is broken.

You're just proving my point, especially with that third quote.

 

[polymerization]

Have you not heard of empathy burnout?

Am I wrong about some patients being absolute m*rons? Have you seen the ER admits during Independence Day?

I love how you took "in reality, profits matter more than patients" out of context. Like you would pursue medicine if it didn't pay a six figure salary and has good job security. I'm curious, where do you think that money comes from?

Yes, I'm kind of famous for saying I had almost 20k hours at the bedside, including ED.

Part of what makes ED what it is are inevitably the social problems that contribute to a lack of efficiency. Very many of the patients I would see there were just looking for a bed to sleep in just for one night this month. Others were clearly emaciated and desperately needed food.

It was humbling to see the level of deprivation that existed in my own community, and I had been literally homeless. Others seemed to have it so much worse. I felt incredibly fortunate and privileged to help them.

It's ironic you would reference care fatigue considering that is a structural factor that I thought was only for whiny little babies, no?

It is also curious that you keep emphasizing salary and job security. For me, it is obviously a moral project... so long as I knew I could survive and thrive with my chosen family, I would obviously practice medicine. There are easier, more secure ways to make money than pursuing a 12+ year contingent academic path.

Of course, if that's what you're chasing, caveat emptor.

 

[doctorendgame]

Part of what makes ED what it is are inevitably the social problems that contribute to a lack of efficiency. Very many of the patients I would see there were just looking for a bed to sleep in just for one night this month. Others were clearly emaciated and desperately needed food.

It was humbling to see the level of depravity that existed in my own community

Why do you think those depravities and social problems exist? Do you think you're the first person to think "I'm going to fix these depravities"? Or is it more likely others like you tried and failed? Like you, they failed because they didn't properly understand society. That's why you won't have any meaningful impact on mending these depravities, especially because you're a one trick pony who only knows medicine. I can guarantee you one thing: these depravities will not be impacted by you being a physician in the slightest.

It's ironic you would reference care fatigue considering that is a structural factor that I thought was only for whiny little babies, no?

Burnout is a psychological factor... Are you getting desperate or what?

It is also curious that you keep emphasizing salary and job security.

Because a good salary is job security is what makes medicine attractive because you need to eat, pay your bills, etc.

For me, it is obviously a moral project

You can only say that because medicine has good job security and pays a good salary. Otherwise, you could not sustain yourself doing it. That's why I keep bringing up salary and job security. How did that go over your head? That's why I said medicine comes down to balancing humanitarian efforts and having a viable business model, which even non-profit hospitals and clinics need. How do you think they pay their staff, pay lease rent, and keep the lights on?

 

[mjzccle19701]

You two need to get a room or something

 

[polymerization]

Why do you think those depravities and social problems exist?

Because people like you are unwilling to acknowledge and address them. By refusing to criticize the status quo, you inevitably uphold it. It's literally the only option available. Which is why it is important to discuss it as a physician, from the medical perspective—so that others can understand. It's a very valid, and, in my opinion, aspirational way to use your knowledge to help more people than just the patient in the room with you. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Do you think you're the first person to think "I'm going to fix these depravities"? Or is it more likely others like you tried and failed? Like you, they failed because they didn't properly understand society. That's why you won't have any meaningful impact on mending these depravities, especially because you're a one trick pony who only knows medicine.

That is an interesting assumption. No, I don't think I'm the first, nor the last, thankfully. It is quite the lofty ambition. Personally, I'm a gubernatorially appointed chair of a state advisory body writing health policies serving millions of people in my state. What are you doing to serve your community, aside from trying to dissuade others from doing so?

Burnout is a psychological factor...

On a personal level, which is all you, king. Care fatigue is a concept that refers to the particular manifestations of burnout that affects all healthcare professionals as a group, but you don't believe in that, right?

Because a good salary is job security is what makes medicine attractive because you need to eat, pay your bills, etc.

I suppose, for the majority of people, that could be a factor. But then, way more jobs than just "physician" would fit that bill. So, like Ari says: yes, and?

How do you think they pay their staff, pay lease rent, and keep the lights on?

By charging $300 for an Advil and then aggressively collecting on medical debt at scale.

 

[doctorendgame]

Because people like you are unwilling to acknowledge and address them. By refusing to criticize the status quo, you inevitably uphold it. It's literally the only option available. Which is why it is important to discuss it as a physician, from the medical perspective—so that others can understand. It's a very valid, and, in my opinion, aspirational way to use your knowledge to help more people than just the patient in the room with you. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Yeah, because people like you are doing such a great job. You do realize you just admitted people like you are incompetent at fixing this issue, right? I'm actually working on a healthcare innovation project and I have a physician mentor who is a prominent figure in healthcare innovations guiding me. He pushed me to learn about the non-clinical aspects of medicine and that's why I'm literate about the business aspect of medicine, something you are completely illiterate on. Not only that, he also pushed me to learn about both sides of an argument comprehensively, which is why I said what I said about the Northern States and why unlike you, I'm not a one-trick pony. It's also why my innovation has the potential to have a massive impact because I was able to find a suitable business model for it, Without a business model, my innovation would have 0 impact. So yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you that these issues only get fixed by people like me, not by people like you.

Thanks for playing.

I suppose, for the majority of people

Reminds me of this at 1:33.

By charging $300 for an Advil and then aggressively collecting on medical debt at scale.

I said even non-profit clinics, which charge a sliding fee model. Please tell me you just haven't had your cup of coffee yet because this is getting sad. But let's roll with that for simplicity's sake. That pays your salary and allows you to pay off your medical school debt. If that didn't exist, you'd be stuck paying off your medical school debt for the rest of your life and you couldn't fulfill your "moral project".

 

[polymerization]

[broadly unintelligible]

Great. Enjoy your "project."

OP, it looks like you unintentionally received a guide on what not to say during this process (or really ever, but that's just my opinion).

In general, you know, given I actually got into medical school, I can say categorically that I would never:

- Offend my interlocutors or condescend to them in any way
- Trash-talk individuals not in the room for any reason
- Express an undying desire to harm patients in any way with or without justification (?!)
- Make it weirdly political for some reason?
- Expose WILD racist and elitist views in doing so, regardless of political beliefs, especially in 2025, when it is so easy to unmask someone on a semi-anonymous forum like this

But definitely, definitely do not be the person dying on the hill to justify slavery, of all things. What's next? The Holocaust was just a brunch that ended badly, but once it did, everyone held hands and everything was great? And of course, if you don't see it that way, you're an idiot? I'm literally crying laughing to avoid the terrifying realization that this comic villain could ever potentially put their hands on a patient.

Scary stuff.

 

[LelouchLamperouge]

What am I even reading

 

[AJ25]

I literally said I didn't agree with it, but I understood it. By phasing out of slavery, the northern states eventually eliminated slavery while minimizing harm to their economies after the Revolutionary War.

This is why politically illiterate people, which are over 90% of people in my experience, annoy me. Just because you understand why something like that happened, doesn't mean you support it, you just undersood why it had to happen. The reality of it is, there was no absolute win in that scenario. It was either slowly phase out of slavery and minimize economic harm or get rid of it overnight and cause severe economic harm. But if I had to pick, I do think gradual emancipation was the lesser of the two evils. But let's not get too deep into that. All you need to know is I was for them getting rid of slavery and I wasn't a big fan of doing it gradually but I was also not a big fan of causing economic harm from getting rid of it overnight either.

Likewise, criticizing society instead of trying to understand why it is the way it is makes you look ignorant to me and using this example, criticizing gradual emancipation instead of understanding why it had to happen, makes you look ignorant to me. Your comment also comes off as ignorant (sorry to say) if you thought I was being apologetic as opposed to understanding.

You do a good job of embodying the saying "Seek to understand before seeking to be understood." with me. You just need to apply that to society and you'll be good to go.

Any thoughts on human zoos...in America and abroad?

 

[LelouchLamperouge]

Just because you understand why something like that happened, doesn't mean you support it, you just undersood why it had to happen. The reality of it is, there was no absolute win in that scenario. It was either slowly phase out of slavery and minimize economic harm or get rid of it overnight and cause severe economic harm. But if I had to pick, I do think gradual emancipation was the lesser of the two evils. But let's not get too deep into that. All you need to know is I was for them getting rid of slavery and I wasn't a big fan of doing it gradually but I was also not a big fan of causing economic harm from getting rid of it overnight either.

Bro WHAT. I know you’re not trying to justify slavery. Yes, we can understand that there are two sides to every story. But what am I even reading.

 

[doctorendgame]

Any thoughts on human zoos...in America and abroad?

I've given enough that you can guess my thoughts.

 

[doctorendgame]

Bro WHAT. I know you’re not trying to justify slavery. Yes, we can understand that there are two sides to every story. But what am I even reading.

Welcome to the real world where nothing is sunshines and rainbows. Isn't it great? 🤣 😉

 

[polymerization]

Are we getting ragebaited?

 

[LelouchLamperouge]

Welcome to the real world where nothing is sunshines and rainbows. Isn't it great? 🤣 😉

 

[doctorendgame]

Because people like you are unwilling to acknowledge and address them. By refusing to criticize the status quo, you inevitably uphold it. It's literally the only option available. Which is why it is important to discuss it as a physician, from the medical perspective—so that others can understand. It's a very valid, and, in my opinion, aspirational way to use your knowledge to help more people than just the patient in the room with you. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Great. Enjoy your "project."

In general, you know, given I actually got into medical school, I can say categorically that I would never:

- Offend my interlocutors or condescend to them in any way
- Trash-talk individuals not in the room for any reason

*cough*

 

[doctorendgame]

Great. Enjoy your "project."

OP, it looks like you unintentionally received a guide on what not to say during this process (or really ever, but that's just my opinion).

In general, you know, given I actually got into medical school, I can say categorically that I would never:

- Offend my interlocutors or condescend to them in any way
- Trash-talk individuals not in the room for any reason
- Express an undying desire to harm patients in any way with or without justification (?!)
- Make it weirdly political for some reason?
- Expose WILD racist and elitist views in doing so, regardless of political beliefs, especially in 2025, when it is so easy to unmask someone on a semi-anonymous forum like this

But definitely, definitely do not be the person dying on the hill to justify slavery, of all things. What's next? The Holocaust was just a brunch that ended badly, but once it did, everyone held hands and everything was great? And of course, if you don't see it that way, you're an idiot? I'm literally crying laughing to avoid the terrifying realization that this comic villain could ever potentially put their hands on a patient.

Scary stuff.

You should also not take people's arguments out of context either. Food for thought. Anyway, I think we should step back and cool off.

 

[geopigeon]

the plot was lost several scrolls ago

 

[chilly_md]

This thread veered far away from answering the OP's question and has been closed.

As a reminder, please remain professional and respectful with each other here on SDN.