Would a Physician's Stance Creationism/Evolutionism Make You Question Their Competence as a Doctor?
Started by Afp0731
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
No, I'm pointing out that surgeons (like most other specialties) only need to have the correct set of fundamentals/principles that they can logically apply, and its fine if they learn these principles as facts to be accepted as they would religious instruction. It doesn't matter if your surgeon can recognize the impossibility of proving reality exists or has ever considered the unanswerable absurdity of life and can state a logical reason not to kill themselves. Nearly everyone on earth holds some unjustifiable beliefs, many have never recognized them as such, and it really doesn't affect their ability to take out your kidney as long as their craziness is unrelated to medical practice - as is the case with beliefs about creation.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
People usually use Creationism to refer to the belief that animals were all created together and in their present form.
what about scott walker who wants to ban abortion even if the mother faces medical complication
Which really is the logical stance to take from their fundamental assumptions about the baby having the typical life protections starting at fertilization; you would never kill a toddler to save their mother from harm, for them the same logic applies throughout the pregnancy
How do they justify the reverse? If they are both human and given equal rights, why is it alright to let the mother die (in extreme cases).
Agree
Even if his stance were illogical, it would be very naive but more forgivable because he is not a trained physician like Rand Paul.
why is it forgivable? He could be president of this country, trying to pass laws based on that naivety. That's definitely not forgivable...
I suspect that Rand Paul is purposefully ignoring the studies refuting many anti-vaxxer claims, but he is also trained to evaluate that sort of evidence and should simply know better. I think he's pandering to voters over a major health issue.
Most politicians do not have medical training, so you can at least write it off as them a product of poor advisors or legitimate misunderstanding (though some may just be saying these things to win over voters). That's what I meant by more forgivable.
Last edited:
Their case is logical bc it lines up with their idea of not harming the child through-and-through
elfe didn't necessarily agree. Personally I think it's stupid, as are many right-wing efforts to limit a woman's decision over this.
Generally people view parents as surrendering many of their freedoms and rights to their childrens' well-being, this is just the most extreme case. The really interesting question that might have divided answers among this crowd is whether that submission of their rights to the child must be a willfully entered situation; would a child that is the product of rape still have a right to life over the mother? Rough questions
Not quite the same, as the latter claimed it was their career of training to obey authority at fault, politicians can't really say that
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Also the soldiers probably would have been killed if they didn't comply.
Politicians just lose votes, power, and consequently bribe money.
Oh darn, I guess that wasn't a very good comparison after all. 😛
So anyway I'm less concerned about the mothers giving up their lives for the children and more concerned about them burning in the lake of fire for all eternity.
Another thing to consider: I believe children can be soldimeangivenupforadoptionatcost
Another thing to consider: I believe children can be soldimeangivenupforadoptionatcost
my kind of thread
You'd be hard pressed to find many buyers considering all the free ones available
On ethical grounds it might actually be tenable though, considering surrogacy and sperm donations can both be sold just fine
god, if it had grade deflation you'd never leave
real talk though I think WashU is actively starting to inflate grade before my very eyes. Our biochem professor put up grade distributions for the past few years and it looks like the first year the median grade was a C and for our year he said it will be curved so half of the class gets an A or A-. THANK YOU HARVARD
Lol, it must be nice.
Yeah but see if I wanna kid I wanna meet the mother. You know, make sure she's up to my standards. Has all the proper (superior) genes etc. That's what I'm paying good money for.
I'd also probably need her to sign a contract saying she will never contact us so the child never figures out he/she is a commodity.
Seems doable to me. Get a donor egg and a donor sperm and put them together into a surrogate and boom
Better hope the kid doesn't get wise after learning about genetics
Better hope the kid doesn't get wise after learning about genetics
Yah whatever it takes to rationalize it works for me, you are going the other direction by changing your perception of the bible to match with scientific understanding, but many people prefer to change their perspective of science without modifying their religious understandings.
yeah probably, im super popular
Livin up that hs dream huh
Very True. I believe though there is no modification of perception needed. Truth is truth. And if you study both science Anddd the Bible you can see they exist together harmoniously.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Excellent!! If this is indeed a trend, then we'll see more Wash U kids at top med schools.
Yeah in theory i totally agree with inflate the **** out of everything policy...and yet it just makes me feel dirty
You already know how I feel about this. If half the class earns an A- or above in a challenging course, then they should be rewarded with those grades. It's only a problem when the material isn't challenging.
And honestly, why should you feel dirty? You already distinguished yourself from other top students when the grades were deflated aka you beat the game on insane, so this doesn't take anything away from your achievement points-lol.
I look up to Ben Carson. He's a Detroit product, and if you know the neighborhood he grew up in it makes his accomplishments that much more impressive.
That said, my admiration for him does stop there. All of his interviews are the same format: talk about childhood, credit his Mom for reading with him and saying "the only person responsible for you is you". He doesn't have a place in politics - literally. What people from the socioeconomic background (i.e, Detroit slums) he is from are going to jump on the band wagon of his far-right ideas?
That said, my admiration for him does stop there. All of his interviews are the same format: talk about childhood, credit his Mom for reading with him and saying "the only person responsible for you is you". He doesn't have a place in politics - literally. What people from the socioeconomic background (i.e, Detroit slums) he is from are going to jump on the band wagon of his far-right ideas?
I think you should relax and be happy about your grades.
I haven't looked into too much, but I imagine he's one of those "if I can do it by myself, everyone else can" types
Cmon, no you don't. If every school starts giving out As like that then they become meaningless, and the advantage that certain schools get from inflation disappears.
It's the lesser of two evils compared to ****ing your students over while a peer institute gets more into MD for the same performance class-rank wise
Perhaps every school that pumps out applicants with MCAT avgs >30 should inflate the s*** out of their grades (only half-kidding.)
I'm not worried about my own grades! I'm just upset to see the ability to be a standout student shrinking, even if I agree with the results it has for the middle students. Just feels wrong still to think about "straight A" coming to mean "slightly above average"
I dunno, I always found it funny how Harvard and Yale were top places for ibanking or grad/professional admissions, even though people should really be looking at the top grads of UChicago JHU or Wash U. you know the guy with a 3.8 at UChicago is going to put the work in. hell getting a high GPA at a top public school counts for more than doing so at Harvard.
C'mon efle. You know full well that being slightly above average when compared to other top students is an achievement...
A great gpa at washu means more though
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Eh, I don't agree with him, but the guy is just acting according to his conscience. His patients don't have to stick with him if they don't like it. If he feels that providing BC is morally wrong, I think it's his right to respectfully decline. Trying to prevent his patients from getting it elsewhere or refusing to treat patients on BC is a different thing.
(i'm going to get so much crap for this I know😉)
What would make this bothering is if he was a physician in a rural area where he serves as the only PCP within a hundred miles. If this is a physician in NYC, by all means lower your patient count to pursue your own beliefs.
yeah, but those are just the same old unresolved geographical inequality issues. It's not really fair to place that burden on the one PCP who happens to be a Catholic and feels morally wrong about BC. Yea, it's a problem and should be fixed, but in a purely technical sense, it's not the one dude's fault that he lives in the middle of nowhere and happens to be Catholic.
I just don't get why people get so pissy about dr's that refuse to provide abortions, BC, sterilizations, whatever. Sure, we can all agree that those things are important, but trying to force someone to act against their conscience is not cool either.
Last edited:
Its more of the fact that in the hospital the most important person is the patient. By refusing abortion, BC, and others, the doctor is putting his beliefs on a higher pedestal than the patient's. What happens if a doctor does not believe in vaccinations for whatever reason? Should he refuse vaccinations then even if he is the only PCP in the area?
I'm not trying to take sides and do not necessarily side with Creationism, but I think you misunderstand what creationists believe... Of course micro evolution is a fact, its macro evolution that can become a problematic phenomenon. While there is definitely evidence in support of macro evolution, I really dont think that Dr. Carson is being misguided by disagreeing with it. Almost everyone on this forum has been spoon fed evolution in schools their whole life, in the same way religious folks have been biased towards their faith since birth. There are MANY reasons to believe macro evolution is absurd, along with many theories out there that try to explain why the world exists (even the big band theory makes some outrageous claims). Someone who never grew up in church will look at some bible stories and laugh, but I think its ironic that they believe that organic life was somehow formed by chance or that matter can exist without it being created (defying the laws of physics that every pre-med has to learn).
