Social Justice in Medicine

[NITRAS]

I just wanted to say that it took me three days to finally catch up with this thread.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Chelsea FC]

It’s not SDN I’m concerned about, though I applaud moderators for not caving to pressure to lock this thread. It’s the consequences I’d experience IRL for expressing the views I have anonymously here (which is a risk in and of itself because someone vindictive and tech savvy enough could figure out who I was) that I take issue with.

I just want to make it clear I never asked for this thread to be closed. I think its been offtopic for sometime. I've seen threads moved to Sociopolitical forums for less so my issue is the inconsistency and how the fact that a admin is involved prob influenced this thread not being moved.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

I just want to make it clear I never asked for this thread to be closed. I think its been offtopic for sometime. I've seen threads moved to Sociopolitical forums for less so my issue is the inconsistency and how the fact that a admin is involved prob influenced this thread not being moved.

I think it’s great that it’s being debated here for three reasons.
1) Medical students are stating that medical schools need to teach politics (at Least that is the case at my school where someone on an open forum stated that our school should be training “Warriors of Social Justice.”)
2) It’s great for people who don’t normally tread over to SPF to get exposure to ideas not within their echo chamber.
3) We get a whole influx of new perspectives and ideas, some good, some bad, but their arguments can be easily torn down if they’re bad.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Nah, you gotta chill. There is a reason there is a 'far right' group... And its because the far left is intolerant, while claiming the other side is intolerant.

You’re wrong here, the far-right groups have existed long before the current wave of liberalism/far left.

The current rise in “far right groups” is as much caused by the rise in “far left” as the rise of the far left was caused by Donald Trump. Some reactionary components, but by no means the root cause.

 

[Cornfed101]

I really dont have to have long term discussions with individuals who think race relations topics are 'SJW' and don't have a place in medicine. My medical class has a year dedicated to understanding race relations and I can't imagine what that year would be like for a student who refuses to want to learn from it.

There are a few in my class who have been like this and they've already been reported.

I guess my question is, what do you suggest? IMO having some classes on race relations in medical school or even college is far too late. Many of the poor outcomes you mentioned previously can be tied to implicit bias, not an overt hatred for any group of people. Implicit bias is not going to be changed by sitting through a lecture.

Honestly I think it will play itself out. Why? Because I’m less implicitly biased than my parents and my kids will likely be less so than me because I don’t call attention to it when my kids play with other kids of different races or cultures. I couldn’t care less, it’s great! It would not have been the same for my parents when they were kids.

This is probably going to sound like a cop out but ultimately racism has to be snuffed out in the home. We can’t fix it on a societal level beyond a certain point.

 

[M&L]

I just wanted to say that it took me three days to finally catch up with this thread.

WELCOME!!! HHAHAHAHAH

 

[Chelsea FC]

I think it’s great that it’s being debated here for three reasons.
1) Medical students are stating that medical schools need to teach politics (at Least that is the case at my school where someone on an open forum stated that our school should be training “Warriors of Social Justice.”)
2) It’s great for people who don’t normally tread over to SPF to get exposure to ideas not within their echo chamber.
3) We get a whole influx of new perspectives and ideas, some good, some bad, but their arguments can be easily torn down if they’re bad.

There are a lot of topics that would fulfill all 3 of these points (MD vs DO, carib grads, Nurses ) but they either gets closed or moved. Inconsistency is what I dont understand and the fact they reopened the thread which is weird makes one think how much the fact an admim is actively participating influenced the decision.

 

[M&L]

I just want to make it clear I never asked for this thread to be closed. I think its been offtopic for sometime. I've seen threads moved to Sociopolitical forums for less so my issue is the inconsistency and how the fact that a admin is involved prob influenced this thread not being moved.

the following is my PERSONAL OPINION and does not represent all the moderators and admins.

So, there is a difference between constructive deviation and destructive one. so normally off-topic would be a "no", but in this case the thread sort of naturally evolved into something very different, and the OP who made this thread actually was instrumental to the thread evolving into something different. So the thread progressed into a slightly different topic, vs being forcefully diverged by someone. And i feel like it is a very important difference. And the topic that is being discussed IS controversial and important in a lot of ways, so since this thread has been relatively productive and professional, and OP was instrumental in molding the topic into something new, this is an exception.

but yes, normally off-topic would not be appropriate.

also, the admin being involved would never be the only reason for a thread to be open, - we are more professional than that. THere were plenty of threads that were closed despite multiple moderators/admins being involved. We do not suddenly change the rules because of specific ppl being involved. But we can make exceptions in the situations like this one because of the reasons i listed above (if i make any sense).

 

[Chelsea FC]

the following is my PERSONAL OPINION and does not represent all the moderators and admins.

So, there is a difference between constructive deviation and destructive one. so normally off-topic would be a "no", but in this case the thread sort of naturally evolved into something very different, and the OP who made this thread actually was instrumental to the thread evolving into something different. So the thread progressed into a slightly different topic, vs being forcefully diverged by someone. And i feel like it is a very important difference. And the topic that is being discussed IS controversial and important in a lot of ways, so since this thread has been relatively productive and professional, and OP was instrumental in molding the topic into something new, this is an exception.

but yes, normally off-topic would not be appropriate.

also, the admin being involved would never be the only reason for a thread to be open, - we are more professional than that. THere were plenty of threads that were closed despite multiple moderators/admins being involved. We do not suddenly change the rules because of specific ppl being involved. But we can make exceptions in the situations like this one because of the reasons i listed above (if i make any sense).

I see your point. Ima shut up now.

 

[Mass Effect]

If you think someone with right-leaning views/ politics different from yours has no right being a doctor, are you saying you'd refuse to treat a patient who comes in wearing a MAGA hat or something?

I haven't read every single post, so I could be wrong, but believe the poster said that racists shouldn't be doctors. That's different from saying people with right-leaning views shouldn't be doctors.

 

[M&L]

I see your point. Ima shut up now.

no need to "shut up",)) i see how this might be confusing without explanation. I have always believed in a certain level of transparency, keeps us accountable.

no harm in asking.

 

[Mass Effect]

Exactly. The mandatory stuff should be: here are the issues your patients may face and here are ways to help the patient sitting in front of you. Concrete stuff. No insurance? Here's how you find coupons, drug company charity programs, FQHCs, stuff like that. Homeless? Here are some of the issues we typically see with homelessness and ways to help address them on a per patient level. Doesn't speak English, here's how to best interact with them through a translator.

Society level issue lectures should be optional. This is where you can talk about how to address homelessness as a general problem.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. No one is going to say it's ok to give med students a mandatory lecture about how evil Trump is. But the OP is complaining that this stuff has no place in medical education which is just false.

 

[Mass Effect]

It's funny to me how some of you are up in arms about the SJW and being insulted for your views and called names, yet more than one of you have tossed around the word "sane" to describe yourselves in relation to others.

Say what you want, believe what you want, but maybe shelf the hypocrisy (and disparaging mental health editorials) when lecturing others.

 

[blockrudder1]

Climate change politics and race relations are not required to be a good doctor. Covid hysteria I can see the relevance. Can climate change affect health on a population level? Of course. And in a public health lecture I would not even bat an eye seeing it and would probably find it interesting. I don’t think that’s what anyone is talking about. There is not a dichotomy where you either talk about it in a completely political way or you don’t talk about it at all.

I mean there are a lot of mandatory topics taught in medical school that I dont think are necessary to be a good physician. I also keep hearing that you learn everything you need in residency anyway, as one extreme of what it takes to be a good physician. There are also topics that should be included that would improve our ability to deliver* care in some manner. For instance, having a better understanding of certain financial topics might prepare students to make better debt decisions or understand how we get paid for our services, or residents to negotiate better contracts.
But not putting the topics discussed in this thread on par with even the "lowest-yield" mandatory material really underestimates the importance.
I mean if the argument continues to be "I don't feel like I should be required to sit through a lecture on it because it won't make me a better physician" then where do we draw the line with what does? Medical education doesn't seem to have that one figured out, yet you pay thousands of $ to sit through those lectures while justifying it as necessary to pass USMLE tests - which clearly affects patient outcomes

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I don't think anyone is arguing that. No one is going to say it's ok to give med students a mandatory lecture about how evil Trump is. But the OP is complaining that this stuff has no place in medical education which is just false.

Pretty sure people are actually calling for these to be mandatory. Not about Trump being evil specifically but about societal level issues which have minimal value for day to day patient care.

 

[blockrudder1]

Yes that is my whole point. But there are schools that are pushing agendas on their students, and that’s inappropriate.

Sure they are, who isn't? Find me an example of a completely unbiased source of information? We can't even completely rely on published literature for a source of information without bias. But we learn how to recognize it and form our own opinions, we don't ignore the information entirely.

 

[blockrudder1]

I think it’s great that it’s being debated here for three reasons.
1) Medical students are stating that medical schools need to teach politics (at Least that is the case at my school where someone on an open forum stated that our school should be training “Warriors of Social Justice.”)
2) It’s great for people who don’t normally tread over to SPF to get exposure to ideas not within their echo chamber.
3) We get a whole influx of new perspectives and ideas, some good, some bad, but their arguments can be easily torn down if they’re bad.

Again including these topics isnt political. You have a topic such as "race relations" and have details/facts/substance, then add politics (a viewpoint or bias) and shift that topic left or right politically. Conservative or progressive. But the topic still remains necessary to discuss as substance, without politics. How don't you guys understand this?

 

[dr_kateb]

It's funny to me how some of you are up in arms about the SJW and being insulted for your views and called names, yet more than one of you have tossed around the word "sane" to describe yourselves in relation to others.

Baseless assumptions of racism and lack of empathy are okay though.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I mean there are a lot of mandatory topics taught in medical school that I dont think are necessary to be a good physician. I also keep hearing that you learn everything you need in residency anyway, as one extreme of what it takes to be a good physician. There are also topics that should be included that would improve our ability to deliver* care in some manner. For instance, having a better understanding of certain financial topics might prepare students to make better debt decisions or understand how we get paid for our services, or residents to negotiate better contracts.
But not putting the topics discussed in this thread on par with even the "lowest-yield" mandatory material really underestimates the importance.
I mean if the argument continues to be "I don't feel like I should be required to sit through a lecture on it because it won't make me a better physician" then where do we draw the line with what does? Medical education doesn't seem to have that one figured out, yet you pay thousands of $ to sit through those lectures while justifying it as necessary to pass USMLE tests - which clearly affects patient outcomes

I mean I don’t pay anything for my medical education, so the financial aspect has nothing to do with it for me. It’s all about respecting my time and not trying to indoctrinate me into a certain belief system.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. We can have mandatory sessions that discuss the important and relevant parts of the stuff in the OP without having lectures on how we should be voting.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Sure they are, who isn't? Find me an example of a completely unbiased source of information? We can't even completely rely on published literature for a source of information without bias. But we learn how to recognize it and form our own opinions, we don't ignore the information entirely.

That’s called a tu quoque argument and is a logical fallacy.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Again including these topics isnt political. You have a topic such as "race relations" and have details/facts/substance, then add politics (a viewpoint or bias) and shift that topic left or right politically. Conservative or progressive. But the topic still remains necessary to discuss as substance, without politics. How don't you guys understand this?

You seem to be the one not understanding. Many of us have been saying we would welcome this stuff in the curriculum as long as the school leaves the political part out of it, and you continue to argue as though we are saying we don’t want it at all or acting like it’s not possible to separate them.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I don't think anyone is arguing that. No one is going to say it's ok to give med students a mandatory lecture about how evil Trump is. But the OP is complaining that this stuff has no place in medical education which is just false.

People have argued in favor of mandatory lectures on the political aspects of these topics, and there are schools doing it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

It's funny to me how some of you are up in arms about the SJW and being insulted for your views and called names, yet more than one of you have tossed around the word "sane" to describe yourselves in relation to others.

Say what you want, believe what you want, but maybe shelf the hypocrisy (and disparaging mental health editorials) when lecturing others.

Maybe being called a racist for disagreeing with someone in a rational way is upsetting them.

 

[Mass Effect]

Pretty sure people are actually calling for these to be mandatory. Not about Trump being evil specifically but about societal level issues which have minimal value for day to day patient care.

I know. I don't have a problem with these being mandatory, but they should not involve political commentary. Frankly, I think every med student needs to understand race relations (and I'm appalled by how many don't). It absolutely plays a part in many fields of medicine, including adolescent medicine, ED, and psych. I think a lot of people go to med school thinking it's all just hard science and have very little need for the "soft" sciences such as psychology and sociology, but they play a significant role in any field of medicine in which there are significant patient interactions.

 

[Mass Effect]

People have argued in favor of mandatory lectures on the political aspects of these topics, and there are schools doing it.

Again, I know. I was saying that political commentary has no place. But the political aspects are just facts and do play a role in our patient interactions. For example, understanding the challenges immigrants face in this current administration is relevant to caring for immigrants in the ED, but whether it's right or wrong/fair or unfair should be left out.

 

[Mass Effect]

Baseless assumptions of racism and lack of empathy are okay though.

Show me where I condoned that?

I didn't read every single post, but as far as I know one person was called a racist and that poster is not part of the discussion anymore. But it is hypocrisy for others to jump on the bandwagon, going off about being insulted while insulting the other side.

 

[Mass Effect]

Maybe being called a racist for disagreeing with someone in a rational way is upsetting them.

Except the posters doing it weren't called racists. Regardless, it's hypocrisy. Don't lecture someone about doing something you don't like while doing the exact same thing in the very same post.

 

[dr_kateb]

Show me where I condoned that?

I didn't read every single post, but as far as I know one person was called a racist and that poster is not part of the discussion anymore. But it is hypocrisy for others to jump on the bandwagon, going off about being insulted while insulting the other side.

You certainly didn't call it out. Remember - silence is violence

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Except the posters doing it weren't called racists. Regardless, it's hypocrisy. Don't lecture someone about doing something you don't like while doing the exact same thing in the very same post.

There have been a couple posters here who straight up said anyone who disagrees with them is racist, which includes anyone in this thread disagreeing with them lol. So yeah, they were.

I don’t personally think calling or implying anyone is insane being they disagree with you is productive. But I can also understand why someone might get frustrated if they are trying to have a good faith, rational discussion and just keep getting shouted down and called racist.

 

[MDMechEngr]

Remember - silence is violence

get the ...... out.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Show me where I condoned that?

I didn't read every single post, but as far as I know one person was called a racist and that poster is not part of the discussion anymore. But it is hypocrisy for others to jump on the bandwagon, going off about being insulted while insulting the other side.

A bunch of people were called racist. The only person who actually said anything racist has been put on a time out from the forum. The rest of us were just called racist because we disagreed with a factually incorrect argument or had differing opinions about things.

 

[M&L]

this thread should be published as a book. hahahah

 

[Mass Effect]

You certainly didn't call it out. Remember - silence is violence

Maybe take your own advice?

I don’t personally think calling or implying anyone is insane being they disagree with you is productive. But I can also understand why someone might get frustrated if they are trying to have a good faith, rational discussion and just keep getting shouted down and called racist.

Except the person using the word most recently wasn't even part of the debate earlier in the thread (that I saw). So yeah, seems like straight up hypocrisy to me.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Maybe take your own advice?



Except the person using the word most recently wasn't even part of the debate earlier in the thread (that I saw). So yeah, seems like straight up hypocrisy to me.

Hypocrisy on either side should be called out. I do find it interesting that you didn’t even mention the hypocrisy of stating/implying you’re progressive and tolerant and then calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist.

 

[blockrudder1]

You seem to be the one not understanding. Many of us have been saying we would welcome this stuff in the curriculum as long as the school leaves the political part out of it, and you continue to argue as though we are saying we don’t want it at all or acting like it’s not possible to separate them.

Oh, if OP agrees with this then great. I must have misunderstood their position based on what started this thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Politics don't even belong in politics, it cripples our society from making meaningful change and achievement.

 

[ThetisAntithesis]

You’re wrong here, the far-right groups have existed long before the current wave of liberalism/far left.

The current rise in “far right groups” is as much caused by the rise in “far left” as the rise of the far left was caused by Donald Trump. Some reactionary components, but by no means the root cause.

You're right, I was being too general in trying to make a point.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You're right, I was being too general in trying to make a point.

What is happening on this thread? People are taking constructive criticism well and shifting their positions? People are disagreeing but having reasonable discussions about it (well mostly, but the name calling seems to have stopped)?

This isn’t in line with 2020. It must be portending the apocalypse somehow.

 

[Mass Effect]

Hypocrisy on either side should be called out. I do find it interesting that you didn’t even mention the hypocrisy of stating/implying you’re progressive and tolerant and then calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist.

I didn't call it out because I didn't even follow the series of posts except for people arguing about it. As I said about a dozen times now, I didn't read every post and what I did read involved the now banned/probationed poster who I wasn't going to defend if my life depended on it. And I disagree that the burden to call out crap is on all of us or else it's hypocritical. Isn't that a tenant of SJW movement that most here despise? I'm allowed to comment on what *I* personally find hypocritical and insulting without going back to posts I didn't even read just so I can evenly comment on everything else.

 

[Cornfed101]

This isn’t in line with 2020. It must be portending the apocalypse somehow.

my prediction is zombies for sure

Zombie Pigs? Scientists Restores Brain Activity in Pigs Four Hours After Death

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

my prediction is zombies for sure

Zombie Pigs? Scientists Restores Brain Activity in Pigs Four Hours After Death

If we make bacon from them, will we become zombies?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I didn't call it out because I didn't even follow the series of posts except for people arguing about it. As I said about a dozen times now, I didn't read every post and what I did read involved the now banned/probationed poster who I wasn't going to defend if my life depended on it. And I disagree that the burden to call out crap is on all of us or else it's hypocritical. Isn't that a tenant of SJW movement that most here despise? I'm allowed to comment on what *I* personally find hypocritical and insulting without going back to posts I didn't even read just so I can evenly comment on everything else.

No, I agree with you. I’m not a “silence is violence” type of person. But me pointing out that there has been hypocrisy from all over doesn’t invalidate your statement. It’s just providing greater context.

 

[Mass Effect]

No, I agree with you. I’m not a “silence is violence” type of person. But me pointing out that there has been hypocrisy from all over doesn’t invalidate your statement. It’s just providing greater context.

Well, I can only speak for myself and I don't believe I've been hypocritical. I do think more than one poster has been hypocritical, however, in whining about name-calling while in the same breath name-calling. Standing by that.

 

[dr_kateb]

Well, I can only speak for myself and I don't believe I've been hypocritical. I do think more than one poster has been hypocritical, however, in whining about name-calling while in the same breath name-calling. Standing by that.

I’d argue that being labeled “racist” in 2020 is far worse than “clinically insane.”

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Well, I can only speak for myself and I don't believe I've been hypocritical. I do think more than one poster has been hypocritical, however, in whining about name-calling while in the same breath name-calling. Standing by that.

Well I didn’t say you were being hypocritical so I’m not sure where that came from. I also didn’t say you were wrong. I just called out the other side. I’d rather be called insane than racist, but ideally we would just all stick to logical arguments.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I’d argue that being labeled “racist” in 2020 is far worse than “clinically insane.”

I tend to agree with you, but name calling isn’t productive or a valid argument regardless of which one is “worse”

 

[Mass Effect]

I’d argue that being labeled “racist” in 2020 is far worse than “clinically insane.”

Calling people who disagree with you "insane" is stigmatizing mental illness and I'd say it's just as bad as calling people racist.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Calling people who disagree with you "insane" is stigmatizing mental illness and I'd say it's just as bad as calling people racist.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but in the current climate one is much worse than the other (insane isn't the bad one).

 

[Mass Effect]

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but in the current climate one is much worse than the other (insane isn't the bad one).

It isn't that it's the "bad one." It's that it's stigmatizing mental illness, basically using it as an insult. It's akin to calling someone a re*ard because they disagree with you or because they asked a simple question in class. We all know the person being called that isn't "the bad one," but it's the person saying it that I find objectionable.

I also think calling someone racist (unless there's evidence they are) is not cool, but that not being cool doesn't make insinuating others are insane any cooler.

 

[NITRAS]

It isn't that it's the "bad one." It's that it's stigmatizing mental illness, basically using it as an insult. It's akin to calling someone a re*ard because they disagree with you or because they asked a simple question in class. We all know the person being called that isn't "the bad one," but it's the person saying it that I find objectionable.

I also think calling someone racist (unless there's evidence they are) is not cool, but that not being cool doesn't make insinuating others are insane any cooler.

I think he’s implying in the current climate, baseless accusations of racism racists get you dismissed from medical school, but baseless accusations of mental illness would not.

 

[deleted859689]

I think he’s implying in the current climate, baseless accusations of racism racists get you dismissed from medical school, but baseless accusations of mental illness would not.

I have a classmate that still calls negative actions or things “gay” or “******ed.” He’s still here lol. I feel like it’s a maturity thing. Then again, he also feels that everything that’s happening w cancel culture etc is “snowflake culture.” While I tend to agree that cancel culture is getting out of hand, I do not condone the use of “gay” or “******ed” out of their proper usage. Like I said, probably a maturity thing I hope - I don’t think he’s actually biased towards those individuals... I hope.