Skip to comments.The Case Against Pro-Life Physicians: Bias Begins at Med School Interview
Posted on 09/13/2011 4:16:43 PM PDT by Publius804
Imagine yourself, a senior in college, sitting in the middle of your dream medical-school interview. Because you have done your homework, the interview is going exceedingly well. You seem to have established a rapport with the interviewer, and your answers are crisp, clear and intelligent. Its going so well that you are starting to feel confident regarding your chances of gaining admission.
That is, until the interviewer hits you with this question: Suppose a young pregnant woman and her boyfriend come to you seeking an abortion. What would you do?
What would you do? How would you answer? For pro-life medical-school candidates, there is only one answer: You counsel the couple not to have an abortion. The problem is that, in some cases, this answer could ruin the candidates chance of admission.
It is routine for medical-school admission interviews to include open-ended questions on ethical issues. Primarily, these questions are included in the process to see if students can articulate clearly and defend adequately their thoughts on complex issues. If this were the sole reason for their inclusion, questions about abortion and abortion access could play a legitimate role in the interview process. But that is often not the intent of such questions.
The reality is that many schools are using abortion-related questions to screen out pro-life candidates.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
This is where the muslim tradition of Taquiyya makes sense. Just tell them what they want to hear if you are sure they want to hear that you’d do the abortion. Once you get the MD after your name, do what your conscience demands. Lie to them so often that the Left starts writing panicky news stories about how “Christian med students ‘unexpectedly’ change to pro-life after graduation”.
Suppose a young pregnant woman and her boyfriend come to you seeking an abortion. What would you do? What would you do? How would you answer?
I would merely tell them hat I did not study for 8 years to murder their child, and would send them to a murdering SOB who did.
Try asking them if they are a Christian, then excluding them if they answer no.
It’s the same trick, only in reverse.
I think the answer depends on what kind of doctor you are. If you are a dentist, cardiologist, ER physician, general practitioner you would refer them to an OB doc.
I think there are religious exemptions even for docs. But, I’d find out for sure what the details are in my state before interviewing on ethical issues.
During impaneling to form a jury, the judge asked each potential jurist if they thought there should be limits to jury awards. Then it was my turn. After I said yes, I was immediately excused by the judge. Result: A civil suit where all the jurors said they do not believe in award caps.
Future epilogue: your next $million dollar award for the proverbial hot McDonalds coffee in someones lap.
Those are good points. I too am somewhat unsure what the requirements are today, whether doctors can refuse to engage in abortions. I have no doubt where things are headed.
I had my interview for Medical School in 1981 and there were no gotcha questions. Nothing that really mattered. I figured they just had these face to face interviews to weed out really weird people. They just said “Are you looking forward to Medical School?”. It would NOT surprise me if there were “political” questions toaday. There was also absoulutely NO pressure to perform or even teaching regarding elective abortions. NONE. I doubt if it is the same today. There was even an anti-abortion day in the lobby of the dorm.
Well, before answering I would ask myself, what's worse? A little white lie, or abortion?
Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. ...I'm antagonistic toward ATLA, but McDonald's did a terrible job of justifying its practices.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees. ...
Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.
Afterthought to simplify, and to make another observation. The legal system in invested in selling a fiction, that the jury is fully empowered as to damages. Fact is, the law reserves determination of ultimate limits of damages to itself, and will take a jury decision away. The establishment legal system abhors informed jurors.
If you are ever in a criminal trial, and want to sit, do NOT give any hint that you believe a jury has the power to judge the law. Do not do this even in a state where the constitution "enshrines" that the jury has the power to judge the law. Judges do not accept that a jury has the power to reject the law.
Regardless of the practice of jury nullification, it seems that I saw judge nullification - the judge selecting the jury based on the outcome that judge wants to favor a result from.
Logic would say that a jury is selected at random... period. Then, the plaintiff/defendant/prosecutor attorneys get to whisk off some number for whatever reason. But there should not be a shaping of the jury based on what’s in their heads.
"Not attempt to perform an abortion on the boyfriend, even if he had cash in hand."
But seriously, I know admittance to and completion of professional programs is a real problem for those who are pro-life, in medicine, and pro-normalcy, in psychology/counseling.
The only result the judge wants is control. The jury is there for show.
Exception (mostly) being criminal cases where a determined jury can throw the law out the window. A hung jury means retry.
A parallel to "jury for show" is "vote for show," where the powers that be select two acceptable candidates having arguably different policies, then let the voters choose.
“what’s worse? A little white lie ...”
You’re absolutely correct. He should have said what would please the interviewer. Anyway, his opinion at that particular moment is not important since he’s just beginning to immerse himself in the medical field.
I find myself mentally referring to James Burnham's "Suicide of the West," and then being surprised that the slacking described therein has infested the GOP and many professional societies.
I agree, it is surprising how many influential people, and the organizations they control, have simply given up on ... reality ... what most people in all times and places have recognized as the reality of human life.
>>Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments<<
Which means they lanced a blister. I do that to my kids when their shoes rub. You pop the blister and remove the liquid. It helps healing. Most probably they removed the skin on the top as well. It’s horrible but
No matter what, whether the car was moving (which I believe they lied about), the woman was an idiot for putting a Styrofoam cup of hot coffee between her legs. AND (from the Wiki) she pushed the court cases to the limit...
“A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald’s was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan’s suggestion to penalize McDonald’s for one or two days’ worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.”
McDonald’s has deep pockets. She hit the jackpot.
She was willing to settle for 20 grand. She hit "the jackpot" because McDonalds believed it had a strong justification for the temperature it served its coffee at.
700 burn incidents, some of them 3rd degree, being described to the jury as "statistically insignificant," turned out to be damaging to their case.
I would expect some 2nd degree burns in proximity to a third degree burn by scalding. Blistering, and no destruction of epidermis. So, yes, I agree, there was probably lancing of blisters. There was also this ...
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts ...
>>700 burn incidents, some of them 3rd degree, being described to the jury as “statistically insignificant,” turned out to be damaging to their case. <<
It IS statistically insignificant and in the end, the courts saw what a gold digger this woman and her legal team were.
Come ON, she stuck a cup of hot coffee between her legs and dumped it. Why would anyone put a cup of steaming coffee between her legs? It was a stupid mistake. It was HER stupid mistake.
Personal responsibility is conservative.
Expecting HOT coffee to be warm is stupid.
“what’s worse? A little white lie, or abortion? “
The problem here is that God has given us an absolute commandment to NEVER lie or kill. So both are sins!!
I say best to go with Venturer’s idea!!
“I would merely tell them hat I did not study for 8 years to murder their child, and would send them to a murdering SOB who did.”
She was "willing" to be paid off for 20 grand? She didn't deserve to be paid for her stupidity in the first place.
I'm not sure about that. We're commanded not to murder, and not to bear false witness. Killing for food, or self-defense isn't sanctioned, and, I think, neither is telling an untruth in defense of the defenseless.
>>I’m not sure about that. We’re commanded not to murder, and not to bear false witness. Killing for food, or self-defense isn’t sanctioned, and, I think, neither is telling an untruth in defense of the defenseless.
I agree. You can kill to save lives, even your own. You can certainly lie to someone who is committed to killing unborn humans if that is necessary to get through medical school and to be able to start a career helping people in an ethical and moral manner.