Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

firstthings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#11

Post by manfredo »

mikeatgl wrote: post #8
saturdaysaint wrote: post #7

If you detect a stealth agenda between the lines, it's not your imagination. From wikipedia: First Things is an ecumenical, conservative and, in some views, neoconservative[1][2][3][4][5] religious journal aimed at "advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society".[6] The magazine, which focuses on theology, liturgy, church history, religious history, culture, education, society and p…

This jumped out at me. "Abortion was originally intended to be performed in limited circumstances only, but now has become an inalienable right in any circumstances whatever—into which, indeed, it is impermissible to inquire." followed coyly a paragraph later by "This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory."

Interesting, I interpreted this in a completely different manner. I read the part about abortion as urging people to be receptive to changing social norms since many things we consider to be just were considered unethical not so long ago. The latter part I saw as urging caution against accepting the mandates of authority and conformity, because there's no guarantee that the authority or concensus is right (like society's past views on abortion).

Of course, I didn't really know the background of the platform, so who knows what the author really intended. Likely, this is an instance of writing phrased in such a way that the reader can project their own views into it.

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#12

Post by ft-respecter »

saturdaysaint wrote: post #7

If you detect a stealth agenda between the lines, it's not your imagination. From wikipedia: First Things is an ecumenical, conservative and, in some views, neoconservative[1][2][3][4][5] religious journal aimed at "advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society".[6] The magazine, which focuses on theology, liturgy, church history, religious history, culture, education, society and p…

That this is declared in explicit terms by the publication -- not to mention the author recommending prayers to the reader at the end! -- makes it pretty much the opposite of a "stealth agenda". A "stealth agenda" would be if a newspaper editor selectively picked stories to support their political goals while not declaring this anywhere.

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#13

Post by lliamander »

manfredo wrote: post #11
mikeatgl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This jumped out at me. "Abortion was originally intended to be performed in limited circumstances only, but now has become an inalienable right in any circumstances whatever—into which, indeed, it is impermissible to inquire." followed coyly a paragraph later by "This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory."

Interesting, I interpreted this in a completely different manner. I read the part about abortion as urging people to be receptive to changing social norms since many things we consider to be just were considered unethical not so long ago. The latter part I saw as urging caution against accepting the mandates of authority and conformity, because there's no guarantee that the authority or concensus is right (like socie…

Although a possible interpretation, I consider that unlikely. Immediately preceding the section on abortion we have the following comment:

> There is nowadays a tendency for rights to spread, like ink through blotting paper.

And then immediately following:

> A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of con­scientious objection.

Having read some of the author's other work, I'm fairly confident he is against abortion. However, think the broader point here is that increasingly doctors are being legally required to act in ways that run contrary to their own personal moral judgments.

Regardless of how the young aspiring doctor feels about abortion (or anything else) It seems reasonable to prepare them for the possibility that they may have to choose between their conscience and the demands of their profession.

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#14

Post by cvwright »

FiveSquared wrote: post #9
saturdaysaint wrote: post #7

If you detect a stealth agenda between the lines, it's not your imagination. From wikipedia: First Things is an ecumenical, conservative and, in some views, neoconservative[1][2][3][4][5] religious journal aimed at "advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society".[6] The magazine, which focuses on theology, liturgy, church history, religious history, culture, education, society and p…

Yeah I could see it was a conservative from the website url, the abortion thing, and the mass murder bit.

Is it such a terrible thing if someone with a different political orientation has something to say? Do their politics make the rest of the letter any less interesting?

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#15

Post by lliamander »

mikeatgl wrote: post #8
saturdaysaint wrote: post #7

If you detect a stealth agenda between the lines, it's not your imagination. From wikipedia: First Things is an ecumenical, conservative and, in some views, neoconservative[1][2][3][4][5] religious journal aimed at "advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society".[6] The magazine, which focuses on theology, liturgy, church history, religious history, culture, education, society and p…

This jumped out at me. "Abortion was originally intended to be performed in limited circumstances only, but now has become an inalienable right in any circumstances whatever—into which, indeed, it is impermissible to inquire." followed coyly a paragraph later by "This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory."

I do not believe the author was trying to be coy, but you are eliding the paragraph which gives the correct context to the latter statement:

> Moreover, though we pay lip service as a society to diversity and tolerance, we increasingly demand uniformity. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unethical on the grounds of con­scientious objection. Once the profession, guided by ethicists, had decided as a whole that something was ethically permissible, no doctor should be allowed to go against the consensus. This, of course, would have the corollary that mass murder by doctors would in theory be permissible, or even obligatory. Never mind: It can’t happen here. But what was once unthinkable can become thinkable very quickly.

The emphasized section above shows that his point is about overriding the moral judgement of individual doctors with legal fiat. In my mind, the risk is not just the law will someday mandate doctors participate in mass murder. Rather, that by eroding the judgement of doctors in the present, people who tend to think for themselves will self-select themselves out of the profession all together.

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#16

Post by nradov »

lliamander wrote: post #13
manfredo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I interpreted this in a completely different manner. I read the part about abortion as urging people to be receptive to changing social norms since many things we consider to be just were considered unethical not so long ago. The latter part I saw as urging caution against accepting the mandates of authority and conformity, because there's no guarantee that the authority or concensus is right (like socie…

Although a possible interpretation, I consider that unlikely. Immediately preceding the section on abortion we have the following comment: > There is nowadays a tendency for rights to spread, like ink through blotting paper. And then immediately following: > A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that doctors should not be permitted to opt out of performing procedures that they considered unet…

It's not just physicians. There have been issues with pharmacists refusing to dispense legally prescribed abortifacients. Should they be legally required to give patients certain drugs which conflict with their personal morals?

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#17

Post by jseliger »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #2

This is a great letter. I do want to pause on this, though, about doctors prescribing opiates: "The epidemic would have been avoidable if doctors as a whole had adopted a more critical and thoughtful approach" He could be totally right about causes of that problem in that time. Currently, though, drug companies offer all kinds of financial incentives anyone that will increase drugs use in ways ranging from BS studies…

For most aspiring doctors, it's also worth contemplating the physicians assistant and nurse practitioner routes: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a-n.... The number of actual doctors who lament not knowing about, or understand, these routes is notable.

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#18

Post by databag »

Having been privy to the coarse reality of about 20 students who survived 5 years of medical school, followed by FY1, FY2, and junior positions in the NHS, the intellectualized "best effort" mulling-over in the article couldn't be further away from reality.

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#19

Post by tastythrowaway »

classichasclass wrote: post #3
nickpsecurity wrote: post #2

This is a great letter. I do want to pause on this, though, about doctors prescribing opiates: "The epidemic would have been avoidable if doctors as a whole had adopted a more critical and thoughtful approach" He could be totally right about causes of that problem in that time. Currently, though, drug companies offer all kinds of financial incentives anyone that will increase drugs use in ways ranging from BS studies…

No, we didn't get free opioid samples. I can't imagine many docs got paid, either (I certainly got neither, nor would I have accepted them). What we actually got was a tsunami of alleged literature that said we should be doing more about non-malignant pain and that addiction was a minor risk. And, well, most of us bought it. Of course, look at who turned out to be behind it.

respectfully, what remotely well-trained doctor _didn't_ realize that part about an opiate being only a minor addiction risk was obviously bullshit?

Re: Letter to an Aspiring Doctor

#20

Post by FiveSquared »

cvwright wrote: post #14
FiveSquared wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I could see it was a conservative from the website url, the abortion thing, and the mass murder bit.

Is it such a terrible thing if someone with a different political orientation has something to say? Do their politics make the rest of the letter any less interesting?

Sorry. Many may disagree with the ethics though.
Post reply on HN