Drug testing in meds

[seeking1]

Dear itimebomb2,

 

Please see the following PBS documentary for free on the internet to understand why your issues with evolution are old, boring and have already been dealt with. Film

 

Enough of this meaningless bickering on evolution. Back to the drug policy stuff. Please read the following article to understand how we can come up with smarter drug policy and stop the damaging "war on drugs." Article

 

Discuss.

[TheBoss]

By the way, my views are going to be very very public when I'm done, I'm not in medicine just for the MD, I'm too talented (and yeah, maybe arrogant, but not undeservingly) for that. I want to make a significant impact on this world, and small thinkers like you who care for nothing more than prestige, stature, and wealth don't have a chance of getting in my way, because I've been through too much to be stopped, and will settle for nothing but the best of myself.

 

There are enough people with overinflated egos in medicine already. Celebrating one's own greatness on a small internet forum seems like an unusual activity for gods.

 

I do believe that some illegal drugs (marijuana, for one) should be legalized, or at least decriminalized.

[sfinch]

There are enough people with overinflated egos in medicine already. Celebrating one's own greatness on a small internet forum seems like an unusual activity for gods.

 

I do believe that some illegal drugs (marijuana, for one) should be legalized, or at least decriminalized.

 

I don't think decriminalization of marijuana is a bad idea either.

 

I just think premeds should be aware that a record of drug use, or even being known to use it, CAN hurt your aspirations or career. Even marijuana. People on this site are basically claiming or implying that you can take whatever drugs you want with little consequence on your career. I say otherwise, and I know of cases where problems have happened.

 

If you want to be a doctor, probably a good idea NOT to break the law. You never know what could happen.

[A-Stark]

The refutation of that claim is long and complex, and I don't feel comfortable going into the dialogue in this setting. But suffice it to say that measurements of "new observed species" is open to a great deal of subjective interpretation, as well as prone to fallacy.

 

So in other words you're not really going to debate this point but just give the "I don't have time" response. Okay.

 

To remind you, sickle cell disease is often cited as an example of genetic drift, due to its increased prevalence in sub-saharan Africa (structural distribution) and its protective effects against malaria (selective pressure)

 

And that relates to speciation...? If anything, it's an interesting example of a codominant loss-of-function allele which has persisted in populations with certain defined exposures.

 

A cute little argument, right? But the fallacy here is that 5% of an eye is NOT the same as 5% of vision. In fact, if you had 5% of the genes for an eye, you would have no vision at all, and you wouldn't until you had most, if not all of the genes for a complete eye. Just think of the minor genetic variations we know to completely debilitate a person. Now, do you believe its conceivable that over the course several thousand phenotypic mutations (none of which have ever been uncovered by archeology), that the present day eye was actually a gradual mutation of thousands of semi-useful, non-seeing structures?

 

You mean palaeontology? We certainly have lots of different types of eyes in the animal world, to say nothing of photoreceptive cells in a variety of organisms. Strip away the lens, and the retina is just a collection of photoreceptive cells of different types. It is quite easy to imagine an eye which lacks colour vision, and which is less or more receptive to light, with varying levels of acuity, and considerably more limited higher-order processing. More to the point, there is no one-to-one relationship between a set number of genes and a particular organ or phenotype. The genetic basis for complex structures has yet to be adequately elucidated, particularly since so much structure depends on developmental signalling pathways. We might surmise that mutations over time affecting such signalling have a significant role in phenotypic variation.

 

Of course, in the end, you're just parroting the same intelligent design canards that are brought up over and over.

 

The argument that "God did it" does not come from not knowing. The conclusion that there is a God comes from evidence that we can plainly see in nature - that being that the natural world is purposeful, not random.

 

It absolutely comes from not knowing. I challenge you to explain what makes the natural world "purposeful"? What is its telos? This is an aesthetic argument, not a scientific one. Random is not synonymous with a lack of "purpose" or "structure", regardless of the connotations you imply.

 

The observation that animals of different species look the same as embryos and fetuses again, can be attributed to design, and not necessarily evolution. Similar to how automobiles are created - having almost identical interior components until fully developed, it is not only concievable but logical that a God which creates beings would do so using common building blocks, so as to employ order into an environment.

 

Argument by analogy yet again. Fail. I suppose this explains phylogenies based on molecular genetics too? They were designed to be consistent with evolutionary patterns?

 

The debate over the existence of God won't be won or lost in the biomedical arena, but in the philisophical arena.

 

The existence of God is not as ridiculous an assumption as you make it out to be.

 

I think it's reasonable to say that it was "lost" in the philosophical arena a long time ago. The existence of God is indeed a ridiculous assumption from the standpoint of an empirical explanation for observed phenomena. One does not "assume" that God exists or attempt to deduce His existence. You believe or you don't, and you interpret events and ephemera of life as consistent with that belief or not. Attributions to God for "miracles" or "complexity" are simply expressions of faith and belief. We don't need God for physics and we don't need Him for biology either. That we cannot explain or fully grasp the scope and nature of its complexity is not a sign of "design" but only signifies the limitation of our present understandings. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently complex system is indistinguishable from magic - or design.

[thebouque]

There is this very interesting documentary dealing with war on drugs and evolution at the same time! You people should check it out, it's on youtube:

 

[RAW]

Jesus Christ, people who don't understand evolution should be banned/prohibited from entering medschool.

 

Let in the hypocritical christians who believe in evolution and the rational 50% of the bible at the same time, at least they have brains to tell right from wrong. But if you refute evolution, you should honestly be banned.

 

p.s. yeah I started the first sentence with 'Jesus Christ', mother****ers.

[thebouque]

Man that was raw

[amberlamps]

Catching up on my premed leisurely reading... just read through the whole thread. There is a lot of talk about professionalism and how it relates to recreational drugs but if you look in Dialogue the majority of reprimands are related to other acts of professional misconduct and miscommunication. There are a couple examples of poor written professionalism and blatant arrogance posted by some users in this very thread. I sure hope you don't translate this to your practice. No matter how pure your personal life appears, if you communicate even 1/4th of this arrogance to your patient you will not be an effective physician.

 

Part of being a physician is understanding other people's perspectives. There is a difference between acknowledging another person's argument and disagreeing versus offering up counterpoints to their semantics. When one gets frustrated it doesn't help to lash out with arrogant statements. In fact it undermines your viewpoint and shows a lack of maturity.

[thebouque]

Catching up on my premed leisurely reading... just read through the whole thread. There is a lot of talk about professionalism and how it relates to recreational drugs but if you look in Dialogue the majority of reprimands are related to other acts of professional misconduct and miscommunication. There are a couple examples of poor written professionalism and blatant arrogance posted by some users in this very thread. I sure hope you don't translate this to your practice. No matter how pure your personal life appears, if you communicate even 1/4th of this arrogance to your patient you will not be an effective physician.

 

Part of being a physician is understanding other people's perspectives. There is a difference between acknowledging another person's argument and disagreeing versus offering up counterpoints to their semantics. When one gets frustrated it doesn't help to lash out with arrogant statements. In fact it undermines your viewpoint and shows a lack of maturity.

 

Amen 10 char

[sfinch]

Catching up on my premed leisurely reading... just read through the whole thread. There is a lot of talk about professionalism and how it relates to recreational drugs but if you look in Dialogue the majority of reprimands are related to other acts of professional misconduct and miscommunication. There are a couple examples of poor written professionalism and blatant arrogance posted by some users in this very thread. I sure hope you don't translate this to your practice. No matter how pure your personal life appears, if you communicate even 1/4th of this arrogance to your patient you will not be an effective physician.

 

Part of being a physician is understanding other people's perspectives. There is a difference between acknowledging another person's argument and disagreeing versus offering up counterpoints to their semantics. When one gets frustrated it doesn't help to lash out with arrogant statements. In fact it undermines your viewpoint and shows a lack of maturity.

 

Most involve inappropriate sexual acts, illegal prescriptions, and incompetence. But several over the couple yrs have involved personal life issues. Including being involved in a gang bang, recreational drug use, and a surgeon that got into a fight with another commuter. You can lose your license for things in your personal life amber.

 

ps bouque...she was also referring to you, not just me and itimebomb

[thebouque]

ps bouque...she was also referring to you, not just me and itimebomb

 

I never said the contrary and honestly I don't care. I wrote amen because her borderline offtopic message sounded a bit like a prayer.

[Mei_Mei_girl]

I agree - ultimately -- the best doctors are the ones who can relate well with their patients --- of course knowledge and competence are important, but I think it is imperative to emphasize the dynamic views of what a patient really is

 

Catching up on my premed leisurely reading... just read through the whole thread. There is a lot of talk about professionalism and how it relates to recreational drugs but if you look in Dialogue the majority of reprimands are related to other acts of professional misconduct and miscommunication. There are a couple examples of poor written professionalism and blatant arrogance posted by some users in this very thread. I sure hope you don't translate this to your practice. No matter how pure your personal life appears, if you communicate even 1/4th of this arrogance to your patient you will not be an effective physician.

 

Part of being a physician is understanding other people's perspectives. There is a difference between acknowledging another person's argument and disagreeing versus offering up counterpoints to their semantics. When one gets frustrated it doesn't help to lash out with arrogant statements. In fact it undermines your viewpoint and shows a lack of maturity.

[itimebomb2]

I think it's reasonable to say that it was "lost" in the philosophical arena a long time ago. The existence of God is indeed a ridiculous assumption from the standpoint of an empirical explanation for observed phenomena. One does not "assume" that God exists or attempt to deduce His existence. You believe or you don't, and you interpret events and ephemera of life as consistent with that belief or not. Attributions to God for "miracles" or "complexity" are simply expressions of faith and belief. We don't need God for physics and we don't need Him for biology either. That we cannot explain or fully grasp the scope and nature of its complexity is not a sign of "design" but only signifies the limitation of our present understandings. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently complex system is indistinguishable from magic - or design.

 

And anyone who has taken a tenth of a semester of philosophy will tell you that your first two sentences directly contradict one another, since empiricism's brother, rationalism, does not refute the hypothetical existence of God at all. I would, however, still contend that empiricism has yet to rule out the existence of God. And just like you can use a watch without acknowledging the watchmaker, (most) Christians or religious people will never tell you that you need God to interpret physics or biology. You can limit yourself, if you so choose, holding human thought and experience as your absolute truth, or you can take a leap of faith and believe in a God. I can respect your choice to not believe in a God, but I do not respect your belittlement of faith as an intellectually inferior opinion.

[RAW]

I can respect your choice to not believe in a God, but I do not respect your belittlement of faith as an intellectually inferior opinion.

 

I can respect you stating your opinion (as inferior and flawed as it is), but I do NOT respect your belittlement of rationality as intellectually equal to faith (in a book that says our history is 6000 years old).

[itimebomb2]

Dear itimebomb2,

 

Please see the following PBS documentary for free on the internet to understand why your issues with evolution are old, boring and have already been dealt with. Film

 

Enough of this meaningless bickering on evolution. Back to the drug policy stuff. Please read the following article to understand how we can come up with smarter drug policy and stop the damaging "war on drugs." Article

 

Discuss.

 

Old and boring, perhaps. Dealt with? Not even close.

 

Jeez, if only us religious crazies had seen that PBS video, or perhaps listened more closely when you repeatedly call us idiots, there would be no need for all this discussion after all! (not to mention the killing and the wars...). Seems like the most common reaction people get these days to intellectual arguments about religion is the conclusion that religious people are idiots.

 

Then, of course, they proceed to bring about the exact same, mundane scientific, intellectual and philosophical difficulties about religion that every single religious person in the Western world has contemplated, considered and reconsidered for pretty much the entire duration of their faith (which for me has been 6 years).

 

You don't think I constantly challenge my own belief in an invisible God? Or my faith of the two-thousand year old document which I use to dictate the course of my life? You've got a lot of thinking to do on the topic before you can even come close to presenting me with a new idea to debunk religion.

[itimebomb2]

I can respect you stating your opinion (as inferior and flawed as it is), but I do NOT respect your belittlement of rationality as intellectually equal to faith (in a book that says our history is 6000 years old).

 

Normally, I'd be offended by comments that you've made, but as I thought for a moment, I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for two reasons. Firstly, because those precise words would probably have left my mouth when I was a staunch atheist about 6 years ago, and secondly, since you have no belief in God (and apparently no common decency either), you don't seem to have very much moral inclination whatsoever to inhibit your vilifying outbursts. So fine, point taken.

[RAW]

You don't think I constantly challenge my own belief in an invisible God? Or my faith of the two-thousand year old document which I use to dictate the course of my life? You've got a lot of thinking to do on the topic before you can even come close to presenting me with a new idea to debunk religion.

 

What is wrong with you. Believing in the concept of God is not the problem. Living with morals is not the problem.

 

The problem is the primitive and glaringly false verses in the bible and the koran. (Some are rational, some are untenable!)

 

Religion has evolved throughout the ages, and it will again. People like you held a staunch faith in apollo and zeus, then it was the sun, now it's an invisible god, in the future it will be something different.. It's always changed and will. And it's changed because we have the power to think, we used intelligence to figure out what makes more and more sense.

 

Stop being so primitive, everything changes, everything evolves, we always move forward.

 

So please itimebomb, worship God! Think about him. Be moral. Help people. Argue. Be a great physician.

But don't be constricted by the archaic and undeveloped verses of the bible or the koran.

[apache]

I'm a theist, although I don't believe in any particular religion, I feel that the idea of a higher consciousness is very probable, given the alternative of the multiverse, which has no empirical evidence; however, the idea of god creating such a complex creation in order to dictate silly laws and fight his arch enemy satan seem silly. Too bad I'm not going to med games, you may have found that we have more in common than you think.

 

 

Christians are a large part of our population, and many people are conservatives. They are often attacked at very high rates, and ridiculed, but self righteous lefties that are totally convinced in a godless world. Even if evolution is beyond dispute, not one person here is a true evolutionary scientist. The absolute truths of today are often the fallacies of the future. ALot of very nice caring people are conservative, don't like using drugs, and are christian.

 

And Muse, if I see you smoking up at medgames, you can be sure that you will know who I am.

[apache]

it is a truism, that which propagates the most will pass on the greatest proportion of its' genes, and have the greatest impact on the total DNA of the next generation. Evolution, by it's very definition is true, the contentious point comes to the ORIGIN of species via evolution. It's clear you're not very well versed in the philosophy of science, that's ok, utilitarianism simply refers to the fact that we put faith in the truth of mathematical relations, which are defined by verbal labels such as charge, charm, etc., because they allow us to predict what happens in the world with precision, making our lives easier. This leads us to perceive that said theory is presumed to be true, because it's ability to predict results show it to be unfalsifiable, meaning, in the scientific method, that the theory is a good approximation of truth. The problem with this is that using falsifiability as a criterion for a truthful theorem, is an unfalsifiable premise, and leaves us with the problem of the fact that there are infinite numbers of mathematical models which can predict reality accurately. The reason we are left with only a few, is because science continuously has revolutions and makes revisions to previous versions of it's theorems which are already extremely complex and unpractical to rebuild, leading us to closing in, so to speak, on a specific mathematical model, language, and metaphysical interpretation. Since it is impossible to reverse previous paradigms and build from the ground up (unless you live in one of the 10^200 unseen multiverses necessary for the building blocks of life) you will only have one of these infinite theories, which, in utilitarian terms, all predict the same thing, satisfying us and providing us with a false sense of ontological truth when we have something more epistemological in nature.

 

Yeah, I try and take my morals out of medicine, in the sense that my goal is to do what's best for the patient, regardless of my personal beliefs about their actions, which is why I support some sort of drug regulation, although I don't by any means think all drugs are harmless.

 

"Truism" is certainly not the right word for it by any stretch, but "evolution" is a thoroughly documented fact backed up an overwhelming amount of remarkably convincing research. Throwing around a bunch of empty comments about "utilitarianism" and "falsifiability" in the context of epistemological navel-gazing is completely pointless.

 

As for drug policy, I'm not aware that there's much support for eliminating all legislation or moving to full legalization. But the "war on drugs" has not only failed, it fails to address the real problem - namely substance abuse, and the continued war on services for the most vulnerable and severely addicted by, for example, the Harper government, as evidenced by their unsupportable opposition to this place.

[apache]

Damn right!

 

What is wrong with you. Believing in the concept of God is not the problem. Living with morals is not the problem.

 

The problem is the primitive and glaringly false verses in the bible and the koran. (Some are rational, some are untenable!)

 

Religion has evolved throughout the ages, and it will again. People like you held a staunch faith in apollo and zeus, then it was the sun, now it's an invisible god, in the future it will be something different.. It's always changed and will. And it's changed because we have the power to think, we used intelligence to figure out what makes more and more sense.

 

Stop being so primitive, everything changes, everything evolves, we always move forward.

 

So please itimebomb, worship God! Think about him. Be moral. Help people. Argue. Be a great physician.

But don't be constricted by the archaic and undeveloped verses of the bible or the koran.

[A-Stark]

We can't rule out a negative proposition, but we can certainly point to an obvious absence of evidence of the existence of God. What would the test be? You are arguing only that phenomena that defy explanation (at least, according to the usual facile Creationist/Intelligent Design objections) somehow implies the existence of a "designer". As I've said this before this is nothing more and nothing less than an argument from ignorance. You seem to be back peddling quite a bit indeed; we can't very well rule out the existence of a supernatural being, but we certainly don't need Him to explain observable phenomena. Human thought and experience definitely aren't "absolute truth", but I challenge you to provide meaningful examples of "truths" which can be absolutely attributable to non-human sources. Human faith does not exist on any higher level of knowledge, whatever one may believe or assert.

 

And anyone who has taken a tenth of a semester of philosophy will tell you that your first two sentences directly contradict one another, since empiricism's brother, rationalism, does not refute the hypothetical existence of God at all. I would, however, still contend that empiricism has yet to rule out the existence of God. And just like you can use a watch without acknowledging the watchmaker, (most) Christians or religious people will never tell you that you need God to interpret physics or biology. You can limit yourself, if you so choose, holding human thought and experience as your absolute truth, or you can take a leap of faith and believe in a God. I can respect your choice to not believe in a God, but I do not respect your belittlement of faith as an intellectually inferior opinion.

[nosuperman]

I'm a theist, although I don't believe in any particular religion, I feel that the idea of a higher consciousness is very probable, given the alternative of the multiverse, which has no empirical evidence; however, the idea of god creating such a complex creation in order to dictate silly laws and fight his arch enemy satan seem silly. Too bad I'm not going to med games, you may have found that we have more in common than you think.

 

Without operating within a specific theological framework would that not make you deist, as opposed to a theist?

[A-Stark]

it is a truism, that which propagates the most will pass on the greatest proportion of its' genes, and have the greatest impact on the total DNA of the next generation. Evolution, by it's very definition is true, the contentious point comes to the ORIGIN of species via evolution.

 

Well, no, that - at best - describes evolutionary genetics. Darwin certainly didn't talk about genes much less DNA, and evolutionary theory is a fairly standard example of scientific reasoning by inference about observable facts, e.g. the fossil record, patterns of biodiversity, taxonomy, and the influences of differential selective pressures. DNA sequencing has allowed the construction of phylogenies based on molecular genetics, which show homology along theorized evolutionary relationships to a remarkable degree. It's fair to say that the nature of speciation is controversial, but if all these questions were done and settled, then evolutionary biology would be a much less exciting field.

 

It's clear you're not very well versed in the philosophy of science, that's ok, utilitarianism simply refers to the fact that we put faith in the truth of mathematical relations, which are defined by verbal labels such as charge, charm, etc., because they allow us to predict what happens in the world with precision, making our lives easier. This leads us to perceive that said theory is presumed to be true, because it's ability to predict results show it to be unfalsifiable, meaning, in the scientific method, that the theory is a good approximation of truth. The problem with this is that using falsifiability as a criterion for a truthful theorem, is an unfalsifiable premise, and leaves us with the problem of the fact that there are infinite numbers of mathematical models which can predict reality accurately. The reason we are left with only a few, is because science continuously has revolutions and makes revisions to previous versions of it's theorems which are already extremely complex and unpractical to rebuild, leading us to closing in, so to speak, on a specific mathematical model, language, and metaphysical interpretation. Since it is impossible to reverse previous paradigms and build from the ground up (unless you live in one of the 10^200 unseen multiverses necessary for the building blocks of life) you will only have one of these infinite theories, which, in utilitarian terms, all predict the same thing, satisfying us and providing us with a false sense of ontological truth when we have something more epistemological in nature.

 

Philosophy of science, no, but I'm fairly well versed on mathematics (I might even have some kind of grad degree in it ), and I'd object to this reasoning on utilitarian lines. If the premises by which we evaluate good theories vs. bad ones are in some sense arbitrary and "unfalsifiable", that shows more the limitations of attempting to assess and improve upon empirical knowledge by recourse to philosophical principle. Newtonian mechanics completely breaks down at the subatomic level, but it remains remarkably accurate for the visible world. Which makes it useful. At a certain point with these sorts of objections, I'm forced to ask what we're supposed to do about it. While there may be an infinite number of models of reality available to us, only a few are accurate and fewer still are useful. The notion that there are infinite number of mathematical models in particular that can predict reality accurately is simply not tenable, and strikes me as the sort of argument a philosopher would make who has no actual experience in applied mathematics or statistics. If there are certain heuristics in use that require a priori "unprovable" assumptions to work, then so be it. We may not be able to find anything else.

 

Yeah, I try and take my morals out of medicine, in the sense that my goal is to do what's best for the patient, regardless of my personal beliefs about their actions, which is why I support some sort of drug regulation, although I don't by any means think all drugs are harmless.

 

Well, if you get a chance to visit Insite, I highly recommend it. I got a tour in the summer and hope to do an elective there next year.

[apache]

well no, because I don't believe that this ultimate conciousness or being is uninvolved in our world, just don't think it is involved in the sense that traditional religion says it would.

 

Without operating within a specific theological framework would that not make you deist, as opposed to a theist?

[apache]

I really liked this post, I think it was my favourite in the whole thread. I agree that we shouldn't abandon progress via the scientific method, in the name of absolute truth, in the end, we have to make a priori assumptions. I do admit, however, that a bitter taste is left in my mouth by the rampant reductionistic materialism or scientism I see employed by the average university student that hasn't been exposed to philosophy or something similar. I feel in many sense it leads to existential decay, and perhaps moral decay, which is why I'm very picky about separating epistemology from ontology. We'll never have ontological truth, all we can do is build our own paradigm, experientially, and assign a probabilistic value to it, then live by it, but by no means should people's ontological beliefs be determined by what "we've been able to accomplish", without giving people a fair chance to think about the nature of the constructs behind those accomplishments (i.e. some very specialized science undergrad programs)

 

Science ultimately breaks down into describing informational relationships between information, which is somehow transmitted to us via the magic of consciousness, but people go around talking about how they have no free will, or are machines, because we are made up of "matter", when in reality, matter is just a useful construct, and there are many arguments against a materialistic perception of mind.

 

Insite sounds exciting, I'll probably go check it out in the summer or over Christmas, I've seen similar programs in action but to see the big thing would be awesome.

 

Well, no, that - at best - describes evolutionary genetics. Darwin certainly didn't talk about genes much less DNA, and evolutionary theory is a fairly standard example of scientific reasoning by inference about observable facts, e.g. the fossil record, patterns of biodiversity, taxonomy, and the influences of differential selective pressures. DNA sequencing has allowed the construction of phylogenies based on molecular genetics, which show homology along theorized evolutionary relationships to a remarkable degree. It's fair to say that the nature of speciation is controversial, but if all these questions were done and settled, then evolutionary biology would be a much less exciting field.

 

 

Philosophy of science, no, but I'm fairly well versed on mathematics (I might even have some kind of grad degree in it ), and I'd object to this reasoning on utilitarian lines. If the premises by which we evaluate good theories vs. bad ones are in some sense arbitrary and "unfalsifiable", that shows more the limitations of attempting to assess and improve upon empirical knowledge by recourse to philosophical principle. Newtonian mechanics completely breaks down at the subatomic level, but it remains remarkably accurate for the visible world. Which makes it useful. At a certain point with these sorts of objections, I'm forced to ask what we're supposed to do about it. While there may be an infinite number of models of reality available to us, only a few are accurate and fewer still are useful. The notion that there are infinite number of mathematical models in particular that can predict reality accurately is simply not tenable, and strikes me as the sort of argument a philosopher would make who has no actual experience in applied mathematics or statistics. If there are certain heuristics in use that require a priori "unprovable" assumptions to work, then so be it. We may not be able to find anything else.

 

 

Well, if you get a chance to visit Insite, I highly recommend it. I got a tour in the summer and hope to do an elective there next year.