Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby MysticalWheel » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:40 am

Ragged wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
Ragged wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
Wrong. Law is of fundamental necessity to human society; without it, conventional medicine and agricultural control would likely not be able to develop anywhere near the levels of proficiency they enjoy today. Furthermore, medicine is no less a human construct than law is, so that differentiation seems to rest on a preconceived, albeit false, notion.

In sum, medicine and agriculture necessitate some type of law in order to develop, not the other way around. Law> Medicine.

MW

Edit: Here's a quick way to see what I'm getting at: take away law from society and what do you get? Anarchic friction, disorder, lack of standards, lack of security, and hence, a stifling of progress and development. Take away medicine from society and what do you get? At worst, the Black Death, but does society die out? NO, it remains, unlike what happens if law is removed.



I never said law was unneccesary. Given our human nature, we need law to function as a society. But we do not derive any intrisic benefit from law as we do from medicine, agriculture and even entertainment. Our primary wants include want for life, nutrition, freedom from diseases, having a family, being entertained, etc. We only use human contstructs like law and financial markets in order to achieve those things. Having a just society makes obtaining a good life easier, but its neither neccessery nor sufficient for it.

On the other hand medicine deals with the most important part of our life - our health and life and health and lives of our loved ones. Medicine has already improved the quality of life greatly and is probably going to improve it more in the future. If there was no medicine our quality of life would plummet to the medieval levels. Alot of us would not make it past childbirth etc, death rates of all diseases would skyrocket etc. In fact, having such a great quality of life allowed by the modern medicine is what allows us to direct our attention to aspects of our lives other than survival. Only when people are in good health will they start worrying about justice - not the other way around.


Obviously we all depend on one another - that's the great thing about the division of labour. But saying that LAW>Medicine is a very bold statement and sounds kinda immature.


I never said that you said that law was unnecessary- where did you come up with that? To state that law provides no intrinsic value to human society is, for a lack of a better word, plain wrong. Law provides the most intrinsic value to human society, more than any other discipline. It does this by enforcing a standard of interaction that allows for the development of things like medicine, agriculture, and entertainment. Furthermore, law is fundamental because it provides a means for securing our “primary wants,” as you state. Without the law, such wants would be orders of magnitude more difficult to acquire, and the transaction costs for securing them would eventually force the development of law anyways. Hence, law is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the development and existence of human society; to state otherwise is to evince a puerile and/or purely ignorant grasp of what the law is.

As far as your paragraph on medicine, please reference my statement regarding the American Revolution in my previous post. For your convenience, I will post it again here. Example: Think about the American Revolution: did the colonists have to revolt and risk their lives for independence? They knew full well that war with Britain could very well result in death, yet they still pursued the ideals expressed in the Dec. of Independence. There are things that are more important than just preserving life because without such things (e.g., liberty), life would not necessarily be worth living. To state that "health always supersedes legal security" is a statement that either completely misunderstands (or simply does not understand) the American Revolution, or betrays an accurate understanding.

Lastly, medicine has improved quality of life because it has had the opportunity to flourish, an opportunity that would not have existed without the security that law provides. Your argument is fatally flawed because you fail to understand the necessity of law in regards to medicine. The absence of law prevents the development of medicine that ensures “good health.” Only when a minimum level of security and order are established does medicine begin to flourish and become effective.

Therefore, Law IS > Medicine. A failure to realize this is a demonstration of ignorance and callowness.

MW


I agree with the whole "a just legal environment makes for a better and a more productive society." - thats obvious and hard to argue. But what I am trying to say is that law is only a means to an end not an end in itself. Sure, people do rise up against the government in order to defend their rights, but most those people don't expect to die. The ones that do consiously sacrifice themselves for justice, rare to begin with, were probably compelled to do so by the dire conditions they found themselves in. Those people win alot of praise and respect from the public for laying down their most precious pocessing for the good of the public.

Biological need of life is always paramount. When a person gets hit by a car he first goes to a doctor, and only after he/she is in stable health goes to a lawyer. Even the courts recognize this - crimes committed under duress of starvation or direct threat to life are treated much more liniently because lawmakers understand that respect for law is nothng compared to love of ones life.

People break the law to save their life. Not so much the other way around.

Let me give you another example: Lets say there is a company that makes cars. Besides the engeneers and workers, the company also has accountants and lawyers on staff. Certainly the accountants and the lawyers are all necessery to the functioning of the company, but in the end of the day they are only performing supporting functions, peripheral to the central purpose of the company - making cars.



I feel like we are arguing two different points. You are saying that presence of law makes medicine more productive and I don't disagree. All I can say is that presence of medicine makes law more productice too. We could also say that janitors make law and medicine more productive, by keeping the building where doctors and lawyers work clean. We all depend on each other - thats how a society works.

My point is that doctors deal with a more important aspect of our lives than lawyers do.


Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW
Last edited by MysticalWheel on Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
PinkCow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby PinkCow » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:46 am


Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run.
And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.
Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure non-“biological” ideals. Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state or a citizen of a country living under a law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there IS something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.
To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

MW


I think I might just yank that for a PS. Seems more compelling than what I had to say anyway.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby MysticalWheel » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:54 am

FlanAl wrote:it just seems much more like they gave up legal security to establish what at the time would have been considered anarchy


After the Revolution, control of the colonies reverted to the political elite within each respective colony, and eventually, as we all know, to the newly created national government. So it wasn't "technically" anarchy, but I understand what you're saying.


FlanAl wrote:i think you guys are chicken egging it. your saying that obviously we need medicine to fulfill our basic needs. MW's chain is like we need law so that we can have medicine so that we can fulfill our basic needs. i think his is like this "if there were no laws it would be anarchy and there would be no medicine and everyone would die" and yours is like this "if there's no medicine everyone's dead and there'd be no one around for law to even matter"


Oh, and that's why I referenced the Black Death: it is often cited as the worst biological disaster in human history, at a time when medicine was next to non-existent. Did humanity cease to exist? Did everyone die? Uh...no. Europe bounced right back 100 years later. This supports the conclusion that medicine is not necessary to the survival of human society.

MW
Last edited by MysticalWheel on Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby MysticalWheel » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:56 am

chip3341 wrote:
I think I might just yank that for a PS. Seems more compelling than what I had to say anyway.


I have no objection to that :).

MW

User avatar
Gatriel
Posts: 2015
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:30 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Gatriel » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:19 am

DoctorNo wrote: Medical school is all memorization, all the time. Nothing else.


I definitely missed out on my calling. Damnit.

Stay in med school, specialize in something cool, enjoy an endless supply of new BMWs and vacations to Antigua for the rest of your life. I'll be paying off loans till I'm 45.

User avatar
treeborn
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby treeborn » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:39 am

MysticalWheel wrote:Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW


Brilliant.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby kazu » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:46 am

treeborn wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW


Brilliant.

Someone needs to post the fob story again.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby northwood » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:09 am

op... do what you want. If you are going to be miserable being a doctor, and hating your life, then dont do it. Yes its nice to have a job, but as a doctor you wont automaticallly be making huge money right away. The medical profession has its own issues- burnout, substance abuse and mental illness( these issues can be found in all professions). If you know its not for you, then its not for you.

In the end, whatever you decide- just remember that you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life. Im sure you dont want to be miserable, so dont stay withsoemthing even though you dont like it just because strangers on an internet forum think medical school is the greatest thing ever.

User avatar
Lwoods
Posts: 1484
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:27 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Lwoods » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:41 am

northwood wrote:op... do what you want. If you are going to be miserable being a doctor, and hating your life, then dont do it. Yes its nice to have a job, but as a doctor you wont automaticallly be making huge money right away. The medical profession has its own issues- burnout, substance abuse and mental illness( these issues can be found in all professions). If you know its not for you, then its not for you.

In the end, whatever you decide- just remember that you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life. Im sure you dont want to be miserable, so dont stay withsoemthing even though you dont like it just because strangers on an internet forum think medical school is the greatest thing ever.


I agree with this completely.

OP, my husband is a first year resident, and I was with him throughout medical school. He loves the science of it, and because of that, he excelled in medical school and continues to excel in residency. One of his classmates worked in investment banking before medical school, got his MD, didn't participate in the match and is now making bank in consulting. There are options with an MD (though I doubt consulting gigs are easy to come by w/o prior work experience), but the common factor between my husband and his classmate is that they both really enjoy the subject.
Medical school, if you're paying for it, is a huge investment ($200k+). And residency only pays $40k-$50k/year depending on your location and specialty. For 3-5 years. Even with IBR your loans are accruing interest. You have to have a light at the end of the tunnel for that to be worth it for you.
If you don't like medicine, you shouldn't pursue it. The investment required is far too much. Are you able to take a leave from your medical school? Try working instead to get an idea of what you actually want to do. If that's law, then go for it. Just know that in medicine, the biggest obstacle you face is getting into medical school in the first place (only ~1/3 of applicants get in... most graduate, most match, and most get 6-figure jobs after residency). Getting into law school is easy. Getting a job afterwards is an uphill battle. And getting one that pays more than the average BigLaw secretary salary is especially tough.

Best of luck in your decision; it's not easy.


*Edited to fix typo
Last edited by Lwoods on Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Ragged » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:20 am

MysticalWheel wrote:
Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW



American revolution is a bad example of what you are trying to argue. Let me explain why. The American revolution like all wars was started by the politicians and generals who on the grand theme of things did not partake a central role in battles. They did not have to risk their life for their principals. On the contrary, they were fighting for power and financial gain. Soldiers on the battlefield who enlisted in the army did it largely for the pay they were going to recieve or as a career choice or they were drafted and sometimes because they believed in overthowing british rule. Even though everyone knew there were going to be casaulities of war each person did not know that he was the one who was going to die - and if he did I'm sure he would not enlist. Our instinct of self preservation is only strong when the dnager is immidiate and real, not hypothetical. A wounded soldier in battle keeps on fighting not because he believes in a higher power of law or some idealistic balony, but because its a kill or be killed situation. He knows that if he does not fight back he will be killed. He also knows that if he runs way he will be caught by his own troops and executed. Moreover, it is not unheard of for entire armies to be routed and run for their lives - the whole army just wants to live no matter the cost. In battle soldier does not think about how important law is. He is governed primariry, and I would say entirely, by his instinct of preservation of life, which is in fact what makes him so effective in battle. No soldier will fight as fiercely as the one who fights for his own life.

My point here is that your example here fails to put law and medicine in a any kind of opposition. Maybe the war was started under a premise of changing the law, but on the individual level the actions of people are still governed by their own selfish needs - health being primary of them. No one in battle is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys so our land canb be more just!". No, he is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys because otherwise they will kill me and I don't want to die."

I don't think that you honestly believe that idealistic bullshit about how soldiers fight for the higher power of law. If you do, well I guess good for you.


Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.


I hope you did not misunderstand my arguement there, although I have a feeling you did.

The ultimate point of our progress as a civilization is to improve the quality of life. As individuals we seldom care about more than our own life, but in doing so we imrpove the life of the society as a whole, if only incidentally. Health - living to an old age, not ailing from deseases, quick recovery after injuries etc. - along with nutrition is the basic quality of our life. So to say, we judge the quality of our life largely, although not exclusively, by how healthy we are. It is the central point of out existance to improve the quality of life and with it our happiness. All the research in the medical field as well as the work of medical professionsals deals precisely with this aspect of life.

On the other hand, where does the need to live in a just society come into play? Well, its not something we intrinsically desire - if it is on some level than that level is so far off that its not even listed on Maslow's heirarchy. The answer is that we have law out of conviniece, because humans better function within some framework of allowed and disallowed behavior.

Hence my analogy of having lawyers in the company in order for it to funcion more smoothly, not to produce the actual product.

I have to go now. Will finish this later.
Last edited by Ragged on Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby JazzOne » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:32 am

MysticalWheel wrote:Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW

See, this right here is why people hate lawyers.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Ragged » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:53 pm

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.


I can buy some of that, although not to the degree that you are proposing. Even in a chaotic society there would still be people who help others get better. Some form of medicine will exist so long as people keep getting sick - it arises from neccessity and demand for it, law or no law. I agree with you that a just legal environment facilitates the progress of all human industries including medicine, but saying that law is an absolute prerequesite for the development of medicine is misguided.


Whether law>medicine or medicine>law in a long run is a difficult, and I would say, an unnecessery question. Asserting one or the other position would be challenging. One thing is for sure, and that is that both will exist as long as there is a society. One deals with our very existance and satisfies our most pressing needs, the other arises as a response to an unfortuonate cosequesnce of our nature.
Last edited by Ragged on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:55 pm

This thread is screaming for a meme-ing. Please, somebody.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Ragged » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:58 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:This thread is screaming for a meme-ing. Please, somebody.



I wish I wasn't participating in the debate so I could make some. I see many good ones even from my own posts.

User avatar
Ginj
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:53 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Ginj » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:00 pm

JazzOne wrote:See, this right here is why people hate lawyers.


Yep.

Alyosha
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:34 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby Alyosha » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:58 pm

I love how all the 1Ls and 2Ls in this thread are arguing against law school, and a lot of the 0Ls are encouraging him to drop med school and go to law school.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby whymeohgodno » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:59 pm

Even in times of war, opposing forces will respect and not harm doctors.

I'm pretty sure they massacre lawyers.

User avatar
PinkCow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby PinkCow » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:05 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:Even in times of war, opposing forces will respect and not harm doctors.

I'm pretty sure they massacre lawyers.


TEOL

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby JazzOne » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm

Alyosha wrote:I love how all the 1Ls and 2Ls in this thread are arguing against law school, and a lot of the 0Ls are encouraging him to drop med school and go to law school.

Exactly. 0L is bliss.

Is your handle a reference to Brothers K?

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby northwood » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:09 pm

i wonder why no one has said anything about pharmacy school?

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby MysticalWheel » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:10 pm

Ragged wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW



American revolution is a bad example of what you are trying to argue. Let me explain why. The American revolution like all wars was started by the politicians and generals who on the grand theme of things did not partake a central role in battles. They did not have to risk their life for their principals. On the contrary, they were fighting for power and financial gain. Soldiers on the battlefield who enlisted in the army did it largely for the pay they were going to recieve or as a career choice or they were drafted and sometimes because they believed in overthowing british rule. Even though everyone knew there were going to be casaulities of war each person did not know that he was the one who was going to die - and if he did I'm sure he would not enlist. Our instinct of self preservation is only strong when the dnager is immidiate and real, not hypothetical. A wounded soldier in battle keeps on fighting not because he believes in a higher power of law or some idealistic balony, but because its a kill or be killed situation. He knows that if he does not fight back he will be killed. He also knows that if he runs way he will be caught by his own troops and executed. Moreover, it is not unheard of for entire armies to be routed and run for their lives - the whole army just wants to live no matter the cost. In battle soldier does not think about how important law is. He is governed primariry, and I would say entirely, by his instinct of preservation of life, which is in fact what makes him so effective in battle. No soldier will fight as fiercely as the one who fights for his own life.

My point here is that your example here fails to put law and medicine in a any kind of opposition. Maybe the war was started under a premise of changing the law, but on the individual level the actions of people are still governed by their own selfish needs - health being primary of them. No one in battle is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys so our land canb be more just!". No, he is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys because otherwise they will kill me and I don't want to die."

I don't think that you honestly believe that idealistic bullshit about how soldiers fight for the higher power of law. If you do, well I guess good for you.


You continue to argue based on your original bias, thus failing to see the fallacy of your position. The American Revolution is perhaps the best example possible of my thesis, not to mention one of the best examples possible in refuting your original statement that “health always trumps legal security.” You state that the Revolution was started by “politicians and generals who did not take a central role in the battles.” First, this is wholly incorrect: the Revolutionary war was not quarantined to the masses, but rather permeated throughout the colonial establishment. Secondly, even if there were political and military elites who did not directly participate on the battlefield, it does not weaken my argument whatsoever. A great part of the colonial population engaged in war that was unnecessary for the preservation of their lives. They made conscious decisions, on more than one occasion, to risk their lives for precisely the ideal of “legal security,” for is that not exactly what independence is?
To state that the colonists were fighting for power and financial gain is a more or less a paraphrase of the statement that the colonists were fighting for “independence and control of taxes.” Your wording, however, seems to betray some type of deep disrespect, perhaps foreign, of the history behind the Revolutionary War.

You continue by stating that most knew that casualties of war would occur, but that no one knew that they were going to die for certain. This does not defeat the force of my argument: if they knew that casualties were likely, then they consciously risked their lives for achieving something else. By stating that this something else was “power and financial gain,” you are, in effect, bolstering my argument because you are stating that the colonists considered the acquisition of power and financial gain sufficient prizes for risking their lives. If, as you stated originally, “health always trumps legal security,” it would not make sense that this risk would have been made by so many people, and that it continued to be made after the casualties began to climb. The danger WAS real and immediate, not hypothetical. Your counterargument completely misinterprets the circumstances of the Revolutionary War. But it is not even necessary for me to hold on, though I have, to the validity of my Revolutionary War example. There are countless examples of individuals willing sacrificing their health and their lives to achieve something beyond simple biological existence.

Continuing with your counterargument on the American Revolution, you state that a wounded soldier keeps fighting on the battlefield because it is kill or be killed. That soldier made a conscious decision to enter a situation that presented immediate and real danger to his life and to his health; that soldier made a conscious decision to continue fighting, as opposed to running or surrendering. Practical concerns are absolutely necessary for understanding this reality, but you utterly misunderstand basic human motivations. “Kill or be killed” is valid in many circumstances, but in other circumstances, it is not. It is reasonable to assume that a soldier who has been wounded to the point of immobility would choose surrender rather than continue to fight a battle that is almost sure to result in his death, if your presentation of the “instinct of self-preservation” is correct. But you are missing a critical piece of the equation: what if the soldier truly holds some ideal (such as liberty/ independence) higher than his own life? What if this ideal is something that is so valuable and so fundamental, that it is worth dying for, many times over? If health were the primary concern at all times for everyone, war would be nonexistent, because no soldier would agree to an order that would put his or her health in jeopardy. Your argument fails on this point.

My example does put law and medicine in opposition, albeit the example of the American Revolution is imperfect. The colonists were fighting for independence, and that can be roughly equated to “legal security.” You stated that legal security is “always trumped by health concerns,” but the Revolutionary War example demonstrates that falseness of this claim. If health superseded legal security, than the colonists would not have risked, as they did, their health FOR legal security. The war was not about the “land being more just,” it was about independence. If you cannot understand that, then I recommend you reread basic American history.
As far as your blatant disrespect regarding the Revolutionary War, I’ll let you wallow in your own pool of misinformation and ignorance. I am not being idealistic; I am proving to you that motivations beyond immediate physical well-being exist, have existed, and will continue to exist for as long as humans are around.



Ragged wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.


I hope you did not misunderstand my arguement there, although I have a feeling you did.

The ultimate point of our progress as a civilization is to improve the quality of life. As individuals we seldom care about more than our own life, but in doing so we imrpove the life of the society as a whole, if only incidentally. Health - living to an old age, not ailing from deseases, quick recovery after injuries etc. - along with nutrition is the basic quality of our life. So to say, we judge the quality of our life largely, although not exclusively, by how healthy we are. It is the central point of out existance to improve the quality of life and with it our happiness. All the research in the medical field as well as the work of medical professionsals deals precisely with this aspect of life.

On the other hand, where does the need to live in a just society come into play? Well, its not something we intrinsically desire - if it is on some level than that level is so far off that its not even listed on Maslow's heirarchy. The answer is that we have law out of conviniece, because humans better function within some framework of allowed and disallowed behavior.

Hence my analogy of having lawyers in the company in order for it to funcion more smoothly, not to produce the actual product.

I have to go now. Will finish this later.

Again, you appear to have some kind of “logical” block that is precluding you from understanding the necessity of law, not just to medicine, but to any other discipline. I agree that the ultimate point of civilization is to improve the quality of life, but this cannot happen without law. Society, in the first place, cannot exist unless there is some kind of law. Individuals come together, initially, not because they really want to form society or pursue grand ideals, but because they know that they will be better off with other people assisting them. They will be more secure and more able to accomplish the things they want or need to accomplish. Once this meeting of individuals occurs, the first seed of law is planted, and it is based off the common interests of the individuals that compose the emerging community. One person living alone all their life will be so undeveloped linguistically, socially, and otherwise, that to imagine him or her having the advanced intelligence to create medical breakthroughs is laughable. Once again, you are thinking only in the present context. If you go back far enough, you can make reasonable conclusions on the initial motivations and systems that eventually led to civilization today.

If you read Rousseau, you’ll see a very clear logic that development of society is inevitable as the population increases, so whether we need or do not need to live in a society is irrelevant: it’s going to happen anyway, and that is how law originates. My original argument holds: law is more fundamental and more necessary, in the long run, to society than medicine is. It seems you are simply arguing now because you don’t want to concede.

MW

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby whymeohgodno » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:11 pm

northwood wrote:i wonder why no one has said anything about pharmacy school?


Dentist/Pharmacists don't count :lol: :lol:

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby JazzOne » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:11 pm

northwood wrote:i wonder why no one has said anything about pharmacy school?

+1

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby JazzOne » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:12 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
Ragged wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW



American revolution is a bad example of what you are trying to argue. Let me explain why. The American revolution like all wars was started by the politicians and generals who on the grand theme of things did not partake a central role in battles. They did not have to risk their life for their principals. On the contrary, they were fighting for power and financial gain. Soldiers on the battlefield who enlisted in the army did it largely for the pay they were going to recieve or as a career choice or they were drafted and sometimes because they believed in overthowing british rule. Even though everyone knew there were going to be casaulities of war each person did not know that he was the one who was going to die - and if he did I'm sure he would not enlist. Our instinct of self preservation is only strong when the dnager is immidiate and real, not hypothetical. A wounded soldier in battle keeps on fighting not because he believes in a higher power of law or some idealistic balony, but because its a kill or be killed situation. He knows that if he does not fight back he will be killed. He also knows that if he runs way he will be caught by his own troops and executed. Moreover, it is not unheard of for entire armies to be routed and run for their lives - the whole army just wants to live no matter the cost. In battle soldier does not think about how important law is. He is governed primariry, and I would say entirely, by his instinct of preservation of life, which is in fact what makes him so effective in battle. No soldier will fight as fiercely as the one who fights for his own life.

My point here is that your example here fails to put law and medicine in a any kind of opposition. Maybe the war was started under a premise of changing the law, but on the individual level the actions of people are still governed by their own selfish needs - health being primary of them. No one in battle is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys so our land canb be more just!". No, he is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys because otherwise they will kill me and I don't want to die."

I don't think that you honestly believe that idealistic bullshit about how soldiers fight for the higher power of law. If you do, well I guess good for you.


You continue to argue based on your original bias, thus failing to see the fallacy of your position. The American Revolution is perhaps the best example possible of my thesis, not to mention one of the best examples possible in refuting your original statement that “health always trumps legal security.” You state that the Revolution was started by “politicians and generals who did not take a central role in the battles.” First, this is wholly incorrect: the Revolutionary war was not quarantined to the masses, but rather permeated throughout the colonial establishment. Secondly, even if there were political and military elites who did not directly participate on the battlefield, it does not weaken my argument whatsoever. A great part of the colonial population engaged in war that was unnecessary for the preservation of their lives. They made conscious decisions, on more than one occasion, to risk their lives for precisely the ideal of “legal security,” for is that not exactly what independence is?
To state that the colonists were fighting for power and financial gain is a more or less a paraphrase of the statement that the colonists were fighting for “independence and control of taxes.” Your wording, however, seems to betray some type of deep disrespect, perhaps foreign, of the history behind the Revolutionary War.

You continue by stating that most knew that casualties of war would occur, but that no one knew that they were going to die for certain. This does not defeat the force of my argument: if they knew that casualties were likely, then they consciously risked their lives for achieving something else. By stating that this something else was “power and financial gain,” you are, in effect, bolstering my argument because you are stating that the colonists considered the acquisition of power and financial gain sufficient prizes for risking their lives. If, as you stated originally, “health always trumps legal security,” it would not make sense that this risk would have been made by so many people, and that it continued to be made after the casualties began to climb. The danger WAS real and immediate, not hypothetical. Your counterargument completely misinterprets the circumstances of the Revolutionary War. But it is not even necessary for me to hold on, though I have, to the validity of my Revolutionary War example. There are countless examples of individuals willing sacrificing their health and their lives to achieve something beyond simple biological existence.

Continuing with your counterargument on the American Revolution, you state that a wounded soldier keeps fighting on the battlefield because it is kill or be killed. That soldier made a conscious decision to enter a situation that presented immediate and real danger to his life and to his health; that soldier made a conscious decision to continue fighting, as opposed to running or surrendering. Practical concerns are absolutely necessary for understanding this reality, but you utterly misunderstand basic human motivations. “Kill or be killed” is valid in many circumstances, but in other circumstances, it is not. It is reasonable to assume that a soldier who has been wounded to the point of immobility would choose surrender rather than continue to fight a battle that is almost sure to result in his death, if your presentation of the “instinct of self-preservation” is correct. But you are missing a critical piece of the equation: what if the soldier truly holds some ideal (such as liberty/ independence) higher than his own life? What if this ideal is something that is so valuable and so fundamental, that it is worth dying for, many times over? If health were the primary concern at all times for everyone, war would be nonexistent, because no soldier would agree to an order that would put his or her health in jeopardy. Your argument fails on this point.

My example does put law and medicine in opposition, albeit the example of the American Revolution is imperfect. The colonists were fighting for independence, and that can be roughly equated to “legal security.” You stated that legal security is “always trumped by health concerns,” but the Revolutionary War example demonstrates that falseness of this claim. If health superseded legal security, than the colonists would not have risked, as they did, their health FOR legal security. The war was not about the “land being more just,” it was about independence. If you cannot understand that, then I recommend you reread basic American history.
As far as your blatant disrespect regarding the Revolutionary War, I’ll let you wallow in your own pool of misinformation and ignorance. I am not being idealistic; I am proving to you that motivations beyond immediate physical well-being exist, have existed, and will continue to exist for as long as humans are around.



Ragged wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.


I hope you did not misunderstand my arguement there, although I have a feeling you did.

The ultimate point of our progress as a civilization is to improve the quality of life. As individuals we seldom care about more than our own life, but in doing so we imrpove the life of the society as a whole, if only incidentally. Health - living to an old age, not ailing from deseases, quick recovery after injuries etc. - along with nutrition is the basic quality of our life. So to say, we judge the quality of our life largely, although not exclusively, by how healthy we are. It is the central point of out existance to improve the quality of life and with it our happiness. All the research in the medical field as well as the work of medical professionsals deals precisely with this aspect of life.

On the other hand, where does the need to live in a just society come into play? Well, its not something we intrinsically desire - if it is on some level than that level is so far off that its not even listed on Maslow's heirarchy. The answer is that we have law out of conviniece, because humans better function within some framework of allowed and disallowed behavior.

Hence my analogy of having lawyers in the company in order for it to funcion more smoothly, not to produce the actual product.

I have to go now. Will finish this later.

Again, you appear to have some kind of “logical” block that is precluding you from understanding the necessity of law, not just to medicine, but to any other discipline. I agree that the ultimate point of civilization is to improve the quality of life, but this cannot happen without law. Society, in the first place, cannot exist unless there is some kind of law. Individuals come together, initially, not because they really want to form society or pursue grand ideals, but because they know that they will be better off with other people assisting them. They will be more secure and more able to accomplish the things they want or need to accomplish. Once this meeting of individuals occurs, the first seed of law is planted, and it is based off the common interests of the individuals that compose the emerging community. One person living alone all their life will be so undeveloped linguistically, socially, and otherwise, that to imagine him or her having the advanced intelligence to create medical breakthroughs is laughable. Once again, you are thinking only in the present context. If you go back far enough, you can make reasonable conclusions on the initial motivations and systems that eventually led to civilization today.

If you read Rousseau, you’ll see a very clear logic that development of society is inevitable as the population increases, so whether we need or do not need to live in a society is irrelevant: it’s going to happen anyway, and that is how law originates. My original argument holds: law is more fundamental and more necessary, in the long run, to society than medicine is. It seems you are simply arguing now because you don’t want to concede.

MW

:evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted:
Last edited by JazzOne on Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Medical Student here looking to jump ship...

Postby MysticalWheel » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:12 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:Even in times of war, opposing forces will respect and not harm doctors.

I'm pretty sure they massacre lawyers.


Doubt it, but respect/prestige of profession in today's society is not an accurate measurement of need. No one needs actors, do they?

MW




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], onecallthats all and 5 guests