You have some very solid arugment skills; and, I find them an invaluable addition to a fairly 1-sided POV! I always get upset or exuberant by the weekly SDN article, but thanks to fellas like me and you, curious readers will always get their POV of someone who disagrees with the perceived slant of an article, so long as they read the comments sections.

I’ll play devil’s advocate and bite at where you say: “Obviously the abuse of drugs is a bad thing in the medical field when it interferes with work, and it is a personal tragedy when it interferes with someone’s personal happiness, but that doesn’t mean you should misrepresent the scope of the problem.”

Perhaps the abuse of drugs is a bad thing in the medical field when it interferes with work, and it is a personal tragedy when it interferes with someone’s personal happiness, but that IT DOES MEAN that you should misrepresent the scope of the problem!

I’m actually OCPD (so there you have an easy excuse not to argue with someone who will argue endlessly on matters of morality, ethics, or values) so what if I posited that one must weigh the pros/cons of our profession’s benefit by purporting that the problem is worse than it really is?

This article obviously has a purpose, and I think the purpose is akin to something one might read in a Reader’s Digest magazine. A lot of the people who read the SDN weekly article are pre-meds like me, or “post pre-meds” probably like yourself.

I think that if this article has a non-neutral POV or an alterior motive, then I’m glad I have optimistically determined it to be to a scare tactic to dissuade future physicians to becoming lost in a substance-abuse dilemma and to help others who find themselves in a situation involving substance abuse.

If this article is slanted, then I assume good faith in the author’s article. I’m also glad you shared your opinion and didn’t get upset by the comment about appearing “trollish” since I know first hand how difficult it is to deal with having your character and integrity called into question, even if it’s on an anonymous message board or internet forum!

I am glad to see not only your tactful disagreement with the author, but your ability to be respectful to JS and listen to his opinion without becoming hostile. I confident that I’m correct that you could still have given your helpful analysis even if there were some nasty discouragement because you know the value of good journalism.

안녕히 가세요

Yeah, I don’t really have a problem with a doctor who gets high or drunk on his/her own time. I drink moderately occassion, and don’t smoke marijuana, but I don’t see a big issue with either of those things.

The university of utah is rank 7th (iirc, didn’t look it up) on US News World Reports listing for most religious universities, and there is plenty of pollution from the mormon community.

As to the comment about pedophelia, it’s accurate. It’s really really well documented both in his own journals and the records of people at the time. He married + had intercourse with a couple of women in their early teens, in addition to his numerous marriages to women of age.

I think that this estimation is accurate, if not low. Addiction and alcohol abuse is perhaps the most important public health issue of our time. It has been classified as a genetic disease by multiple medical groups, yet people still see it as a moral weakness (see above). The stigma that goes along with drug addiction is horrible. I developed a habit after breaking my femur and having to take pain medication for a prolonged period. Yet I overcame with proper treatment and am now entering the health field. I think that a lot of people think of drug addicts and alcoholics as bums on the street. The fact is that substance abusers come in many forms, including doctors, lawyers, teachers, fireman, nurses, etc. From a medical standpoint we still know very little about addiction, but we do know that it is a disease, and it is time that medical professionals start treating it like one.