Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    although my college tutors say I am capable of it.
    Just because you're predicted grade A's at AS doesn't mean you are capable of being a good doctor, sorry.
    • Offline

      3
      Only if you're interested. Annoys me that people use pharmacy as an easy route when they're heart is set on medicine, and stops those who really want to do it from getting in...

      You're in 1st year. Why not try and get some work experience if you can and decide?

      Btw, tl;dr as I'm on lunch break and trying to do things.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beska)
      Just because you're predicted grade A's at AS doesn't mean you are capable of being a good doctor, sorry.
      I have been told I am capable of succeeding in medicine. So that would mean more than the fact I can get grade A's. How does anyone know whether I am capable of being a good doctor while I'm still in college? If you get the grades, and can handle the interview, and write a decent personal statement you get the chance to prove yourself in university.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      I have been told I am capable of succeeding in medicine. So that would mean more than the fact I can get grade A's. How does anyone know whether I am capable of being a good doctor while I'm still in college? If you get the grades, and can handle the interview, and write a decent personal statement you get the chance to prove yourself in university.
      Anyone else see the glaringly delicious irony in that statement?
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by winter_mute)
      Anyone else see the glaringly delicious irony in that statement?
      Yeh. :mmm: Haha.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Looks like I contradicted my tutor then... Just re-read it, and I say that no-one can know. But I was told I am... Maybe it's best to ignore what anyone says and go for it? But with the number of negative comments about me on here, I am becoming less and less confident.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      you have an ego problem; you knew the deal before coming on here and posting, you knew it would in no cases be acceptable to let possible child abuse go unreported, and that doing so would probably result in 5 years of your life having been wasted.
      your question was loaded with your stupid rant and you will go for medicine anyway, you in-nine-months-time hypocrite
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      Looks like I contradicted my tutor then... Just re-read it, and I say that no-one can know. But I was told I am... Maybe it's best to ignore what anyone says and go for it? But with the number of negative comments about me on here, I am becoming less and less confident.
      no, go for it. i'm sure people would be thrilled to be treated by a doctor who thought that child protection was of lesser concern than upholding the code of "snitches get stitches" and that rapists should get time off the sentence if they were married to their victim.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      If you don't want to report child abuse, don't go into a medical speciality that involves children. Regardless of your personal experiences, if even one child is being abused for longer than necessary, simply because you don't see "adequate" evidence to report, is that not too high a price to pay?
      If you wish to study and practise medicine but are not comfortable with the way that Social Services approach the families of minors, do not put yourself in a position to be dealing with it, and avoid paediatrics.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      It's not time off the sentence, it's the lack of statutorily defined aggravating factors in certain cases where a man asks his wife to have sex and becomes forceful when she sats no. I even said explicitly that the higher sentence was justified without regard to the marriage in a case where the man had used serious violence and broken into the home.

      The moral turpitude of rape is the destructive violation of the woman's autonomy. Wouldn't this be worse if a masked stranger who you wouldn't even consent to being hugged by dragged you to the ground, as opposed to someone saying no to their husband but the man being too horny to listen? Both are wrong, and serious crimes, but one is a little worse than the other.
      It's like the sentencing for paedophilia by adults in a position of trust. Sex in a "genuine relationship of affection" is classed as a mitigating factor, while use of force is aggravating. Is anyone saying that it's OK to have sex with a 13 year old pupil because they are "affectionate" with you? NO- but they still get a lower sentence! Hysteria over certain crimes tends to obscure the fact that there can be more or less culpable incidences of them; a sizeable minority of people would favour the death penalty for all serious sex crimes. These could be forgiven for missing the nuances of a situation.

      And I think that snitches get stitches is a childish way of putting it. Doctors who report suspicions may do it in good faith, it is just my personal belief that non-reporting is better. Leave child protection to parents, social services and police- they have enough to improve.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      It's like the sentencing for paedophilia by adults in a position of trust. Sex in a "genuine relationship of affection" is classed as a mitigating factor, while use of force is aggravating. Is anyone saying that it's OK to have sex with a 13 year old pupil because they are "affectionate" with you? NO- but they still get a lower sentence! Hysteria over certain crimes tends to obscure the fact that there can be more or less culpable incidences of them, a sizeable minority of people would favour the death penalty for all serious sex crimes. These could be forgiven for missing the nuances of a situation.
      I think you should look less at criminal sentencing guidelines for judging how "severe" a crime is. Psychological impacts of abuse, especially sexual, on minors can be tremendously disturbing, and has been linked to a whole host of psychiatric and psychological problems from self harm to personality disorders.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I understand very well. Most of the pupils in my school who had emotional difficulties or misbehaved came from very difficult family environments (I can't say any more than that.)

      Criminal sentencing guidelines are not the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong but they are a valuable guide to how society, through the prism of law, perceives specific types of offences. The distinction between coercive/seductive paedophiles, who comprise the vast majority of all offenders against children, and the rare violent predatory type is reflected in the nature of the psychological sequelae. Victims of one-off violent assaults are likely to feel soiled and filled with rage, often manifesting itself in self-abnegation by drug abuse or self-harm, and "acting out" in younger children or delinquency in adolescents. Suicide attempts soon after the event or during a vivid flashback are not uncommon.

      Victims of seduction go through a very different process. They are more likely to withdraw and become excessively introspective, blaming themselves.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      The moral turpitude of rape is the destructive violation of the woman's autonomy. Wouldn't this be worse if a masked stranger who you wouldn't even consent to being hugged by dragged you to the ground, as opposed to someone saying no to their husband but the man being too horny to listen? Both are wrong, and serious crimes, but one is a little worse than the other.
      Nope, sorry. This is the "implied consent" argument and was explicitly rejected in the R vs R ruling you refer to. Acquaintance rape is also by far the more common situation compared to the "masked stranger" idea.

      Nothing you're saying is frankly making this any better for yourself. First making non-reporting of child abuse a dealbreaker in becoming a doctor, and now the creepy obsession with and disturbing knowledge of laws around rape suggest that you have some pretty serious issues you need to sort out before you have any sort of job involving other people, let alone vulnerable people or children. Unless you're a troll, in which case you've got to question the logic of doing a troll that requires you to put more time and effort into than it takes other people to comment on.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      I understand very well. Most of the pupils in my school who had emotional difficulties or misbehaved came from very difficult family environments (I can't say any more than that.)

      Criminal sentencing guidelines are not the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong but they are a valuable guide to how society, through the prism of law, perceives specific types of offences. The distinction between coercive/seductive paedophiles, who comprise the vast majority of all offenders against children, and the rare violent predatory type is reflected in the nature of the psychological sequelae. Victims of one-off violent assaults are likely to feel soiled and filled with rage, often manifesting itself in self-abnegation by drug abuse or self-harm, and "acting out" in younger children or delinquency in adolescents. Suicide attempts soon after the event or during a vivid flashback are not uncommon.

      Victims of seduction go through a very different process. They are more likely to withdraw and become excessively introspective, blaming themselves.
      As amusing as it is to watch you become offended when rebuffed for practically being an apologist for sexual abuse I can end this thread very quickly.

      You disagree with current guidelines and procedures (without actually ever working under them, and basing your ideas on public policy on implied personal experience and hearsay on the internet) Then that's fine. Protest it all you want, go ahead!

      However if you want to be licensed as a medical doctor and practise as one in this country, you have to abide by the regulations. You may not like it, and you may try to state your case for change but at the end of the day you have to obey it.

      This is no different from other ethical concerns such as involved with abortion as a gynecologist. You can debate it all you want, but the reality is you if you want to work as one you have to do it.

      Simply put: **** or get off the pot.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      The responses I have been getting are so out of touch, and so different from what the people who actually know me think, that I have seriously considered reporting your posts.

      WHERE DID I CONDONE RAPE? This sort of serious allegation cannot stand up. I was just saying what the law was for a long time. This is neither misogyny nor condoning it- it is stating a fact. If a couple were still together, then that may be a mitigating factor- not everyone will agree with me, but as bad as it would be the rape of a stranger seems far more depraved. The line between coercion and rape is harder to draw within a relationship than if a man pulls a woman into his car and drives her to woods, or bursts into a public toilet. I just think the sentencing for marital rape should reflect the lower end of the rape guideline scale (4-6 years) rather than the top end of 10-life and the few cases that have gone to court are in agreement with that.

      In the case of R v R (both parties anonymous) which led to the legal change, the relationship was over and IIRC the man broke in, so 7-9 years (mid tariff) would be provided for by the guidelines. I think this is quite fair!

      I would not be supporting justice for families and then believing some medieval misinterpretation of the Bible that a man has the right to do whatever to a woman once they marry. That's just too much of an inconsistency.

      I do not think anyone is inferior or superior, only that people have different abilities and should do what is best for them and the people around them. I only mentioned nursing being academically inferior because of Subcutaneous making offensive personal attacks and it appears no-one on TSR wants me to do medicine, although my college tutors say I am capable of it, and I was expecting at least some supportive responses.
      Capable but unsuitable.

      My tutor at Uni told me something that applies here: "As an interviewer for XXXX Medical School, I can say that we have turned
      away some amazingly academically-gifted students - because their
      personality was wrong. There was a flaw (sometimes a serious one in
      their psychological makeup) which told us never to trust these
      candidates with the power of a physician".

      I've been reading this thread for a while and between the lines of over-embellished drivel I sense a severe malfunction in your moral code. You can't just sidestep certain aspects of a doctor's responsibility towards patients and society.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by winter_mute)
      As amusing as it is to watch you become offended when rebuffed for practically being an apologist for sexual abuse I can end this thread very quickly.

      You disagree with current guidelines and procedures (without actually ever working under them, and basing your ideas on public policy on implied personal experience and hearsay on the internet) Then that's fine. Protest it all you want, go ahead!

      However if you want to be licensed as a medical doctor and practise as one in this country, you have to abide by the regulations. You may not like it, and you may try to state your case for change but at the end of the day you have to obey it.

      This is no different from other ethical concerns such as involved with abortion as a gynecologist. You can debate it all you want, but the reality is you if you want to work as one you have to do it.

      Simply put: **** or get off the pot.
      I have stated that all rape and sexual abuse is wrong, the reason why and the problems that it causes. This is a strange way of being an apologist for it. It would be the same as a Muslim apologist saying that Muhammad is the devil.

      And I know what I plan to do now. Medicine first pick, pharmacy second. And- as I said in my original post- I would like to go into paediatrics anyway and circumvent and subvert the Working Together To Safeguard Children procedures, but this is not conducive to keeping a GMC registration, so I plan to specialise in a branch of medicine which involves treating adults. As far as vulnerable adults go, yes I would report evidence of abuse- the system is far better in that case.

      The number of people who have told me to avoid medicine completely, suggesting in turn that I am childish, immoral, a paedophile and a supporter of rapists only make me more determined. Where do you think I should work? Should I be made to sit in a padded room alone all day in case I violently assault a girl? I expected so much better from people who do not know me and have no reason to be against me. I could stay silent about the whole matter of child snatching by the state- but cowardice has never been an ethical virtue!
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      so your point in posting was...
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      To ask people what they thought about whether not wishing to report mere suspicions (not evidence) of child abuse or neglect, based on sound ethical principles -which have nothing to do with "apologising for sexual abuse" or being a disturbed psycho who needs to avoid other people's company- was sufficient to stop me getting through medical school.

      I am sorry if I have given the wrong impression of myself- asking for advice is not trolling. Do you have to do a placement working with children during the clinical stage of a degree in medicine? I know all students require enhanced CRB and hepatitis vaccination, but I'm not sure whether you would need to work with children to get your degree.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ScheduleII)
      To ask people what they thought about whether not wishing to report mere suspicions (not evidence) of child abuse or neglect, based on sound ethical principles -which have nothing to do with "apologising for sexual abuse" or being a disturbed psycho who needs to avoid other people's company- was sufficient to stop me getting through medical school.

      I am sorry if I have given the wrong impression of myself- asking for advice is not trolling. Do you have to do a placement working with children during the clinical stage of a degree in medicine? I know all students require enhanced CRB and hepatitis vaccination, but I'm not sure whether you would need to work with children to get your degree.
      I'm pretty sure that a paediatric attachment is mandatory at all medical schools.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I have read that paed attachment is usually 6-10 weeks. I could easily get through that time without saying anything controversial about my beliefs on social services etc. and would not have to take part in any protection work. If I was concerned about something and decided it was in the child's best interest not to report, then who would know I was concerned? Not blabbing is enough to get through.

      So if that's the only compulsory contact with children to become, for example, a nephrologist then I could manage.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.