This is why I was never on the Starbucks hate train when the tweet controversy happened. I mean I hate starbucks for other reasons. But in that case, a company firing someone for using company PR account for persons opinions, no matter how valid, sets a precedent and puts the company in awkward position. So you can't really blame them for that particular thing.
We never discussed politics in my workplace until the morning after Trump was elected.
That day, I was surprised to discover just how many morons I work with.
It made me wonder if we should have been discussing politics before.
Maybe wrong minded individuals could be corrected if we did discuss religion and politics.
Ironically, I feel like politics in my area has become way more taboo to talk about since Trump. I live in a VERY red state too. I kind of assumed the same was true most places since he is such a polarizing person.
That's not shocking to me at least. When I go home (Alaska) the MAGA-heads vs the I guess we'll call them Murkowski-ists ends up being the most toxic arguments. Which is also why you saw so much Republican support for our only Dem House Rep Peltola.
I'm saying that no one is the villain in their own story - nobody thinks they're the wrong minded one. Objectively they can be, but that's not how they'll feel about it.
The only way to change someone's mind is to first understand where they're coming from. If you attack, people just dig in their fortifications deeper.
If I had the perfect answer to that question I'd be a millionaire consultant, and last time I checked my bank account, I'm not that.
If you want to change minds politically you have to drop any concept of scoring points or 'winning' in any way. You have to listen and understand why they feel the way they do.
Once you hear them out, you have the opportunity to ask if they'd like to hear your side of the topic. If they say no, or are otherwise dismissive then it's over. Just walk away because there's no point.
However if you've done a good job listening to them and trying to understand (And you don't have to agree! You just can't be dismissive) they'll likely give you a chance to explain your position. You then touch on places where their views are already closer to yours (you were listening to them, right?), and try to bring them slightly closer to your position on each topic.
Statements need to be about your own opinions, not attacking theirs. "I feel that X harms people, here's why..." is far, far better then "Your idea X is harming people, here's why". People need to come to their own conclusions, you can't preemptively tell them what they should think.
There will never be a big AHHA! moment where they sudden change sides, but it's possible to shift viewpoints little by little.
I feel those old rules of being polite – don’t talk about politics or religion - is the reason we are in the situation we are in currently. Not discussing things for the sake of “courtesy” just spawns ignorance, spread misinformation and alienates. Not to mention creating a bunch of people obsessed with civility while people are dying, starving and being abused right next to them. I guess that you can always just do whatever you want and as long as you’re nice about it, you will have a group of supporters in this country. It’s lunacy.
I’m certainly not talking about anything that’s happening outside of this country. That is a whole other horrible conversation.
After social media became mainstream last decade, all people did was post about politics. All people have been doing for the past decade is talk about politics, which I think is why we’re where we are today
Talking constantly about politics leads to polarization and polarization leads to polarizing figures like Trump getting elected
This. We’ve reached the point where we can’t even have a discussion with the other side because they aren’t having a discussion with us in good faith. Anyone who supports Trump is brainwashed or stupid or evil. We’re way beyond the point of two sides having issues that we will negotiate. One side once us dead. We’re just trying to make things work.
I think you have large groups of people who are easily swayed by perceived consensus and so for them silence is compliance. They need to have ideas they hold shamed and mocked so they never voice them publicly.
Generally speaking you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Nearly all of the people who have fallen for Trump and his ilk's rhetoric are extremely psychologically vulnerable and have been taken advantage of by trusted authority figures in their lives.
You can't "fix" that by having workplace conversations, no matter how in depth. The challenge you will run into is that they are often so deeply trusting of their new information sources and authority figures that you will end up arguing with them about basic facts of shared experience or wallow in unwinnable semantic arguments where they will refuse to agree upon shared definitions because they fear appearing wrong.
This is 100% correct, but at the same time, if one of these people do start to question their position or have a come to jesus moment we really have to give them the latitude to do so otherwise we drive them right back to the cult. Always be willing to answer questions and let them know if they ever change their mind you are willing to listen.
>Generally speaking you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
True, but appeals to emotion can sometimes work. Especially if you use examples that they can relate to.
I disagree. Most of those people form their views out of being chronically online and getting sucked into the algorithmic feedback loop.
Having several real-life human beings look you in the face and say "that's fucking stupid" can be the kick someone needs to break out of that.
>Allowing people to bring politics into the workplace is always a recipe for conflict.
Fun fact: in CA, political affiliation and activity is a protected class for the purposes of employment.
Basically, if your coworker is a Nazi, they can't get fired for being a Nazi. Though obviously employers have plenty of ways to fire people and carefully word it otherwise.
Eh, I don't mind it as long as people aren't being dicks about it. We talk about it from time to time. Was a lot more common on my last team where 50% of the team was LGBT and we'd talk about politicians trying to remove LGBT rights.
Unless you are surrounded by like minded people or absolute saints it is way too likely that at least one person in the conversation will turn into a dick about it. Politics is one of the most tribalistic topics (possibly second only to religion) which is why it is best avoided in conversations that need to remain friendly (like watercooler talk or dinner with inlaws). Sure it is possible to have a friendly conversation about politics, just like it is possible to survive Russian Roulette unharmed.
Considering the article talks about how the environment at UCSF is becoming hostile, people are indeed being dicks about it here. I suppose it's more that rather than just talking they've moved into activism while on the job.
Someone said to a Jewish colleague that Israel deserved 10/7. And they're chanting intifada outside. The intifada was a time marked by almost constant suicide bombings in Israel. This crosses that line into being dicks.
That’s probably because you have a company culture that is comfortable with LGBT, and presumably other minorities. The problem with discussing politics these days is that “politics” has been mutated into meaning “acknowledge, much less tolerate, the existence of minorities and their grievances”.
For better or for worse (usually for worse), workplaces are inherently political. It is, in fact, a political question to decide what counts as "just the job" and what is "political" aka "too political." In a "neutral" political workspace from the American 1960's, it was "just the job" to refuse service to people considered "non-white." Now it is "just the job" to pretend to ignore race. Neither stance is actually politically neutral. We do ourselves a disfavor when we hide a particular political stance as "neutral " or "apolitical." You may say, "well what about X? Isn't X totally neutral?" And sure, just like everything else, it appears neutral until its politics become salient. It is better, imho, to debate the merits of a stance rather than to pretend that only one perspective is a "stance" and another contrasting stance is just "how things are."
There's a pretty clear difference in relevance to the field between "Should we medically treat black people in a hospital" and "Should we call for an intifada against Israel at a hospital" though both will make many of the people you treat fear you won't give them equal access to quality medical care.
It's less politics and more ethics when it comes to how to best act in your field...but bringing in politics that's completely unrelated to what you do or how you do it is just politics.
I mean, if there's meat in that sandwich then there's quite a few people who would view that as a political issue.
And if you decide to intentionally exclude meat from that sandwich, there's a good chance that would be considered political too.
Are you saying you're really incapable of determining what job related issues are appropriate to discuss in the office and which you should stfu about until you are out of the office? It's really not as hard as you're making it out to be. If it touches on your job👍, if it doesn't 🤐.
It's almost impossible to not bring politics into the work place, for example unions are inherently political. I know what you'll say, unions are okay because they advocate for workers rights. Except unions don't just advocate for workers rights, unions in the past have protested against Apartheid in South Africa and are today protesting against the Israeli-Gaza war.
Discussions relating to the workplace are fine and in that context, union discussions make sense. If my union decided to waste time and resources on things that don't relate to bettering their workers, however, I'd be pissed that they're wasting resources. It's the difference of discussing things about your workplace, which may to a degree involve politics, and talking about things that do not affect or are not affected by your workplace.
In this case, medical staff have no professional business or interest in the Israel Gaza conflict, so it is an inappropriate workplace topic. It does nothing but bring division to their place of work.
What's "political" is completely subjective though.
Is wearing a pride pin political? Is talking about organizing your coworkers into a union political? What if there's a law passed that directly affects your work, are you not allowed to talk about it?
Anyone could argue that anything is political. So why do we need to declare that anything that could be political is completely inappropriate for the workplace?
Discussions that directly involve your workplace and your rights as workers are obviously not a taboo subject at work. Y'all need to stop being obtuse - the point is to not drag in your personal pet politics in the door with you at work.
Sure, anyone could argue anything. That doesn't mean its not fucking stupid to do so.
You wouldn't be *in* a union if politics wasn't brought up at work. *Everything* you do is political, down to taking a shit in your toilet. To try to keep "politics" out of anywhere when it's a concept so woven into our lives is insane and inhumane to the people those politics don't protect.
This "everything is politics" rhetoric is not useful, it's reductionist and only used to justify bringing unrelated politicking into places it doesn't belong. There is a clear difference in discussions about workplace conditions vs topics that do not relate to the workplace.
Well this rhetoric IS useful to the people who don't like the idea of not shoving politics completely unrelated to work, down all their co-workers throats. Usually the "everything is political" crowd are the exact people this article was written about, as those are the people who make politics their entire personality, and bring it with them EVERYWHERE they go and into every conversation. The guy you're responding to is probably
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011 working in a hospital we treated everyone. No politics, just saving lives.
Even in May when we didn't get paid. Evayse of a government shutdown.
Everyone did their job and treated people by injury, not identity.
It is possible to just do your job. Even when your patient tries to kill you, which happened more than once
I mean it's still there. Hell with Afghan politics it's even more blatant because it's essentially picking a political side just allowing things like women to work there. If one political side is saying "we shouldn't treat gay people" and you are trying to be apolitical but treating them regardless of their identity then you've by default picked a political side
Doctors deal with idiot patients all the time. Most of the time they are ignoring something much more acutely dangerous to themselves than national politics. That doesn’t even move the needle.
You don't have free speech rights at work.
On your day off, you can stand on a street corner and say "Applebee's food sucks" to everyone you see, and that's free speech. Nobody is gonna arrest you for it.
If you work at Applebee's and tell every customer who comes in that the food sucks, you'll be fired and rightly so. Your workplace is not the public square.
I never said workers shouldn't have a voice. I said it's stupid to use that voice to talk about politics in the office. The workers have turned their own workplace into a hostile powderkeg by using their voice on topics that have nothing to do with their jobs.
A voice about what? Labor conditions? Sure, have at it. The war in Gaza? Unless your company is connected, then no, stfu. It's not oppression to keep your thoughts on global politics to yourself for 8 hours a day.
What if it is? How is that related to a nurse or doctor treating patients in an ER? There is no reason you need to bring that into the workplace. At best you get a nice circlejerk going. At worst you're causing fights and disturbing the relationships everyone needs to have with each other to do their jobs efficiently.
And because you seem like exactly the type this article is talking about...as your coworker, I really don't want to hear your poorly thought out, half informed political thoughts. You're not half as insightful as you think you are (and based on your comment history Id say even that is giving you too much credit) and if I want to learn about an issue I'll go read about it myself.
A workplace does not need to be comfortable, but it should not be hostile. It is unprofessional to create a workplace that is hostile, and in the case of UCSF this hostility has come about due to employees performing political acts and statements that are causing fear in others.
Sure, there is a balance. Not all politics are equal. But we should be careful professionalism doesn't equate to complacency.
The article itself is surprisingly good in this respect. To give just one quote:
> “People who are screaming that they don’t feel safe are sometimes conflating feeling unsafe with feeling uncomfortable,” [Dr. Ghannam] said.
The fact that there is tension means that we need to resolve something in our society. I think it would be unwise to ignore it. But at the same time you're right that targeted hostility towards those that have very little control over the actual problems is generally unproductive on all fronts.
Sounds like Dr. Ghannam needs to learn what a hostile work environment is.
If a woman works in an office and her male coworker hangs up a bunch of posters of naked women, that doesn't mean the woman is in danger. The posters don't pose any threat to the woman's safety, other than maybe papercuts.
However, those posters may create a hostile environment for female employees. And employees have a right to a workplace free of any hostility based on their membership in a protected class (which in CA includes real or perceived religion, nationality, ethnicity and/or political affiliation).
According to this article, there have been people screaming things like "long live intifada!" to the point patients in their rooms could hear it, so it seems like Dr. Ghannam needs to re-evaluate his definition of "uncomfortable" and "unsafe", as his description isn't at all accurate, it would be convenient for him if it was true though!
A lot of people here don’t realize child labor laws, 8 hour work days, unionization, and a boss’s ability to beat their employees were all inherently political. Labor laws were written in blood and politicians for centuries have done their damndest to oppose them.
>Doctors there have feuded over whether it is appropriate to openly express feelings about the war within the healing confines of a hospital.
Not unless you're treating victims of said war, no.
Also a hospital is just a terrible place to break out your political views (esp in front of patients). We expect doctors & nurses to be operating without their personal feelings and sentiments - doing the job as an apolitical, asexual, and secular member of the staff.
(e.g., overhearing a group of nurses loudly parrot COVID & antivaxx misinformation has obliterated my confidence in our local hospital)
100% agree
We have to remember most patients IN THE HOSPITAL are experiencing one of the WORST times of their lives (unless there for a happy delivery of a baby or something). They’re already stressed, family is stressed, emotions on edge, about whatever has them there.
Not a good time to interject politics or anything else potentially conflicting, and if the patients make remarks, it’s a good time to have some extra grace and remember these are probably good people during a tough time.
Understandable, though it’s ESPECIALLY challenging when patients are blaring Fox/CNN and wearing political merch 24/7 while you’re there.
You can only bottle up so much until it overflows.
I mean… maybe this is your situation but a patient could call me the N word and go on the most racist rant possible… and id still choose to not risk the method of paying my bills. “Control!! You must learn control!”
That’s a shit take and why it’s completely unprofessional. If you can’t regulate your emotions to not be offended by what other people wear and listen to, you do not need to be in that position
Oh, I keep my mouth shut, it just like everyone else but me seems to be able to do it without any fear of consequences.
Edit: was once in a patient’s room and he was ranting and raving about how people like me shot into space yet he had no clue that I was part of that crowd yet I had to bite my tongue and keep doing my job.
The fact that he even had the gall to say stuff like that tells me he’s never had to bite his tongue before.
>U.C.S.F. has a dress code prohibiting political symbols in patient care settings, but Dr. Ghannam said staff members for years have worn pins supporting abortion rights, Black Lives Matter and the L.G.B.T.Q. community without repercussions.
Isn't this kind of the inevitable consequence of playing favourites and making exceptions to the rules for political stances you favour.
If U.C.S.F has allowed political symbols to be worn in the past it would be quite hypocritical of them to get their feathers ruffled about it now.
Fairness means applying the institutions rules equally to everyone whether or not you happen to agree with them. They shot themselves in the foot by playing the rules for thee and not for me game and now they will have to deal with it.
Isn't that illegal? They can lose their license for that at least here in my country. Don't know about the US. You can wear a pin but you can't refuse treatment on the basis of religion or political opinions. That's why the doctors exhausted themselves during covid trying to treat patients who didn't believe in covid.
> Isn't that illegal?
Healthcare isn't a right in the US and political affiliation isn't a protected class.
The only time a doctor is legally obligated to treat a patient here is if they are an ER doctor in an emergency room. Otherwise they can refuse to treat people for a whole host of reasons, excluding that reason being discrimination based on a protected class (race, religion, etc.).
> Hospitals can’t refuse to care for patients
They can't refuse *stabilizing* treatment in an emergency situation. They don't have to fix what's wrong with you, just get you stable enough to get you out the door again. (And then ruin you financially for it.)
> political affiliation isn't a protected class.
It is in CA, for employment purposes.
>1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
[https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/lab/1101-1106.html](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/lab/1101-1106.html)
Exactly, they should have adhered to the rules they set out rather than making an exception for a few.
They FAFO by playing favourites and now it's biting them in the ass.
It's not a slippery slope at all, those are completely different things. Literally anyone can distinguish them and understand how wearing a pin is acceptable but refusing care isn't.
Teachers in many areas are entirely allowed to wear pins to express beliefs, and are still required to teach all their students.
100%
It's was ill conceived good intention to has significant impact. It just opens up inviting bias and discrimination in places that can not be allowed.
Politics often decides to make a person's existence political. Being white is called the norm, but being black is "political." Mentioning that you saw a movie with your wife is ok, but seeing it with your boyfriend is "political." Is discussing abortion in a medical facility political? It's the powerful and privileged who declare everything that challenges their dominance "political" and then demand everything be dominated by them, thus everything is made "political" then they blame everyone for being "political." It's horseshit.
Totally agree.
I think we are counting on the good of human nature to not discriminate against people who have different beliefs. I am not be entirely confident of that.
Imagine if an extremely pro palestanian anti israel doctor is seeing extrmely a pro israel anti Palestinian patient, imagine they meet up at their appointment flmaboyantly displaying their side. I don't think human has evolved enough from our basic ugly instincts to handle such situation.
Abortion Rights and LGBT Rights aren't supposed to be political issues so I can understandably give a pass there.
BLM is a bit more wishy washy, as it is a political movement centered around police brutality just as much as it is centered around civil rights.
If a Jewish Doctor wore a Star of David pin before Oct 7th because they were Jewish, does October 7th now make it a Pro-Israel pin?
What about a Nurse wearing a Super Mario Pin. Video Games can be part of the political discussion around banning them or for things like inclusivity and diversity.
The problem with "prohibiting political symbols" is that **Everything is political in one way or another** depending on the context, time, and current landscape. It is a genuinely good idea to reduce outwardly visible political bias/preference where possible of course, just that there is a lot of nuance in "What is a Political Symbol"
How on earth can you say abortion rights and lgbt rights aren’t political? Other than the border, they are probably the most talked about political issues going on right now. Bidens entire campaign largely hinges around those issues
They are whether some people want to admit it or not. I think they're trying to make a point that being anti-abortion or anti LGBTQ rights isn't "up for debate" the way funding for a given program might be (even though they are). It's bad rhetoric.
Yeah, a political question being largely settled doesn't make it non-political.
"Should America obey the English crown?" is a settled issue that isn't up for debate. But it's still a issue that is political in nature.
They are basic human rights issues that have been politicized. That is why I say "they aren't political"
A gay couple's right to marriage isn't something we should even be debating in the first place, yet for some reason we are. (The answer is yes, they can love and marry whoever the fuck they want. No debate to be had here)
Besides, I "trample over" that idea a paragraph later:
>**Everything is political**
And then I provided political rhetoric around what people generally consider non-political (or should be non-political) and posed a question to reinforce my point
An object's political significance changes all the time and one's own reason for wearing "political iconography" may not be for political ends.
A Christian Cross Pin is just as political as a Pride Flag Pin, but I guarantee nobody would call it that way.
Yep, this dude just assumes whatever he thinks is a basic human right is the universally accepted definition. Marriage is literally a government or church sponsored activity. That’s like saying that unemployment insurance is a basic human right. Pure nonsense. Should it exist? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it is a basic human right.
The existence of those people shouldn’t be debated, their civil rights shouldn’t be up for debate. Neither should the existence if Israelis or Palestinians, yet a lot of people in the U.S. think that if you support Palestinian human existence you’re being antisemitic.
People existing isn't political, they either exist or they don't.
Which peoples deserve nationhood is 100% a political issue.
Whether Americans deserved their own country, or should remain English, was political. Same goes for every other separatist, independence, or nationalist movement in history, from Catalan to Kosovo to Quebec to the Confederacy - and also including both the Zionist and Arab nationalist movements.
Who said anything about their existence? We’re talking about whether it is political or not and unless you haven’t paid attention to politics in decades, you know these are political issues worldwide. Just because you think they shouldn’t be, doesn’t change reality.
While abortion rights and LGBT rights have in my opinion been politicized, I do think I give them a pass because they're pretty much directly related to their jobs.
Abortion is literally a Healthcare issue: the argument of health of the "baby" vs the well-being of the mother is fundamentally a questions doctors have to address.
A little less directly, LGBT rights had been mixed up in Healthcare, especially in San Francisco due to AIDS (formerly known as GRID, Gay-Related immuno-deficiency). UCSF has been on the forefront of AIDS research for decades.
One involves domestic rights & the other is geopolitical that involves the enemies of the United States. They are not the same at all.
They are basically the equivalent of Americans protesting against WWII (Israel-Gaza War) & defending Nazi Germany (Hamas) except of course the US isn’t sending troops.
Hamas’s goal is to kill all non-Muslims around the world. They make no secret of this. Destroying Israel is just step 1. If they were ever to achieve it then they would move on to attack other non-Muslim countries. However of course many people conveniently ignore Hamas’ doctrine.
Both Hamas & Hezbollah are proxies of Iran (an enemy of the US) & are funded by them. The Palestinians are just convenient cannon fodder that Iran uses to advance their goals. Whether it’s Iran or Hamas they don’t care what happens to the Palestinians. Hamas has even outright said it’s not their responsibility.
They're absolutely correct from a legal standpoint. If you allow a pin that says Black Lives Matter, why aren't you allowing one that says White Lives Matter? If you allow a pin for abortion rights, why not anti-abortion? They're ultimately deciding that this thing is OK to support, but this thing is not. When they should be saying neither is appropriate in the workplace. And it has nothing to do with domestic vs global politics. Subjective enforcement of a "rule" makes lawyers piddle with excitement.
I’m a hospital administrator and boy am I glad I don’t work for a public academic hospital right about now. This situation is about as tricky as it gets, and I’m not sure where the line should be drawn, but I will say that shouts of intifada probably belong absolutely nowhere near patient care.
The people arguing "everything is politics" in this thread are probably part of the problem in their own work environment. Y'all sound like college freshmen who just finished their first polisci course. If you can't tell the difference between work related issues appropriate for discussion vs political issues that have nothing to do with your working conditions, business, etc, you're being willfully obtuse or you're just a moron.
Also I feel like the folks itt so eager to bring politics into the office haven't spent much time in the minority (politically) within their own workplace. Bob, that works next to you doesn't care what you have to say and may think you're an uninformed idiot. But he can't say as much cause in many workplaces being on the wrong side of the wrong issue can create all sorts of problems for you. So Bob nods his head and agrees with you. But maybe feels a little insulted or alienated from his job.
I have a VERY Jewish/israeli name (despite never being Israeli). I am making no comment on the Israel/palestine conflict. I fully support people and businesses rights to display political messaging. But when I see visible signs supporting Palestine in a store window I do second guess if I will be treated poorly or even violently depending on the type of support. If I saw a doctor or nurse with a Palestinian flag button or “from the river to the sea” I would worry that I wont receive the care I need. And I fully expect and empathize that Arab patients probably feel the same way if they saw a treater with an Israeli flag button right now. This feeling is unacceptable in the field of medicine.
When has talking politics in the workplace ever worked out well? Do your jorb and wait until you get home to shitpost on your social media site of choice.
> money
One of these things is not like the other.
If you're not discussing what you're paid with your colleagues, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating wages. Some workplaces have toxic people who would use pay to stratify themselves, but many of us are adults who should be able to agree that getting paid more is a good thing and not begrudge others for being paid more or less. Plus, it's legally protected speech within the workplace, and any manager discouraging such talk is going against the Equal Pay act.
So let me start by saying that, in theory, I agree with you. A doctor should give every patient the care they need, regardless of who it is.
With that said, t[here have literally been places where before preforming an abortion a doctor is legally required to take steps like talking about adoption or even showing the mother an ultrasound](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandated-ultrasound-prior-abortion/2014-04). This is basically what you are talking about: before we can do this medical procedure, you must sit through a lecture on why what you are doing is immoral. Or are straight up not allowed to render that treatment due to the limits placed upon them by legislatures.
What's more, go on TwoX and have a look for stories about doctors refusing to schedule tubal surgeries- that women are asking them to preform- because 'what if your future husband wants kids?' Spoiler, these posts are not hard to find. Funny, Men don't seem to have the same problem scheduling vasectomies. [And this is scratching the surface of how studies have shown that specific symptoms seem to be taken way more seriously when coming from specific groups.](https://time.com/6074224/gender-medicine-history/)
[Or this video from a few years back about an emergency room surgeon talking about treating victims after a mass shooting](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/10/03/doctors-call-for-background-checks-gun-restrictions-in-las-vegas-wake/). Now remember the myriad of people telling him to 'stay in his lane' and 'not get political'.
Or hell, what about a patient who needs surgery X but it's expensive and his insurance won't cover it. Is it ethical to shorten that patient's life due to their financial position? [If they are forced to do said procedure and it sends the patient into a spiral of medical debt, what is the hospital's complicity in that downfall?](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/)
As I said, in theory I agree in principle that everyone should be treated fairly and professionally. But I think it's laughable to think that the thing that is standing between our world and that happening is that some doctors wear buttons sometimes.
Unfortunately access to healthcare and the services provided are a political issue (this is true basically everywhere, but especially in the States). In that context, asking healthcare providers to leave their politics at the door is, frankly, laughable.
Really? My apologies, let me be more coherent.
You don't want lectures on politics before medical procedures. [That's what this is](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandated-ultrasound-prior-abortion/2014-04), a lecture on a political position before a medical procedure. Can we agree that this is wrong?
You are worried about triage assessment, and believe it should be based on medical necessity. [Does financial status not also impact triage?](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2729391) Is that not a problem worth addressing?
You don't want doctors diagnosing based on personal beliefs. [There](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1d37awf/my_39yearold_sisterinlaw_wants_a_hysterectomy/) [is](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1d3kirb/gynos_unwilling_to_give_a_suffering_woman_a/) [a](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/tzjrpp/dr_wants_my_permission_for_my_wifes_hysterectomy/) [trend](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/qwh3xl/went_to_the_gynecologist_to_request_a/) [of](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/ye8b5s/hysterectomy_denied_because_not_medically/) [doctors](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/arajsb/i_want_a_hysterectomy_and_i_shouldnt_have_to/) already allowing their personal belief regarding fertility to influence what care they offer. Is that not something that should incur some disciplinary measure?
The fact that all three of these persist while a doctor - who just spent days trying to save victims of gun violence - coming out and saying 'gun violence is bad' is yelled into the ground is evidence that there are larger issues with the American system than some doctors wearing buttons.
You argue in the first case that it is different because a) it comes from the state, and b) it's relevant to the procedure. But in response to a) I would argue that's worse because it's being given with no medical basis and so a medical procedure is being interrupted for politics, and b) the question of relevancy is moot as you argue that belief shouldn't affect diagnosis anyway.
Nobody is saying the doctor in question has to preform every surgery surgery. But the people in question aren't even being given a referral, they are just being told 'no' for personal reasons. This is exactly what you said was worthy of dismissal.
I agree that no one thinks gun violence is good. The problem is, any time anyone tries to discuss a solution, someone starts talking about gun rights and freedom and it comes to naught. And, in the listed case, how the doctor should shut up because he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Which is why your comment rubs me the wrong way in a nutshell. You are using your voice to talk about why other people should just shut up and do their jobs. You deride doctors talking politics while defending the state using doctors to do the same. It irks me that you take time to opine on how politics in medicine is a problem without really understanding the ways that politics already effect that institution.
It doesn't feel like you want politics out of medicine, it feels like you don't like these specific politics and so want the doctors to shut up.
I agree politics and medicine is an unfortunate and potentially volatile mix but to pretend politics are not in every breath we take and for some of us, our gall to exist, is foolishness.
Not sure if I should file this one under "the real genocide is when someone makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable" or "You guys need to embrace peaceful protest if you want real change... NO NOT LIKE THAT."
That one. The article doesn't focus enough on the idea by the opposing side that killing doctors is wrong. It's already against the Geneva conventions and international human rights law, so it is really a political issue at all.
> It's already against the Geneva conventions and international human rights law,
It is not if the hospital is being used for military purposes.
Just like the person training child soldiers is the one responsible for their deaths - not the person killings said child soldiers.
Same here. The side responsible is the side removing the hospital's protected status - i.e. Hamas.
Allowing people to bring politics into the workplace is always a recipe for conflict. It's completely unprofessional.
This is why I was never on the Starbucks hate train when the tweet controversy happened. I mean I hate starbucks for other reasons. But in that case, a company firing someone for using company PR account for persons opinions, no matter how valid, sets a precedent and puts the company in awkward position. So you can't really blame them for that particular thing.
Yeah I blame them for the other things. Primarily union busting—I will avoid them as much as possible for union busting Also terrible coffee
Exactly why I hate them too.
Great coffee-adjacent milkshakes though.
Here in india it's just coffee and milk flavoured water.
So you avoid them for other political reasons
Well spotted. Is that of note?
We never discussed politics in my workplace until the morning after Trump was elected. That day, I was surprised to discover just how many morons I work with. It made me wonder if we should have been discussing politics before. Maybe wrong minded individuals could be corrected if we did discuss religion and politics.
Ironically, I feel like politics in my area has become way more taboo to talk about since Trump. I live in a VERY red state too. I kind of assumed the same was true most places since he is such a polarizing person.
That's not shocking to me at least. When I go home (Alaska) the MAGA-heads vs the I guess we'll call them Murkowski-ists ends up being the most toxic arguments. Which is also why you saw so much Republican support for our only Dem House Rep Peltola.
> wrong minded individuals If you're starting from this position, you've already lost any chance of changing someone's mind.
Are you suggesting that someone cannot be wrong minded? Or that it's possible to be right minded while supporting trump?
I'm saying that no one is the villain in their own story - nobody thinks they're the wrong minded one. Objectively they can be, but that's not how they'll feel about it. The only way to change someone's mind is to first understand where they're coming from. If you attack, people just dig in their fortifications deeper.
But where they are coming from is: wrong minded, so how do you suggest you navigate that?
If I had the perfect answer to that question I'd be a millionaire consultant, and last time I checked my bank account, I'm not that. If you want to change minds politically you have to drop any concept of scoring points or 'winning' in any way. You have to listen and understand why they feel the way they do. Once you hear them out, you have the opportunity to ask if they'd like to hear your side of the topic. If they say no, or are otherwise dismissive then it's over. Just walk away because there's no point. However if you've done a good job listening to them and trying to understand (And you don't have to agree! You just can't be dismissive) they'll likely give you a chance to explain your position. You then touch on places where their views are already closer to yours (you were listening to them, right?), and try to bring them slightly closer to your position on each topic. Statements need to be about your own opinions, not attacking theirs. "I feel that X harms people, here's why..." is far, far better then "Your idea X is harming people, here's why". People need to come to their own conclusions, you can't preemptively tell them what they should think. There will never be a big AHHA! moment where they sudden change sides, but it's possible to shift viewpoints little by little.
I feel those old rules of being polite – don’t talk about politics or religion - is the reason we are in the situation we are in currently. Not discussing things for the sake of “courtesy” just spawns ignorance, spread misinformation and alienates. Not to mention creating a bunch of people obsessed with civility while people are dying, starving and being abused right next to them. I guess that you can always just do whatever you want and as long as you’re nice about it, you will have a group of supporters in this country. It’s lunacy. I’m certainly not talking about anything that’s happening outside of this country. That is a whole other horrible conversation.
After social media became mainstream last decade, all people did was post about politics. All people have been doing for the past decade is talk about politics, which I think is why we’re where we are today Talking constantly about politics leads to polarization and polarization leads to polarizing figures like Trump getting elected
This. We’ve reached the point where we can’t even have a discussion with the other side because they aren’t having a discussion with us in good faith. Anyone who supports Trump is brainwashed or stupid or evil. We’re way beyond the point of two sides having issues that we will negotiate. One side once us dead. We’re just trying to make things work.
I think you have large groups of people who are easily swayed by perceived consensus and so for them silence is compliance. They need to have ideas they hold shamed and mocked so they never voice them publicly.
They can't.
A lot can. Not everyone is the cartoon Trumpist that we see on Twitter and Good Liars videos.
Generally speaking you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Nearly all of the people who have fallen for Trump and his ilk's rhetoric are extremely psychologically vulnerable and have been taken advantage of by trusted authority figures in their lives. You can't "fix" that by having workplace conversations, no matter how in depth. The challenge you will run into is that they are often so deeply trusting of their new information sources and authority figures that you will end up arguing with them about basic facts of shared experience or wallow in unwinnable semantic arguments where they will refuse to agree upon shared definitions because they fear appearing wrong.
This is 100% correct, but at the same time, if one of these people do start to question their position or have a come to jesus moment we really have to give them the latitude to do so otherwise we drive them right back to the cult. Always be willing to answer questions and let them know if they ever change their mind you are willing to listen.
>Generally speaking you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. True, but appeals to emotion can sometimes work. Especially if you use examples that they can relate to.
"Generally speaking you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." I really love the way you put this.
They can and this idea that they can't will destroy our country just as much as policies they vote for
I disagree. Most of those people form their views out of being chronically online and getting sucked into the algorithmic feedback loop. Having several real-life human beings look you in the face and say "that's fucking stupid" can be the kick someone needs to break out of that.
"Don't discuss politics" is an inherently conservative position. To not discuss is to not question and thus to tacitly support the status quo.
Welcome to your local OR.
>Allowing people to bring politics into the workplace is always a recipe for conflict. Fun fact: in CA, political affiliation and activity is a protected class for the purposes of employment. Basically, if your coworker is a Nazi, they can't get fired for being a Nazi. Though obviously employers have plenty of ways to fire people and carefully word it otherwise.
Eh, I don't mind it as long as people aren't being dicks about it. We talk about it from time to time. Was a lot more common on my last team where 50% of the team was LGBT and we'd talk about politicians trying to remove LGBT rights.
Unless you are surrounded by like minded people or absolute saints it is way too likely that at least one person in the conversation will turn into a dick about it. Politics is one of the most tribalistic topics (possibly second only to religion) which is why it is best avoided in conversations that need to remain friendly (like watercooler talk or dinner with inlaws). Sure it is possible to have a friendly conversation about politics, just like it is possible to survive Russian Roulette unharmed.
Considering the article talks about how the environment at UCSF is becoming hostile, people are indeed being dicks about it here. I suppose it's more that rather than just talking they've moved into activism while on the job.
Someone said to a Jewish colleague that Israel deserved 10/7. And they're chanting intifada outside. The intifada was a time marked by almost constant suicide bombings in Israel. This crosses that line into being dicks.
That’s probably because you have a company culture that is comfortable with LGBT, and presumably other minorities. The problem with discussing politics these days is that “politics” has been mutated into meaning “acknowledge, much less tolerate, the existence of minorities and their grievances”.
For better or for worse (usually for worse), workplaces are inherently political. It is, in fact, a political question to decide what counts as "just the job" and what is "political" aka "too political." In a "neutral" political workspace from the American 1960's, it was "just the job" to refuse service to people considered "non-white." Now it is "just the job" to pretend to ignore race. Neither stance is actually politically neutral. We do ourselves a disfavor when we hide a particular political stance as "neutral " or "apolitical." You may say, "well what about X? Isn't X totally neutral?" And sure, just like everything else, it appears neutral until its politics become salient. It is better, imho, to debate the merits of a stance rather than to pretend that only one perspective is a "stance" and another contrasting stance is just "how things are."
There's a pretty clear difference in relevance to the field between "Should we medically treat black people in a hospital" and "Should we call for an intifada against Israel at a hospital" though both will make many of the people you treat fear you won't give them equal access to quality medical care. It's less politics and more ethics when it comes to how to best act in your field...but bringing in politics that's completely unrelated to what you do or how you do it is just politics.
Right eating a sandwich is political, so uh yeah everything is political it just depends on how controversial the politics are.
I mean, if there's meat in that sandwich then there's quite a few people who would view that as a political issue. And if you decide to intentionally exclude meat from that sandwich, there's a good chance that would be considered political too.
Are you saying you're really incapable of determining what job related issues are appropriate to discuss in the office and which you should stfu about until you are out of the office? It's really not as hard as you're making it out to be. If it touches on your job👍, if it doesn't 🤐.
It's almost impossible to not bring politics into the work place, for example unions are inherently political. I know what you'll say, unions are okay because they advocate for workers rights. Except unions don't just advocate for workers rights, unions in the past have protested against Apartheid in South Africa and are today protesting against the Israeli-Gaza war.
Discussions relating to the workplace are fine and in that context, union discussions make sense. If my union decided to waste time and resources on things that don't relate to bettering their workers, however, I'd be pissed that they're wasting resources. It's the difference of discussing things about your workplace, which may to a degree involve politics, and talking about things that do not affect or are not affected by your workplace. In this case, medical staff have no professional business or interest in the Israel Gaza conflict, so it is an inappropriate workplace topic. It does nothing but bring division to their place of work.
What's "political" is completely subjective though. Is wearing a pride pin political? Is talking about organizing your coworkers into a union political? What if there's a law passed that directly affects your work, are you not allowed to talk about it? Anyone could argue that anything is political. So why do we need to declare that anything that could be political is completely inappropriate for the workplace?
Discussions that directly involve your workplace and your rights as workers are obviously not a taboo subject at work. Y'all need to stop being obtuse - the point is to not drag in your personal pet politics in the door with you at work. Sure, anyone could argue anything. That doesn't mean its not fucking stupid to do so.
*points at unions*
If my union talks about Israel or Gaza, then I'll rip them a new one because it has nothing to do with my work and is a complete waste of my dues.
You wouldn't be *in* a union if politics wasn't brought up at work. *Everything* you do is political, down to taking a shit in your toilet. To try to keep "politics" out of anywhere when it's a concept so woven into our lives is insane and inhumane to the people those politics don't protect.
This "everything is politics" rhetoric is not useful, it's reductionist and only used to justify bringing unrelated politicking into places it doesn't belong. There is a clear difference in discussions about workplace conditions vs topics that do not relate to the workplace.
Well this rhetoric IS useful to the people who don't like the idea of not shoving politics completely unrelated to work, down all their co-workers throats. Usually the "everything is political" crowd are the exact people this article was written about, as those are the people who make politics their entire personality, and bring it with them EVERYWHERE they go and into every conversation. The guy you're responding to is probably
You never were a member of a union.
It's there in the workplace whether you like it or not.
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011 working in a hospital we treated everyone. No politics, just saving lives. Even in May when we didn't get paid. Evayse of a government shutdown. Everyone did their job and treated people by injury, not identity. It is possible to just do your job. Even when your patient tries to kill you, which happened more than once
I mean it's still there. Hell with Afghan politics it's even more blatant because it's essentially picking a political side just allowing things like women to work there. If one political side is saying "we shouldn't treat gay people" and you are trying to be apolitical but treating them regardless of their identity then you've by default picked a political side
I couldnt imagine working in a hospital during peak covid and having them dumbass trumpers come in on their death bed, denying covid was even real.
Doctors deal with idiot patients all the time. Most of the time they are ignoring something much more acutely dangerous to themselves than national politics. That doesn’t even move the needle.
That’s kinda bullshit though. A system where the workers aren’t allowed to have a voice is a shitty system of oppression
You don't have free speech rights at work. On your day off, you can stand on a street corner and say "Applebee's food sucks" to everyone you see, and that's free speech. Nobody is gonna arrest you for it. If you work at Applebee's and tell every customer who comes in that the food sucks, you'll be fired and rightly so. Your workplace is not the public square.
I never said workers shouldn't have a voice. I said it's stupid to use that voice to talk about politics in the office. The workers have turned their own workplace into a hostile powderkeg by using their voice on topics that have nothing to do with their jobs.
A voice about what? Labor conditions? Sure, have at it. The war in Gaza? Unless your company is connected, then no, stfu. It's not oppression to keep your thoughts on global politics to yourself for 8 hours a day.
What if your country is connected
What if it is? How is that related to a nurse or doctor treating patients in an ER? There is no reason you need to bring that into the workplace. At best you get a nice circlejerk going. At worst you're causing fights and disturbing the relationships everyone needs to have with each other to do their jobs efficiently. And because you seem like exactly the type this article is talking about...as your coworker, I really don't want to hear your poorly thought out, half informed political thoughts. You're not half as insightful as you think you are (and based on your comment history Id say even that is giving you too much credit) and if I want to learn about an issue I'll go read about it myself.
Voice it all you want, just not at work. Your cash register isn't your soapbox
Everything is political. Be careful that the label of "unprofessional" isn't thrown around to simply preserve your own sense of comfort.
A workplace does not need to be comfortable, but it should not be hostile. It is unprofessional to create a workplace that is hostile, and in the case of UCSF this hostility has come about due to employees performing political acts and statements that are causing fear in others.
Sure, there is a balance. Not all politics are equal. But we should be careful professionalism doesn't equate to complacency. The article itself is surprisingly good in this respect. To give just one quote: > “People who are screaming that they don’t feel safe are sometimes conflating feeling unsafe with feeling uncomfortable,” [Dr. Ghannam] said. The fact that there is tension means that we need to resolve something in our society. I think it would be unwise to ignore it. But at the same time you're right that targeted hostility towards those that have very little control over the actual problems is generally unproductive on all fronts.
Sounds like Dr. Ghannam needs to learn what a hostile work environment is. If a woman works in an office and her male coworker hangs up a bunch of posters of naked women, that doesn't mean the woman is in danger. The posters don't pose any threat to the woman's safety, other than maybe papercuts. However, those posters may create a hostile environment for female employees. And employees have a right to a workplace free of any hostility based on their membership in a protected class (which in CA includes real or perceived religion, nationality, ethnicity and/or political affiliation).
According to this article, there have been people screaming things like "long live intifada!" to the point patients in their rooms could hear it, so it seems like Dr. Ghannam needs to re-evaluate his definition of "uncomfortable" and "unsafe", as his description isn't at all accurate, it would be convenient for him if it was true though!
A lot of people here don’t realize child labor laws, 8 hour work days, unionization, and a boss’s ability to beat their employees were all inherently political. Labor laws were written in blood and politicians for centuries have done their damndest to oppose them.
>Doctors there have feuded over whether it is appropriate to openly express feelings about the war within the healing confines of a hospital. Not unless you're treating victims of said war, no. Also a hospital is just a terrible place to break out your political views (esp in front of patients). We expect doctors & nurses to be operating without their personal feelings and sentiments - doing the job as an apolitical, asexual, and secular member of the staff. (e.g., overhearing a group of nurses loudly parrot COVID & antivaxx misinformation has obliterated my confidence in our local hospital)
100% agree We have to remember most patients IN THE HOSPITAL are experiencing one of the WORST times of their lives (unless there for a happy delivery of a baby or something). They’re already stressed, family is stressed, emotions on edge, about whatever has them there. Not a good time to interject politics or anything else potentially conflicting, and if the patients make remarks, it’s a good time to have some extra grace and remember these are probably good people during a tough time.
Understandable, though it’s ESPECIALLY challenging when patients are blaring Fox/CNN and wearing political merch 24/7 while you’re there. You can only bottle up so much until it overflows.
I mean… maybe this is your situation but a patient could call me the N word and go on the most racist rant possible… and id still choose to not risk the method of paying my bills. “Control!! You must learn control!”
That’s a shit take and why it’s completely unprofessional. If you can’t regulate your emotions to not be offended by what other people wear and listen to, you do not need to be in that position
Oh, I keep my mouth shut, it just like everyone else but me seems to be able to do it without any fear of consequences. Edit: was once in a patient’s room and he was ranting and raving about how people like me shot into space yet he had no clue that I was part of that crowd yet I had to bite my tongue and keep doing my job. The fact that he even had the gall to say stuff like that tells me he’s never had to bite his tongue before.
No. People can fucking control themselves, Jesus, are you a 5 year old?
No, this is Reddit. Everything is a black and white issue and acting like a civilized human in real life is unimaginable.
If thats the case you are in the wrong job
>U.C.S.F. has a dress code prohibiting political symbols in patient care settings, but Dr. Ghannam said staff members for years have worn pins supporting abortion rights, Black Lives Matter and the L.G.B.T.Q. community without repercussions. Isn't this kind of the inevitable consequence of playing favourites and making exceptions to the rules for political stances you favour. If U.C.S.F has allowed political symbols to be worn in the past it would be quite hypocritical of them to get their feathers ruffled about it now. Fairness means applying the institutions rules equally to everyone whether or not you happen to agree with them. They shot themselves in the foot by playing the rules for thee and not for me game and now they will have to deal with it.
Can't allow it at all. It's a slippery slope, what if medical staff start to refuse or pick and choose based on political beliefs.
Isn't that illegal? They can lose their license for that at least here in my country. Don't know about the US. You can wear a pin but you can't refuse treatment on the basis of religion or political opinions. That's why the doctors exhausted themselves during covid trying to treat patients who didn't believe in covid.
> Isn't that illegal? Healthcare isn't a right in the US and political affiliation isn't a protected class. The only time a doctor is legally obligated to treat a patient here is if they are an ER doctor in an emergency room. Otherwise they can refuse to treat people for a whole host of reasons, excluding that reason being discrimination based on a protected class (race, religion, etc.).
Eh, kind of. Hospitals can’t refuse to care for patients, so if you’re in an emergency situation the rules are much more muddy.
> Hospitals can’t refuse to care for patients They can't refuse *stabilizing* treatment in an emergency situation. They don't have to fix what's wrong with you, just get you stable enough to get you out the door again. (And then ruin you financially for it.)
Its not muddy at all its very clear and written on the wall of the ED. Its called EMTALA.
> political affiliation isn't a protected class. It is in CA, for employment purposes. >1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. 1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. [https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/lab/1101-1106.html](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/lab/1101-1106.html)
Exactly, they should have adhered to the rules they set out rather than making an exception for a few. They FAFO by playing favourites and now it's biting them in the ass.
[удалено]
It's not a slippery slope at all, those are completely different things. Literally anyone can distinguish them and understand how wearing a pin is acceptable but refusing care isn't. Teachers in many areas are entirely allowed to wear pins to express beliefs, and are still required to teach all their students.
100% It's was ill conceived good intention to has significant impact. It just opens up inviting bias and discrimination in places that can not be allowed.
Politics often decides to make a person's existence political. Being white is called the norm, but being black is "political." Mentioning that you saw a movie with your wife is ok, but seeing it with your boyfriend is "political." Is discussing abortion in a medical facility political? It's the powerful and privileged who declare everything that challenges their dominance "political" and then demand everything be dominated by them, thus everything is made "political" then they blame everyone for being "political." It's horseshit.
Totally agree. I think we are counting on the good of human nature to not discriminate against people who have different beliefs. I am not be entirely confident of that. Imagine if an extremely pro palestanian anti israel doctor is seeing extrmely a pro israel anti Palestinian patient, imagine they meet up at their appointment flmaboyantly displaying their side. I don't think human has evolved enough from our basic ugly instincts to handle such situation.
Abortion Rights and LGBT Rights aren't supposed to be political issues so I can understandably give a pass there. BLM is a bit more wishy washy, as it is a political movement centered around police brutality just as much as it is centered around civil rights. If a Jewish Doctor wore a Star of David pin before Oct 7th because they were Jewish, does October 7th now make it a Pro-Israel pin? What about a Nurse wearing a Super Mario Pin. Video Games can be part of the political discussion around banning them or for things like inclusivity and diversity. The problem with "prohibiting political symbols" is that **Everything is political in one way or another** depending on the context, time, and current landscape. It is a genuinely good idea to reduce outwardly visible political bias/preference where possible of course, just that there is a lot of nuance in "What is a Political Symbol"
How on earth can you say abortion rights and lgbt rights aren’t political? Other than the border, they are probably the most talked about political issues going on right now. Bidens entire campaign largely hinges around those issues
They are whether some people want to admit it or not. I think they're trying to make a point that being anti-abortion or anti LGBTQ rights isn't "up for debate" the way funding for a given program might be (even though they are). It's bad rhetoric.
Yeah, a political question being largely settled doesn't make it non-political. "Should America obey the English crown?" is a settled issue that isn't up for debate. But it's still a issue that is political in nature.
They are basic human rights issues that have been politicized. That is why I say "they aren't political" A gay couple's right to marriage isn't something we should even be debating in the first place, yet for some reason we are. (The answer is yes, they can love and marry whoever the fuck they want. No debate to be had here) Besides, I "trample over" that idea a paragraph later: >**Everything is political** And then I provided political rhetoric around what people generally consider non-political (or should be non-political) and posed a question to reinforce my point An object's political significance changes all the time and one's own reason for wearing "political iconography" may not be for political ends. A Christian Cross Pin is just as political as a Pride Flag Pin, but I guarantee nobody would call it that way.
What constitutes a "basic human right" is a fundamental political question
Yep, this dude just assumes whatever he thinks is a basic human right is the universally accepted definition. Marriage is literally a government or church sponsored activity. That’s like saying that unemployment insurance is a basic human right. Pure nonsense. Should it exist? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it is a basic human right.
The existence of those people shouldn’t be debated, their civil rights shouldn’t be up for debate. Neither should the existence if Israelis or Palestinians, yet a lot of people in the U.S. think that if you support Palestinian human existence you’re being antisemitic.
People existing isn't political, they either exist or they don't. Which peoples deserve nationhood is 100% a political issue. Whether Americans deserved their own country, or should remain English, was political. Same goes for every other separatist, independence, or nationalist movement in history, from Catalan to Kosovo to Quebec to the Confederacy - and also including both the Zionist and Arab nationalist movements.
Who said anything about their existence? We’re talking about whether it is political or not and unless you haven’t paid attention to politics in decades, you know these are political issues worldwide. Just because you think they shouldn’t be, doesn’t change reality.
What civil rights are lgbt individuals missing that the rest of us have?
I feel like the "umm actually, everything is political" crowd is being willfully fucking obtuse here.
While abortion rights and LGBT rights have in my opinion been politicized, I do think I give them a pass because they're pretty much directly related to their jobs. Abortion is literally a Healthcare issue: the argument of health of the "baby" vs the well-being of the mother is fundamentally a questions doctors have to address. A little less directly, LGBT rights had been mixed up in Healthcare, especially in San Francisco due to AIDS (formerly known as GRID, Gay-Related immuno-deficiency). UCSF has been on the forefront of AIDS research for decades.
One involves domestic rights & the other is geopolitical that involves the enemies of the United States. They are not the same at all. They are basically the equivalent of Americans protesting against WWII (Israel-Gaza War) & defending Nazi Germany (Hamas) except of course the US isn’t sending troops. Hamas’s goal is to kill all non-Muslims around the world. They make no secret of this. Destroying Israel is just step 1. If they were ever to achieve it then they would move on to attack other non-Muslim countries. However of course many people conveniently ignore Hamas’ doctrine. Both Hamas & Hezbollah are proxies of Iran (an enemy of the US) & are funded by them. The Palestinians are just convenient cannon fodder that Iran uses to advance their goals. Whether it’s Iran or Hamas they don’t care what happens to the Palestinians. Hamas has even outright said it’s not their responsibility.
They're absolutely correct from a legal standpoint. If you allow a pin that says Black Lives Matter, why aren't you allowing one that says White Lives Matter? If you allow a pin for abortion rights, why not anti-abortion? They're ultimately deciding that this thing is OK to support, but this thing is not. When they should be saying neither is appropriate in the workplace. And it has nothing to do with domestic vs global politics. Subjective enforcement of a "rule" makes lawyers piddle with excitement.
Good putting you're biased, simplistic opinion onto it.
And what a way to show projection with a flaccid chestnut as your retort.
I’m a hospital administrator and boy am I glad I don’t work for a public academic hospital right about now. This situation is about as tricky as it gets, and I’m not sure where the line should be drawn, but I will say that shouts of intifada probably belong absolutely nowhere near patient care.
The people arguing "everything is politics" in this thread are probably part of the problem in their own work environment. Y'all sound like college freshmen who just finished their first polisci course. If you can't tell the difference between work related issues appropriate for discussion vs political issues that have nothing to do with your working conditions, business, etc, you're being willfully obtuse or you're just a moron. Also I feel like the folks itt so eager to bring politics into the office haven't spent much time in the minority (politically) within their own workplace. Bob, that works next to you doesn't care what you have to say and may think you're an uninformed idiot. But he can't say as much cause in many workplaces being on the wrong side of the wrong issue can create all sorts of problems for you. So Bob nods his head and agrees with you. But maybe feels a little insulted or alienated from his job.
I have a VERY Jewish/israeli name (despite never being Israeli). I am making no comment on the Israel/palestine conflict. I fully support people and businesses rights to display political messaging. But when I see visible signs supporting Palestine in a store window I do second guess if I will be treated poorly or even violently depending on the type of support. If I saw a doctor or nurse with a Palestinian flag button or “from the river to the sea” I would worry that I wont receive the care I need. And I fully expect and empathize that Arab patients probably feel the same way if they saw a treater with an Israeli flag button right now. This feeling is unacceptable in the field of medicine.
When has talking politics in the workplace ever worked out well? Do your jorb and wait until you get home to shitpost on your social media site of choice.
I don’t know, maybe when it gave us an 8 hour work day, time off, safety, and ended child labor. Oh wait….
Yeah, that's definitely the same thing as arguing about Palestine
>Do your jorb This typo is so much funnier than it should be, given what we're discussing. Don't edit it out.
That was on purpose for the Homestarrunner fans.
Ah, I gotcha. Gonna use that from now on.
Politics, religion, money. Generally considered bad "water cooler" chat. Need to stay out of it.
> money One of these things is not like the other. If you're not discussing what you're paid with your colleagues, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating wages. Some workplaces have toxic people who would use pay to stratify themselves, but many of us are adults who should be able to agree that getting paid more is a good thing and not begrudge others for being paid more or less. Plus, it's legally protected speech within the workplace, and any manager discouraging such talk is going against the Equal Pay act.
[удалено]
So let me start by saying that, in theory, I agree with you. A doctor should give every patient the care they need, regardless of who it is. With that said, t[here have literally been places where before preforming an abortion a doctor is legally required to take steps like talking about adoption or even showing the mother an ultrasound](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandated-ultrasound-prior-abortion/2014-04). This is basically what you are talking about: before we can do this medical procedure, you must sit through a lecture on why what you are doing is immoral. Or are straight up not allowed to render that treatment due to the limits placed upon them by legislatures. What's more, go on TwoX and have a look for stories about doctors refusing to schedule tubal surgeries- that women are asking them to preform- because 'what if your future husband wants kids?' Spoiler, these posts are not hard to find. Funny, Men don't seem to have the same problem scheduling vasectomies. [And this is scratching the surface of how studies have shown that specific symptoms seem to be taken way more seriously when coming from specific groups.](https://time.com/6074224/gender-medicine-history/) [Or this video from a few years back about an emergency room surgeon talking about treating victims after a mass shooting](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/10/03/doctors-call-for-background-checks-gun-restrictions-in-las-vegas-wake/). Now remember the myriad of people telling him to 'stay in his lane' and 'not get political'. Or hell, what about a patient who needs surgery X but it's expensive and his insurance won't cover it. Is it ethical to shorten that patient's life due to their financial position? [If they are forced to do said procedure and it sends the patient into a spiral of medical debt, what is the hospital's complicity in that downfall?](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/) As I said, in theory I agree in principle that everyone should be treated fairly and professionally. But I think it's laughable to think that the thing that is standing between our world and that happening is that some doctors wear buttons sometimes. Unfortunately access to healthcare and the services provided are a political issue (this is true basically everywhere, but especially in the States). In that context, asking healthcare providers to leave their politics at the door is, frankly, laughable.
[удалено]
Really? My apologies, let me be more coherent. You don't want lectures on politics before medical procedures. [That's what this is](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandated-ultrasound-prior-abortion/2014-04), a lecture on a political position before a medical procedure. Can we agree that this is wrong? You are worried about triage assessment, and believe it should be based on medical necessity. [Does financial status not also impact triage?](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2729391) Is that not a problem worth addressing? You don't want doctors diagnosing based on personal beliefs. [There](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1d37awf/my_39yearold_sisterinlaw_wants_a_hysterectomy/) [is](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1d3kirb/gynos_unwilling_to_give_a_suffering_woman_a/) [a](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/tzjrpp/dr_wants_my_permission_for_my_wifes_hysterectomy/) [trend](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/qwh3xl/went_to_the_gynecologist_to_request_a/) [of](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/ye8b5s/hysterectomy_denied_because_not_medically/) [doctors](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/arajsb/i_want_a_hysterectomy_and_i_shouldnt_have_to/) already allowing their personal belief regarding fertility to influence what care they offer. Is that not something that should incur some disciplinary measure? The fact that all three of these persist while a doctor - who just spent days trying to save victims of gun violence - coming out and saying 'gun violence is bad' is yelled into the ground is evidence that there are larger issues with the American system than some doctors wearing buttons.
[удалено]
You argue in the first case that it is different because a) it comes from the state, and b) it's relevant to the procedure. But in response to a) I would argue that's worse because it's being given with no medical basis and so a medical procedure is being interrupted for politics, and b) the question of relevancy is moot as you argue that belief shouldn't affect diagnosis anyway. Nobody is saying the doctor in question has to preform every surgery surgery. But the people in question aren't even being given a referral, they are just being told 'no' for personal reasons. This is exactly what you said was worthy of dismissal. I agree that no one thinks gun violence is good. The problem is, any time anyone tries to discuss a solution, someone starts talking about gun rights and freedom and it comes to naught. And, in the listed case, how the doctor should shut up because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which is why your comment rubs me the wrong way in a nutshell. You are using your voice to talk about why other people should just shut up and do their jobs. You deride doctors talking politics while defending the state using doctors to do the same. It irks me that you take time to opine on how politics in medicine is a problem without really understanding the ways that politics already effect that institution. It doesn't feel like you want politics out of medicine, it feels like you don't like these specific politics and so want the doctors to shut up.
[удалено]
I agree politics and medicine is an unfortunate and potentially volatile mix but to pretend politics are not in every breath we take and for some of us, our gall to exist, is foolishness.
Not sure if I should file this one under "the real genocide is when someone makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable" or "You guys need to embrace peaceful protest if you want real change... NO NOT LIKE THAT."
That one. The article doesn't focus enough on the idea by the opposing side that killing doctors is wrong. It's already against the Geneva conventions and international human rights law, so it is really a political issue at all.
Letting terrorists kill people is also wrong.
> It's already against the Geneva conventions and international human rights law, It is not if the hospital is being used for military purposes. Just like the person training child soldiers is the one responsible for their deaths - not the person killings said child soldiers. Same here. The side responsible is the side removing the hospital's protected status - i.e. Hamas.
[удалено]