Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, I would argue that this is my podcast and therefore my right to post anything that I want. It isn’t unprofessional to post something I feel strongly about on my own podcast any more than it is unprofessional for you to express your opinion in your own home. No one is required to listen to my podcast and, in fact, no one can even accidentally listen to it. I specifically said, right up front on this particular episode, that this had nothing to do with medicine or critical care at all. If you or I were to express our own views on something like this to a patient in the ICU who had no choice but to listen, that would, indeed, be unprofessional. But this is not the same thing.
Secondly, the VAST majority of terror attacks in this country have been perpetrated by white Americans. According to your argument, we should assume, then, that white Americans are dangerous and screen them. Perhaps they would need to be screened before being allowed to go near large buildings or heavily populated areas. I’m sure you would agree this wouldn’t and shouldn’t be done. But if we aren’t going to screen the group that has produced the most offenders, why are we not just screening, but outright banning other groups?
As for screening, I wasn’t arguing and I don’t think anyone is arguing that we shouldn’t continue to do the same screening that we’ve always done before offering visas. There is a great This American Life episode recently where they interview people from the customs service whose job it is to do this screening. They say it’s absolutely pointless to talk about “increased screening”. They already do the most thorough screening that could be needed.
It’s also important to distinguish between the example you give of a person with bad credit and the banning of an entire nation’s citizens. If you have bad credit it is because you, personally, have, in theory, done things to earn that bad credit score. But being from a country like Syria has nothing to do with what you, personally, have done. What it does mean is that you are much more likely to be living in an unsafe situation, struggling to find food, maybe even running for your life. Some countries, like Canada, have pursued the humanitarian course of offering to help these persecuted people. Many people feel, and you may disagree, that we should do the same. That we should reach out a helping hand to desperate people in need, no matter where they come from or what religion they practice or what color their skin.
Best,
Jed
Comments are closed.
Anesthesia and Critical Care Reviews and Commentary
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, I would argue that this is my podcast and therefore my right to post anything that I want. It isn’t unprofessional to post something I feel strongly about on my own podcast any more than it is unprofessional for you to express your opinion in your own home. No one is required to listen to my podcast and, in fact, no one can even accidentally listen to it. I specifically said, right up front on this particular episode, that this had nothing to do with medicine or critical care at all. If you or I were to express our own views on something like this to a patient in the ICU who had no choice but to listen, that would, indeed, be unprofessional. But this is not the same thing.
Secondly, the VAST majority of terror attacks in this country have been perpetrated by white Americans. According to your argument, we should assume, then, that white Americans are dangerous and screen them. Perhaps they would need to be screened before being allowed to go near large buildings or heavily populated areas. I’m sure you would agree this wouldn’t and shouldn’t be done. But if we aren’t going to screen the group that has produced the most offenders, why are we not just screening, but outright banning other groups?
As for screening, I wasn’t arguing and I don’t think anyone is arguing that we shouldn’t continue to do the same screening that we’ve always done before offering visas. There is a great This American Life episode recently where they interview people from the customs service whose job it is to do this screening. They say it’s absolutely pointless to talk about “increased screening”. They already do the most thorough screening that could be needed.
It’s also important to distinguish between the example you give of a person with bad credit and the banning of an entire nation’s citizens. If you have bad credit it is because you, personally, have, in theory, done things to earn that bad credit score. But being from a country like Syria has nothing to do with what you, personally, have done. What it does mean is that you are much more likely to be living in an unsafe situation, struggling to find food, maybe even running for your life. Some countries, like Canada, have pursued the humanitarian course of offering to help these persecuted people. Many people feel, and you may disagree, that we should do the same. That we should reach out a helping hand to desperate people in need, no matter where they come from or what religion they practice or what color their skin.
Best,
Jed