James Dobson...Foot in mouth disease.

[Bullypulpit]

In this weeks issue of <a href=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485,00.html>TIME</a>, Dr. James Dobson put his foot in his mouth and is now choking on it.

He wrote a guest editorial entitled, <i><b>Two Mommies Is One Too Many</b></i>, in which he castigates Mary Cheney and her partner for getting preggers. Now this issue is already being discussed <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45317>HERE</a>, but that's not what I'm discussing here.

What I am discussing is the reaction of the academics he quoted in his screed. Dr Kyle Pruett, M.D. of the Yale School of Medicine and Carol Gilligan, PhD were both highly incensed by Dobson's "cherry-picking" of their work. THey were so incensed that they both wrote letters to Dr. Dobson expressing their dismay.

<blockquote>Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. <i><b>This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles.</b></i> There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, "What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex."

Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

Pseudo-science...This is at the heart of Dr. Dobson's social and psychological ruminations, as it of many of the arguments put fort by fundie apologists on issues from biology to zoology.

<blockquote>Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can&#8217;t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor</blockquote>

It is also worth noting that neither Dr. Pruett's nor Professor Gilligan's research have found any indication that same gender parents are in any way, detrimental to the development of their children. Dr. Dobson merely cited the works of these individuals in an attempt to lend credence to his own prejudices, and those of his adherents.

From my own experience, the children of same gender couples are as well balanced as their peers raised in traditional families. Any harm caused is a result of the bigotry and intolerance of those like Dr. Dobson (a doctor in name only), and his fellow travelers.

 

[no1tovote4]

Not attempting to discount all of your post here, but Dr. James Clayton Dobson is a Ph.D. in Psychology... in fact in Child Development from the University of Southern California. That isn't "in name only" as you suggest above. He is just as much a Doctor as those he misquoted...

It hurts your own cause to allow your personal prejudice to enter a "in name only" judgement that is simply untrue. You post would have more impact without the, simply incorrect, personal judgement...

My question for these two doctors would be whether they were the only two that he quoted, and if not where are the other doctors who are upset over incorrect usage of information?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not attempting to discount all of your post here, but Dr. James Clayton Dobson is a Ph.D. in Psychology... in fact in Child Development from the University of Southern California. That isn't "in name only" as you suggest above. He is just as much a Doctor as those he misquoted...

It hurts your own cause to allow your personal prejudice to enter a "in name only" judgement that is simply untrue. You post would have more impact without the, simply incorrect, personal judgement...

My question for these two doctors would be whether they were the only two that he quoted, and if not where are the other doctors who are upset over incorrect usage of information?

I'm well aware of his credentials. He has simply strayed so far from the fundamental premises of the Hippocratic oath as to render it meaningless.

As for judging, I have never been a great advocate of the notion, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Judge, and prepare to be judged.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm well aware of his credentials. He has simply strayed so far from the fundamental premises of the Hippocratic oath as to render it meaningless.

As for judging, I have never been a great advocate of the notion, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Judge, and prepare to be judged.

Well, Ph.D's do not take a Hippocratic Oath. That is for medical doctors, most of which don't take it anyway as it would forbid them to perform an abortion...

"In name only" implies that he was given one of those "honorable" Doctrates rather than earned it just like the two who complained. As for my question, I notice you didn't answer. Were these the only two he quoted or were they the only two who complained?

 

[dmp]

Interesting - Regardless if Dobson took comments out of context, Dobson is showing LOVE for children by his position. I'd rather the child mis-carry than grow up screwed in the head because of his/her "Parents" mental illness.

 

[Hobbit]

Misquotes or not, I tend to agree with his conclusion. This is more of a toe-in-mouth moment than full fledged athlete's tongue.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Interesting - Regardless if Dobson took comments out of context, Dobson is showing LOVE for children by his position. I'd rather the child mis-carry than grow up screwed in the head because of his/her "Parents" mental illness.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. It was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual more than 30 years ago. Get over it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, Ph.D's do not take a Hippocratic Oath. That is for medical doctors, most of which don't take it anyway as it would forbid them to perform an abortion...

"In name only" implies that he was given one of those "honorable" Doctrates rather than earned it just like the two who complained. As for my question, I notice you didn't answer. Were these the only two he quoted or were they the only two who complained?

Tell me, can you cite just one peer reviewed article regarding his religiously based psychological theories?

His more than casual flirtation, more like a torrid affair, with religiously based pseudo-scientific clap-trap renders his credibility questionable, at best. So, regardless of his credentials, his pronouncements must be regarded more as religious dogma than scientific fact.

And, to answer your question, Dr. Pruett and Professor Gilligan were the only two authors cited in his editorial. But you would have known that if you had followed the link.

 

[jillian]

most of which don't take it anyway as it would forbid them to perform an abortion...

Where ya getting that little nugget from?

 

[theHawk]

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. It was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual more than 30 years ago. Get over it.

It was written in a spiritual manual several thousand years ago that homosexuality is a sin.
Get over it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Tell me, can you cite just one peer reviewed article regarding his religiously based psychological theories?

His more than casual flirtation, more like a torrid affair, with religiously based pseudo-scientific clap-trap renders his credibility questionable, at best. So, regardless of his credentials, his pronouncements must be regarded more as religious dogma than scientific fact.

And, to answer your question, Dr. Pruett and Professor Gilligan were the only two authors cited in his editorial. But you would have known that if you had followed the link.

It is why I asked... It really isn't salient to my point. The man has a Doctrate as good as these two. There hasn't been a study long enough yet to reach conclusions on this subject either way, each has a hypothesis in testing phase. Much like tests, peer-reviewed tests, ended up showing that the same-sex parent is the most effecting role model ever for any child even after they attempted to get a different answer, it may just turn out that you are wrong. I prefer to await results.... You prefer to just guess and poke fun at others with a different POV before the tests are done.

His Doctorate is far more impressive than yours, which doesn't exist at all. Your "peer review" is found wanting in the fact that you are not his peer.

 

[jillian]

It was written in a spiritual manual several thousand years ago that homosexuality is a sin.
Get over it.

It was also written that it was ok to stone your wife if she committed adultery. So who should get over it?

And why should what you believe about the bible govern how everyone else treats a group of people?

 

[no1tovote4]

Where ya getting that little nugget from?

You've never read the hippocratic oath?

First the Classical Version:

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.


I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Please note the bolded text there, Jillian, you will note that if you were to take this Hippocratic Oath you would not be able to perform an abortion... Or is there some ambiguity that you pretend to see in that?

 

[jillian]

You've never read the hippocratic oath?

First the Classical Version:


Please note the bolded text there, Jillian, you will note that if you were to take this Hippocratic Oath you would not be able to perform an abortion... Or is there some ambiguity that you pretend to see in that?

I know what it says. And I know *you* believe it would preclude doctors from performing abortions. But I can assure you that isn't the case. Now if you'd be kind enough to back up your hypothesis with something approximating proof....

 

[theHawk]

It was also written that it was ok to stone your wife if she committed adultery. So who should get over it?

And why should what you believe about the bible govern how everyone else treats a group of people?

You failed to grasp the point of my post(in response to Bully's response to DMP).

In fact, your response is exactly the kind of mentality I was making fun of in the first place:
And why should what you believe about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual govern how everyone else treats a group of people?

 

[no1tovote4]

I know what it says. And I know *you* believe it would preclude doctors from performing abortions. But I can assure you that isn't the case. Now if you'd be kind enough to back up your hypothesis with something approximating proof....

Well, the actual Oath was written there for you to read and you provided no other translation for "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." and therefore are talking out your a$$...

Very few doctors take this Oath today... And in fact, most that do are anti-abortion and take it because of that particular line.

So, I backed up my "hypothesis" with actual words and the actual Oath, you fail to back yours up at all, and instead pretend you can't read.... It doesn't make you look very smart.

But I will, instead, profer another link for your perusal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised non-Abrahamic deities, advocated teaching of men but not women, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion and euthanasia. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.

Changed portions of the oath:

To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This too has largely disappeared.

Not to teach medicine to other people. If taken seriously, a physician who attempts to educate or make aware of treatment options, even online, to anyone not enrolled in medical school would lose his or her license.

To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in discussions of euthanasia.

Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in the U.S. and most other countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions.

Never to attempt to induce an abortion. this item is still invoked in discussions of abortion.

To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). It is interesting how early the value of specialization was recognized. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. This also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.

To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting "good purposes," such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest has never been questioned.

Notice again the bolded portion, I'd like to make it clear that this wasn't my sole translation of the Oath, but it is the reason that the Oath is no longer taken by many at all in its original form.

 

[jillian]

Like I said, prove it with something with other than your own anti-choice pov which, btw, isn't shared by the majoirty of people.

 

[no1tovote4]

Like I said, probe it with something with other than your own anti-choice pov which, btw, isn't shared by the majoirty of people.

You have no idea what my views on abortion are, do you? I provided another link, which I'll provide again...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Pay particular attention to the "most schools have some kind of oath but not this one" part... I'll bold it below for you, again...

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised non-Abrahamic deities, advocated teaching of men but not women, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion and euthanasia. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.

Changed portions of the oath:

To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This too has largely disappeared.

Not to teach medicine to other people. If taken seriously, a physician who attempts to educate or make aware of treatment options, even online, to anyone not enrolled in medical school would lose his or her license.

To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in discussions of euthanasia.

Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in the U.S. and most other countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions.

Never to attempt to induce an abortion. this item is still invoked in discussions of abortion.

To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). It is interesting how early the value of specialization was recognized. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. This also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.

To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting "good purposes," such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest has never been questioned.

I once again bolded the portions about abortion and the fact that they take some "form of oath" but not this one. Most doctors do not take the original oath because it precludes them from performing abortions...

Now, do you want to assume more about me or simply use your brain rather than your partisan goggles?

 

[theHawk]

Like I said, probe it with something with other than your own anti-choice pov which, btw, isn't shared by the majoirty of people.

Whether or not anti-abortion is shared by the majority of the people isn't relevant to the contents of the oath.

 

[no1tovote4]

BTW - To the originator of the thread, I am sorry that Bully, in his ignorance evoked the Hippocratic Oath and got the thread sidetracked. The Hippocratic Oath is for Medical Doctors, none of the "Doctorates" that are in this thread have ever taken that oath as they are not MDs they are all PhDs...

I'm sorry that the thread seems to be getting hijacked...