The Instigator
DylanAsdale
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
PorcelainPluto
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

There should not be a limit on the amount of hours a physician works.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 5309
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

DylanAsdale

Pro

Physicians should not have a limit on the amount of hours they work.

1.) A good physician is a physician that is experienced, educated, and spends the most amount of time possible on their career, and advancing their education as a physician.

2.) The "doctors get tired and make mistakes" argument, which I am sure my opponent will counter with, is not valid. This is because, while a physician is working, almost the entire time, adrenaline is flowing. Adrenaline prevents the feeling of tiredness when caring for a patient, for most physicians, so I am just rebutting this possible point beforehand.

3.) Many physicians feel that their patients are their number one priority, and some physicians don't like their home lives, and come to the hospital to get away from their problems. Sending them home when they do not wish to leave work is a cruel thing to do, and the wishes of physicians, who save lives and have contributed so much to society, should be respect. Society has a debt to physicians, and restricting them in the hours they work is not a way to pay them back that debt.

4.) Having a new physician come in and care for a patient can make them uncomfortable, and not have as good of an experience in the facility.The longer a physician spends with a patient, the more they learn about the patient's attitude, limitations, beliefs, and interests, and can therefore interact with the patient efficiently.
PorcelainPluto

Con

Before we debate this I'd like to state a few things:

1)Since medical science is very specific in it's terminology and there is a universal acceptance of many bodily processes and functions, I will not define any medical terminology or explain any basic bodily processes unless my opponent is explicitly erroneous and using such as supporting evidence. Nor will I reference statements of such unless I am directly contradicting a claim my opponent has made.
2)I'll be using ellipses and paraphrasing only to make quotes more manageable, If I accidentally change the intention of something you say, it won't be intentional and I welcome clarification in the following rounds
3)Gratz on being my first opponent on debate.org! =D

You started by claiming:

"A good physician is a physician that is experienced, educated, and spends the most amount of time possible on their career, and advancing their education as a physician."

I can not accept your value statement as true since I'm sure that english speakers refer to one who preforms a job as "good" when they preform that job well. A physician's job is to diagnose, treat, and alter (not leaving out plastic surgeons) the human body. Therefore a physician is only a good physician when s/he diagnoses, treats, or alters the body well. Knowledge, attendance, and the pursuit of knowledge are duties of a student. You may say that being a good student aids a physician in doing their job well, but not that it makes him or her a good physician if they do not perform the job of a physician well as well.

Then you claimed:
"The "doctors get tired and make mistakes" argument, which I am sure my opponent will counter with, is not valid. . . because . . . the entire time, adrenaline is flowing [which] prevents the feeling of tiredness when caring for a patient . . ."

Adrenaline stimulates the autonomic nervous system. Sleep deprivation reduces brain activity in the prefrontal and temporal lobes of the brain. (http://www.apa.org...) So while you are correct that an increase in adrenaline in the body will probably make someone feel less tired, it won't negate the negative impact the lack of rest is having on the body. (Just a side note, the prefrontal and temporal lobes control complex problem solving, planning for the future, controlling emotional behavior, and is the area of the brain that governs auditory function. Kinda important brain functions when you are preforming surgery or prescribing medicines wouldn't you say?)

Being that your next point was is a rather flimsy emotional appeal, I'm only going to comment on it briefly to help illustrate the growing weakness that the argument gains as each subjective statement builds on the previous.

"Many physicians feel that their patients are their number one priority. . ."
Good for them? How does this matter?

". . .and some physicians don't like their home lives, and come to the hospital to get away from their problems."
Great! Emotional problems plus decreased control from lack of prefrontal lobe activity equals prime time drama. But not really professional medical environment. . .

"Sending them home when they do not wish to leave work is a cruel thing to do. . ."
I really doubt enforced breaks from work is something cruel men often do. If so then maybe we should let cruel dictators know so they can change their work camps into vacation camps! It might revolutionize the industry of cruelness.

". . .and the wishes of physicians, who save lives and have contributed so much to society, should be respect."
Let's hope they don't wish for universal self castration! If physicians world wide really are wishing for sweat shop hours, and it isn't a wise thing to grant, it shouldn't be granted.

"Society has a debt to physicians, and restricting them in the hours they work is not a way to pay them back that debt."
If restricting work hours isn't the way to pay them back, it doesn't indicate that the inverse is true. To assume so is fallacious. (Ex: A rock isn't alive, therefore it's dead. )

"Having a new physician come in and care for a patient can make them uncomfortable, and not have as good of an experience in the facility. The longer a physician spends with a patient, the more they learn about the patient's attitude, limitations, beliefs, and interests, and can therefore interact with the patient efficiently."

Um, I don't even want to dwell on this too long. Bed side manner is great and all but it's more important that the doctor doesn't **** up when s/he is cutting someone open, replacing organs, prescribing potent drugs, etc. I know I would much rather have a doctor be on the ball and do his/her job right than lose sleep so s/he can watch "The Gilmore Girls" with me and learn about what my life was like growing up on the farm.

The only other thing to add is that laws restricting work hours for doctors are less an effort to punish doctors and more an effort to prevent hospitals from exploiting their salaried staff. At the same time increasing the quality of care patients receive.

I'm done, you've got the soapbox.
Debate Round No. 1
DylanAsdale

Pro

As the audience can see, the opponent has resorted to insulting me and my position, instead of trying to refute the points I made. Also, his comment was extremely drawn out and had filler words to make his argument seem longer, thus, more accurate, and he has failed in his attempt. What he ended up with is a drawn out personal attack.

Thus, I think I, and the audience, can safely say that I have won this round.
PorcelainPluto

Con

Pro is claiming that my entire argument is one that revolves around perpetually committing the ad hominem fallacy, but I have done no such thing. As to not repost my entire argument from the first round I suggest rereading my rebuttal from the first round. I also submit that if Pro is to make such a claim, he takes on the burden to prove such. To help my opponent understand what construes an ad hominem fallacy I will quote Hurley's "A Concise Introduction to Logic" p.119-120:

"This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but to the person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person. [ad hominem]"

An example Hurley gives of this (p.120):

"William Buckley has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as cocaine and heroin. But Buckley is just another one of those upper-crust intellectuals who is out of touch with real America. No sensible person should listen to his pseudosolutions"

I suggest that the possibility exists that my opponent has misconstrued reasonable rebuttal as insulting in itself.

After claiming I've only attacked my argument Pro then wrote, "Thus, I think I, and the audience, can safely say that I have won this round."

He may say that he has won or that he is right until he is blue in the face, but it won't make it so. Pro, for the sake of the audience and myself I say we deserve for you to justify your claims!

As for the length of my rebuttal, I just timed my self reading it aloud. . . It was four minutes and ten seconds. I doubt that would be lengthy for this venue, especially after reading the other debates posted here.

So as to not miss my turn to debate I'll restate in summary my points from my first rebuttal and elaborate on my last one.

a – A good doctor is one who does his job well, not necessarily one who spends a tremendous length of time at his workplace.

b – Adrenaline benefits the autonomic nervous system, tiredness adversely effects the prefrontal and temporal lobes. Indicating that no amount of adrenaline in the body can compensate for the slowed brain activity.

c – Increasing bed side manner at the expense of the doctor ability to function well in his duties is not a wise trade.

d - Lastly, a doctor is paid a salaried wage unless he runs a private practice. From that you can safely say a hospital pays less per hour the longer a doctor works, and a doctor time is worth more (in money) the less hours he works. Therefore, from a financial perspective, limiting a doctor's working hours only benefits the doctor, and prevents the hospital from exploiting the doctor's salaried position.

I look forward to your reply Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
DylanAsdale

Pro

a - And spending a large amount of time at a hospital doing a job creates experience, and the more experience one has at something, the better they become at it.

b - This argument does not make sense. Adrenaline can excrete at any time, and can make up for tiredness, no matter what you claim.

c - Increasing bed side manner is not the only benefit of longer work hours, which I have obviously already stated.

d - Not all physicians become so for the money. Some physicians would prefer to work, as I have already stated. Some physicians enjoy working, and do a good job at it. I don't think that compromising a physician's education and excitement about working is a fair trade for a less-experienced surgeon who gets to sleep.

Essentially, (more experience + less sleep > less experience + more sleep).
PorcelainPluto

Con

PorcelainPluto forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PorcelainPluto 8 years ago
PorcelainPluto
Uhg, classy Dylan voting for yourself? Do you also post a picture of your face on super model bodies and write your self love letters signed from hot girls at school? This was my first debate, and my last one on the forum. I thought it would be fun and then I realized how many high schoolers, dogmatic partisans, and plain jerks there are here. I was hoping for an intellectual debate (you know the kind where people are interested in discovering the truth instead of fabricating it)
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I want to argue semantics. Something like, "If a physician works for 48 hours straight, s/he will get tired and make mistakes that could lead to death!" If this is still up in a few hours, I'll take it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 6 years ago
wpfairbanks
DylanAsdalePorcelainPlutoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
DylanAsdalePorcelainPlutoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
DylanAsdalePorcelainPlutoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 8 years ago
DylanAsdale
DylanAsdalePorcelainPlutoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70