Observations On The Unethical Tweet Of The Month

I wasn’t exaggerating when I noted in the morning ethics horrors round-up today that March, 2022 was an ethics catastrophe speeding up, if anything, in the month’s waning hours.

The above revolting tweet was authored by Kychelle Del Rosario, a fourth-year medical student at Wake Forest School of Medicine. In answer to a tweet by someone complaining about “transphobia,” the future doctor—you know, “First, Do No Harm”?—appeared to admit—with pride!—that she deliberately caused pain and discomfort to a patient because he had mocked her (obnoxious) “preferred pronoun” pin. Then, when her despicable tweet was seen, circulated and justly condemned on social media, she courageously deleted the evidence in an attempted cover-up.

Ethics Observations:

1. I know, I know: the tweet isn’t unethical, the tweeter is.

2. In addition to other problems, a medical student who would tweet an admission like that to the world isn’t smart enough to be a doctor.

3. A medical student saying that she deliberately harmed a patient—it doesn’t matter how much or little—because she didn’t like his crack about gender differentiations (in truth it doesn’t matter what her reason was), is like a law student saying she deliberately allowed an indigent client he was representing in a law school clinic be convicted because didn’t like his politics. It is grounds for expulsion, and later, for the profession to refuse to grant a license to practice based on bad character and lack of trustworthiness.

4. Wake Forest said all the right things:

“[T]he actions described in this student’s social media post do not in any way reflect the quality of care and compassion that Wake Forest University School of Medicine strives to provide to our patients each and every day. We stand behind our values that include trust, excellence and a space where all belong, and we actively reinforce those values with learners and providers. While federal law does not permit us to share specific information, we are taking the proper measures to address this matter with the student, school leadership is involved.”

I’ll believe it when I see it. That weaselly reference to “a space where all belong” is progressive, woke, “diversity and inclusion” pandering, and completely irrelevant to the matter at hand: the school is either training a doctor who engaged in tort1ous, even criminal conduct violating core medical ethics, or falsely boasted she did so because she thinks such conduct is justifiable and even admirable if a patient doesn’t subscribe to her beliefs. Either way, Del Rosario is unfit to be a professional. Maybe a serious course of ethics training following significant punishment could salvage her, but I wouldn’t trust a Dr. Del Rosario after that tweet, and neither should anyone else.

5. Fox News and other conservative media covering the story make a big point of the student’s record of hard-left activism. She can have whatever political beliefs and passions she chooses; I don’t care, and, again, neither should anyone else—provided she is an ethical professional, meaning that she knows what a doctor’s obligations are, and that her duty is to treat patients’ medical issues regardless of what the think, do or say.

6. The coverage by the progressive-biased mainstream media, in contrast…wait, there hasn’t been any coverage by the mainstream media. I wonder why?

7. However, I have seen a stunning amount of evidence in the past 5 years that progressive biases frequently destroy professional ethics, even of some of our most respected professionals. This week, for example, has been full of defiant statements from gay teachers asserting that nothing, not even a law, can stop them from discussing their sex lives with their students. Professions cannot and must not  discriminate against members based on their political or social beliefs, but if their adherence to those beliefs makes them untrustworthy, what is a profession to do? More to the point, what is the public, who must trust professionals by definition, to do?

If the medical profession pronounces someone qualified to be a doctor who, like Kychelle Del Rosario, appears to believe that it is virtuous to use her position of trust to advance a political agenda by any means necessary,  how can the public trust the medical profession?

8. All the evidence points to ruthless commitment to the progressive agenda rapidly destroying the trustworthiness of all the professions: medicine, law, scholarship, journalism, education, public service and, yes, ethics.

Reversing this societally fatal trend is crucial, and I have no idea where to begin, or how.


Pointer: Jimmy James

15 thoughts on “Observations On The Unethical Tweet Of The Month

  1. “a space where all belong” includes bigots, Nazis, good for nothing, no-account no good-niks, ne’er do wells, and even hooligans, bums and crooks.

    Is that the values they are “actively reinforc[ing] … with learners and providers.”


  2. Meh. Maybe.
    If she in fact intentionally missed the patient’s vein in order to stick him twice, sure. My suspicion, though, is that she didn’t actually do so, much as she was tempted.
    Yesterday, a student (I presume: 20-ish, on a university campus) took an abrupt turn without as much as glancing up from his phone and walked directly into the path of my moving car. I told someone I was tempted to run him over to improve the gene pool, but decided I couldn’t afford the front-end alignment. Needless to say, this sequence of thoughts didn’t really pass through my brain in the quarter of a second I had to slam on the brakes.
    Same phenomenon, I think.

    • I’m with you, Curmie, on this one. I think she was expressing some schadenfreude that, karma, the first stick didn’t work.

      • Schadenfreude means that you take pleasure when something bad happens to another because of the other’s bad conduct – Karmic payback, so to speak. Because she caused the pain, the pain was not a result of the injured parties behavior. Further, Karma does not work that way. Because she was in control of the first stick unseen Karmic forces played no role in missing the vein.

        In short, she took pleasure in the patient’s pain even if she missed the vein by accident. That is the issue. I doubt if Curmie would have taken pleasure had he actually hit the student. In fact, I bet Curmie would be traumatized had he caused serious injury.

        I think we can all relate to Curmie’s proposition, but these are fleeting feelings based on the immediacy of the moment and we don’t publicize them on social media.

    • Curmie,

      Just to clarify, because I am not sure I took your point the way others did: you don’t necessarily believe that she missed the vein? This was just the explication of a fantasy?

      Frankly, that is a very real possibility that people should be far more inclined to accept. For all we know, this was simply a joke, she did not draw blood from anyone that day, or she did, the person made the objectionable remark, and she just rolled her eyes and did her job.

      I almost never believe anything anybody ever tells me unless they can tell me how they know what they know. Too often, it is because somebody told them something. But, sometimes, it is what they saw.

      If what she says actually happened, she is not someone who should be trusted to treat patients. If it was a joke, it was a joke that could greatly affect her professional reputation. On that point, she may be teachable.

      If it was a joke, I understand it. I have, at times, in response to a question about what kind of law I practice, I explain that I am a litigator, “specializing in frivolous litigation.” Now, of course, such a statement is unethical because a lawyer should not represent oneself as a specialist unless they can identify the certifying body and I have never been so certified. Nonetheless, such statements could adversely affect my professional reputation–if anyone believed that I was not joking. That is why I make this joke in private conversations, not on a social media platform.


      • I’m inclined to agree. I’d be surprised to find out that she even had a patient mention the pronoun button. More likely, she started wearing the button hoping to provoke this kind of reaction, and got tired of waiting for it to happen, so she made up this story to get the attention she set out to get with the button in the first place.

        No matter what actually happened, though, publishing tweet is a sure sign that she has poor judgment and a social-media-addled brain.

  3. People should be able to have their political beliefs, but hardcore progressives are out to hurt anyone they don’t like, like she did. I wasn’t surprised about this. Disheartened? Sure. Surprised? No. These are the same people who supported the summer of riots and who are part of the progressive base who are supporting Will Smith’s violent outburst. They actively want to hurt others.

    • Exactly. I’ve had close relatives and colleagues barely cancel their glee at the thought of unvaccinated Trump supporters (which are the same populations in their minds) dying of Covid and thus hurting the Republican’s chances in the next election. It’s very much an “us vs them” world view that many people on the left hold. Once the patient identified himself as being “un-woke”, he became in her eyes less than human and a target for abuse (and being, most likely, a white male, he was already on thin ice).

      The widespread hatred that those on the left have for those on the right seems to me to be a one-way street — I simply don’t see the same level of over-the-top hate going the other way.

      • Maybe it’s time it did. If only one side is shooting, the other side will soon be dead. I loathe the left and I don’t know why the bikers aren’t showing up to beat the tobacoo juice out of Antifa more often.

  4. Jack wrote:

    However, I have seen a stunning amount of evidence in the past 5 years that progressive biases frequently destroy professional ethics, even of some of our most respected professionals.

    Yes, and even worse, the professions involved only make mouth noises and type grave-sounding responses to the ethics violations as long as they are in service the the proper ideological viewpoint. It is this acceptance of these violations that are encouraging others to commit them with relative impunity, and there is no punishment forthcoming from the professional organizations purporting to monitor these professions.

    Yet the Leftist organizations keep subscribing to the view that merely holding the “wrong” views is violence, while allowing actual violence (no matter how minor, deliberately hurting someone physically is violence by any reasonable definition) to occur with only a minor reproof, if that.

    These organizations are actually providing aid and comfort to the violators by finding reasons not to enforce their own standards. It’s frightening. What next, a “woke” heart surgeon “slips” and causes the death of a political conservative patient? That can’t be far behind, can it?

  5. When Shaw said, “All professions are conspiracies against the laity,” I don’t think he had politics in mind, yet here we are.

  6. Science is a wonderful thing. The rise of empiricism as a practiced discipline by professionals from it’s rudimentary roots in ancient philosophy has allowed mankind the ability to learn beyond his superstitious ancestor’s imaginations. And combined with that human imagination – the knowledge gained by science has empowered us to manipulate, to engineer, incredible solutions to direct problems as well as reduce mere inconveniences and discomforts to non-entities.

    Scientists and engineers by merely studying a problem, determining predictable laws that govern the interactions within problems and using that knowledge to develop a solution opened up the power of man’s intellect.

    But therein lies another problem – we think we can engineer – we can manipulate our way to solve everything. We think we’ve studied the factors going into a problem so thoroughly that we know the right solution. I’m an architect, and we have a saying – “I problem thoroughly defined is more that half-solved”. By “defined”, we mean, researched, studied, determined our constraints and our opportunities. Very rapidly, in the design process – the more we spend in studying the problem the more our options are narrowed down to one or two appropriate solutions. Soon, the solution presents itself.

    We, as society have gotten so good at defining and researching the data surrounding our societal problems that we think we can narrow down to a singular solution that will solve them. We’ve elevated “experts” to demi-gods of policy. But there’s hubris here – society’s problems aren’t the same as “how do I get from this side of the river to that side? Oh a suspension bridge is best here” or “how do I maximize summer shading but winter sunlight on this backyard patio? Oh, angled louvers on a pergola are perfect!”. Society’s problems are, first of all, never able to be so thoroughly studied that we think we can confidently define the problem, and second of all, are only half data driven anyway.

    I can study an area and see that 50% of the people live below the poverty line. But that doesn’t tell me much about the real problem as much as it says “there’s a problem here”. A one dimensional policy maker might say “let’s just give them more money”. Further study may indicate causes of the poverty, and the two dimensional thinker might say “fix those causes”. And yet, even further study might indicate that there are deeper root causes behind *those* causes, for which the 2D thinkers solutions would only exacerbate.

    Our hubris in thinking we can Engineer a better society flows from these two points – we’ll never be able to full study a problem to its deepest level AND at it’s deepest level, society’s problems are almost always a discrepancy between idealized value-sets and actually practiced values – something raw data cannot define, but can only hint at symptoms.

    Modern progressives have increasingly latched onto a religion run by a priesthood of “experts” – people who are so deep in the data, you will be thoroughly impressed. But they fail to recognize that at the end of the day, it is values that should drive policy, not data. As their religion becomes more doctrinaire – anyone who questions the people who know the data become heretics. Never mind the value-set of the experts. Never mind their values may not do anything to solve the underlying problems the data describes.

    As with all engineers, problems should be eliminated. Increasingly, in the religion of the progressives, societies problems also include people who don’t buy into the progressive religion.

    In this, Progressives share the exact same evil fervency that the extremists of the French revolution had – and also the same fervency that the Communists and Nazis had. If you don’t agree, you are a problem and you should be eliminated. Our little doctor friend above hasn’t advocated the murder of those she disagrees with – yet. But she has certainly shown she enjoys hurting those she disagrees with.

    And, in that sentiment she’s taken the first step on the road to join history’s worst monsters.

    As an aside- I’d love to ask progressives – “Let’s pretend that the Nazis didn’t actively pursue the murder of minorities – is there anything then, on the Nazis program of society, that you actually would disagree with?”

    I won’t ask them “Is there anything on the Communists program of society, that you actually would disagree with?” because I’m afraid I already know the answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.