Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Taking a Courageous Stand … Where Nobody Can See Me
I have a few loveable little quirks that drive my staff crazy. For example, I get millions of forms to sign for all sorts of reasons every day. There’s always a stack on my desk, and a list on my computer. So I dutifully sign them all, like I’m supposed to. Unless one of them, under the signature line, says “Provider.” On paper, I scratch out “Provider” and write in “Physician.”
I don’t know how to do that on the computer, so my staff has to print it out, make the change, have me sign it, scan it back in, then return it electronically. All because I refuse to sign my name as a “Provider.” They occasionally complain about what they call unnecessary work. I don’t listen. I’m not signing it until they fix it. And today I just learned that I’m not being as unreasonable as my staff thinks I am. From last week’s American Journal of Medicine:
…here is the irony of “providers.” The term was first introduced by the Nazis in the 1930s when trying to debase German physicians of Jewish descent. There were 1253 pediatricians in Hitler’s Reich, and almost half were considered Jewish by the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. When the Nazis ascended to power in 1933, the German Society of Pediatrics asked these physicians to resign. By 1938 the government simply revoked their licenses, so that instead of being called “Arzt” (ie, “doctors”) they were demoted to “Krankenbehandler,” that is, mere “practitioners” or “health care providers.” The term “Krankenbehandler” ultimately was applied to all German physicians of Jewish descent. Not only did they have to put it on their prescription pads, letterheads, and practice signs, but they also had to display it with a Star of David and the specification that they could only treat Jews. Soon after, mass deportations began. Words have societal implications.
Of course, Nazi propaganda went beyond medicine. The Third Reich was a master at mobilizing the German language for political gains. To better equivocate and confuse the public, it created an entire Lingua Tertii Imperii, wherein deportation was turned into “evacuation,” torture into “intensified interrogation,” and executions into “special treatment.” Orwell discussed these issues in “Politics and the English Language” and then further expanded them into the “Newspeak” of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Needless to say, doublespeak is alive and well; consider “collateral damage,” “friendly fire,” and “downsizing.”Leftists, like the National Socialists of Nazi Germany, the leaders of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, and modern American socialists don’t like reality, and hope to build Heaven on Earth. You may say they’re a dreamer, but they’re not the only one. And dreamers excel in molding language to fit their fantasies. So leftists are really good at this sort of thing — think of “social justice” (which is treating some groups differently than others based on their race), “anti-racism” (which is treating some people differently than others based on their race), and other terms the left uses to describe the way they wish things were, rather than the way things are.
Conservatives, who tend to be more aware of the existence of reality, struggle to understand (much less to actually use) such terminology. Most conservatives think of words as ways to describe reality, not ways to create a new reality.
So I don’t intend to sign my name as a “Provider.” If that earns me a Star 0f David next to my name on my Medicare forms like in the example above, I’ll be proud.
Is this a defiant clash of ideological violence? No, not really. It matters to me, but it probably doesn’t matter to most other people. It’s just one of many little things that bother me.
We need to stand up to the little things. We should start there.
But if we don’t stand up to the little things, then big things will follow. As surely as night follows day.
This is probably insufficient to impress Susan with her recent post, asking conservatives to stop just going along with leftism. But right now, that’s all I got. I should protest more loudly. I really should. After all, leftists are always talking about how Americans have a right to free speech, and protesting is a form of Constitutionally protected speech. After all, Black Lives Matter burned down cities across the country with no repercussions, and the Jan. 6 protestors walked through the Capitol with no repercussions — after all, they’re speaking truth to power. That’s what we do here, right?
Why not? It’s time for me to stand up for myself! Speak truth to power, just like Hillary Clinton says! Yeah! After all, the Constitution protects my right to free speech! Even if it is in the form of protest! Especially then, according to Democrats! That’s why Democrats are protecting the protestors from BLM and Jan 6! Thanks to the sacrifices of these Democrats, I’m now free to speak my mind! So I should speak out for what I believe in! Right?
Eh — maybe not. Maybe I’ll stick to scratching out words I don’t like on medical forms. I’m such a rebel…
Signed,
Published in General
Dr. Bastiat
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.There are 35 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
You are exactly right. Words matter and the left work tirelessly to redefine words. You re-define the word, then you can better control the thought or concept.
Too many conservatives, pundits and politicians alike, have been hoodwinked over this. Once you adopt their words, you are stuck with their definitions and they have won the debate with no further evidence or rationales needed.
The mayor of Realville always said “words mean things.” Keep up the fight, doc. Every little bit counts.
Kranken B. Handler sounds like a Groucho character.
See also, replacing “equality” with “equity.” It was a nice rhetorical sleight-of-hand to swap out the former for the latter.
Not at all. Dr. B. You do a great deal, especially through your passion and writing, to speak against Leftism. And I’m very touched by your stand on “Provider”; I assume you’ve explained your reason to your staff. If you haven’t, I sure would. They would likely be less annoyed about the extra work!
I’ve learned of your frustration, perplexity and anger toward the Left through your posts; I share them with you. I think our taking these stands makes a great difference. Thank you for being my partner-in-arms!
“Welcome to my world.”
Definitely a lovable quirk. I love it.
Never give an inch.
Never give up – never surrender!
Jason Nesmith – Galaxy Quest
FIFY
Strange, that’s just what I’ve been thinking for some time. Thanks for organizing it into words!
This reflects an issue involving a county clerk in Kentucky named Kim Davis a few years ago. Davis caused an uproar and went to jail for refusing to sign marriage licenses for same sex marriages.
In the place for her signature the form said “I approve…” Davis refused to sign and wanted the form amended to say “The state approves…” She was willing to sign if the form was changed, but the gay rights lobby opposed the change. They wanted her to submit and sign that SHE APPROVED.
In the end the state changed the form.
Taking a courageous stand – Kim Davis set a standard.
A signature is an endorsement, even if it drives your staff crazy.
As others have put it far more elegantly, they’ve gone from “the love that dare not speak” to “the love that won’t shut up;” from “leave us alone” to “BAKE ME A CAKE!”
“Live not by lies.”
So you object to using the word “practitioner” on a form because, 80-odd years ago in another country, the word “Krankenbehandler,” apparently translated “practitioner,” was used for Jewish doctors? Do I have this straight?
I don’t know why the word “practitioner” is used on medical forms, but I would guess that it is to allow a variety of appropriate personnel — doctors, nurses, and so on — to sign the form.
This objection doesn’t make much sense to me, Doc, but I don’t feel very strongly about it. You can have your pet peeves if you want. I sure have mine.
I really don’t like referring to anyone, especially myself, as “Esq.” It just seems too pretentious, to me. I suspect that it traces to the old Roman Equestrian Order, which I believe was the highest rank of citizen below the Senatorial class. In the early days of the Republic, the equestrians (or equites) were expected to provide a cavalryman for the Roman army.
I also hate it when people use infer when they mean imply, which was legitimized by the adoption of the incorrect use of infer in certain dictionaries some decades ago. Barbarians!
Doc, I know that this is not your quote — it’s from the American Journal of Medicine article that you quoted.
This quote struck me as wrong. Orwell’s 1984 wasn’t a critique of the Nazis. It was a critique of the Communists.
So I looked at Orwell’s Politics and the English Language (here). It’s pretty short, and it doesn’t mention the Nazis at all, uses the word “fascist” only in apparently Communist quotes that it criticizes.
Worse yet, on the specific point claimed by the American Journal of Medicine author — that Orwell’s essay criticized the Nazis misuse of the German language — the essay actually says:
So, the author of the American Journal of Medicine article seems to be misusing Orwell quite badly. I wonder why? The article definitely gives the impression that genuine physicians don’t like being lumped together with lesser medical “providers.” In some instances, I think that this is a good thing, but perhaps not on a mere form.
On a more humorous note, the article does remind me of Dr. Maturin’s objection, in the Master and Commander series, to being called a “surgeon.” As I understand it, British naval surgeons were usually butchers, at best, and I mean that literally — at least a butcher would know something about anatomy.
I did not go to Provider School either.
I believe in Civil War times in the U. S., the term “surgeon” implied that the person was not a fully qualified medical doctor. In addition to battlefield surgeons, barbers also were quite often surgeons.
Not exactly.
I’ve objected to that term for my entire career. I just found that article a few days ago, and thought it interesting that it was used to belittle the skills of doctors (in the Nazi case, Jewish doctors) in the past as well. I think nurse practitioners etc are swell. But they’re not the same as doctors. Just like paralegals may know a lot about law, but they’re really not the same thing as lawyers. So calling both lawyers and paralegals “Legal providers” would be an intentionally misleading term.
I dislike terms that are intentionally misleading.
And this one in particular bothers me, because I know the difference.
So I decline to participate in the charade.
Let me lend support for the conclusions of DOCTOR Bastiat. I have a PA. He’s excellent. But when I went to see him recently the MA referred to him at least 6 times in sixty seconds as “Doctor”. I must have said, He’s a PA, right? Or just looked wrong at her. But the last time she said “doctor” with emphasis.
This counts as fraud at best and impersonating a medical doctor at worst. Practitioner is a catch-all term that allows and fosters this break-down in distinctions between lesser and greater qualifications.
I have a similar and long-term battle with “Gender.” For over two decades, I’ve been crossing it out on forms and replacing it with “Sex” and then responding, “Female.” Now I’m asked whether I’m “cis-female.” I decline to respond. Yes, degrading the culture begins with degrading and misappropriating language. Words must always mean what they say. (I also fix typos and spelling errors.)
BTW, I didn’t read the inserted paragraph as saying that Orwell spoke of the Nazis, but that he expanded on and continued the argument against misuse of language. The transition is clumsy, perhaps, with “these issues” being unclear, but it doesn’t say what AP suggests. Knowing Orwell, and assuming that most readers would as well, the meaning is clear that both are talking about artfully redefining words.
For forms that ask for my sexual identity, I put “Manly Stud.” For personal pronouns, it’s “Lord Stad, Master of the Universe” . . .
What, now they want to know your parts?
What are these forms for, that they want to know your parts? Except for a doctor’s office, who would ever want to know that?
Dr Bastiat is living a (the) dream. Physicians long ago were stripped of the status of physicians. We are mostly flunkies working for CMS and health insurers (controlled by the fraudulent Millman Robert’s standards). For example I recently prescribed Cinacalcet for primary hyperparathyroidism in an 83 year old patient who both is a very poor surgical candidate and refuses surgery. I received a denial of coverage from the insurance company. This is the only oral medical treatment for this condition. When my office enquired of the insurer why the coverage was denied, we were informed that the patient would have to fail surgery before coverage would be allowed. That is, I was barred from treating the patient according to my medical judgment and the patient wishes. (I have been a practicing Endocrinologist for 40 years).
Zeke Emanuel’s wildest dream.
That’s incredible.
Not unusual. Not even surprising anymore.
But incredible.
It is important to add that just as the Third Reich leaders created a lexicon by which to mind massage their society’s members, our Fourth Reich leaders have re-defined actual scientific terms to be as our nation’s pharmaceutical companies need them to be.
The items designed, produced and distributed by Moderna, Pfizer, J &J and Astra Zenica have been labeled as “vaccines” but to accomplish this, the somewhat recent and always real definition of “vaccine” had to be bastardized into a new item.
From a “Natural News” article on this sleight of hand (sleight of mind?) the twisting of the term “vaccine” is delineated:
Prior to Sept 1 2021 a vaccine was defined as:
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
A “vaccination” before this date was further defined as:
“The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
After September 1, however, a vaccine became merely a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
Why did they want these genetic therapies to be labeled as vaccines?
Very simple reason – if an item is a medicine, whether pill form, IV form, or injectable, anyone injured & any family losing a family member can sue the damn pants off the pharmaceutical company that created the product.
But any product defined as a vaccine is then a product that no amount of resulting deaths and injuries can bring about a single lawsuit against Big Pharma, due to the way the 1986 Vax Act stripped traditional tort law away from the average citizens.
These things definitely were not traditional vaccines, as when Time unfolds & the Truth comes out, we all are going to find out that these products were known from the get go, to not have any ability to produce any immunity to the disease for which they were supposed to offer immunity, for any meaningful amount of time, nor did these things prevent transmission of the disease.
Also, Moderna had this mRNA technology available for years, but could never sell it to any government or institution for any disease. But at the time when they were offering these mRNA items for sale, Moderna itself called these things “genetic therapies.”
Now if any member of FB, twitter, or other social media calls the jabs “genetic therapies, the remark is stricken from their timeline.
Why? Because above everything else, these “vaxxes” must not be exposed as something other than vaccines, or they become products that, as of Jan 14st 2022, would cause massive liability lawsuits filed against their companies for 22,193 deaths, 13,000 Bell’s Palsy, 3,692 miscarriages, 11,260 heart attacks, 27,674 myocarditis or pericarditis, thrombocytopenia events 5,259, asthmatic events 38,000, 11,924 shingles cases and more.
But… “equity.”
Exactly. And I think that’s the reason the form is written that way.
I like it! It’s time to revive the much-coveted Leviathan Anklebiter awards and give one to Dr. Bastiat. Well done!
Sometimes the dictionary is wrong.