JickyJuly said:
I think she's an embarrassment, and I don't think anyone who works on television should be allowed to call himself a doctor.
Your qualification should enable you to be
called Dr.
Had I continued down my research path and published a few more academic papers I would have eventually submitted my thesis and have received my Doctorate (if my work was up to the required level of quality and contribution of course). I would have
earned that title.
If I subsequently appeared on a TV show (or hosted one) it would not suddenly render all my work irrelevant, or remove said title. If he's
actually a doctor - then the right is earned. A doctor of "what" would be my question though
I would never go on TV holding a PhD in Computer Science and then ask questions related to medicine, psychology or other matters - as that's not my speciality field!
However, when someone relies upon the qualification - you have an expectation that the person subsequently
behaves in a way you expect someone with said qualification. Medical doctors have an ethical code to uphold for starters...
JickyJuly said:
Her attempts to justify her actions to people who want to mock her and her obvious need for this attention to continue to her own detriment make me sad. She's so young that I suspect the big picture is nowhere on her radar. I kind of want to scoop her up, take her home, bake her some cookies and choke "dr. drew" to death with his own neck tie.
Honestly, I've not really listened to any of her interviews - so dangerous to speak!
My view was that she's someone who chose to partake in a particular career path for a particular reason - and that's her choice. End of my interest - other than she's super cute
The fact society then find out and are shocked, appalled, supportive, enthusiastic whatever, and wish to then dissect her motivation/reasoning is just how we are. Speaking without watching her interviews is dangerous, but I guess there's a form of "why?" questioning from everyone. But is this focussed upon a form of morbid obsession with individuals in the face of a wider picture? To me that should be - Education - at what cost?
I should watch the interview, but I imagine she positively chose it and enjoys it despite it being a "means to an end". But that doesn't mean a discussion focussing around the plight of thousands who desire (and are
capable) of education at the highest level having to do things to achieve it that many of us would say "no" to (and even they may say no to if given the choice). What message does this send out? If she's happy to do this, has it made other girls struggling to make ends meet consider doing something they don't want to do - but are so driven to achieve their dreams they suddenly consider it?
I should watch the interviews, I really should... but oh look, butterflies and sunshine! *heads outside*