Source BMJ - Rates of Swearing in Surgeons [Download] BMJ Link.
Today, McJobbygate has hit the local news. The Inverness Courier wrote a piece. Another was written. Witchdoctor's elderly granny is covering the breaking news story as we speak. I wanted to quote a section here
"As a result, the career of a talented individual who has spent years in training looks to be in tatters because of one silly, indiscreet and immature episode. NHS Highland stresses it has no concerns about his work and Professor Black, who is based in London, has no reason ever to have any personal contact with him. Raigmore Hospital and its patients have lost the services of a skilled doctor who may have decided to stay in Inverness after his training and build his future here. So locally no-one wins"
Language is a strange issue. The problem with language is the fact that different people from different backgrounds use language to express themselves. The use of expletives has been seen by the phenomena in Anglo Saxon perfectionism Dr Frank Rant. Rumour has it that Dr Rant does not get laid enough and that is the reason for his online free speech. Dr Rant though has become a legend in his time. Ironically, what I say is considered far more controversial than Dr Rant. If Lizzie the Fish had her way, she would get him and the rest of his McJobby Supporters suspended from their jobs. In fact, she would have everyone who swears suspended. Since every doctor swears online and off, Paice would leave the NHS with no workforce.
So here are the figures
"In the Western, English-speaking world, people from every race, class and level of education swear. In America, 72 percent of men and 58 percent of women swear in public. The same is true for 74 percent of 18 to 34 year olds and 48 percent of people who are over age 55 [ref]. Numerous language researchers report that men swear more than women, but studies that focus on women's use of language theorize that women's swearing is simply more context specific"
This is an interesting article on Surgeons Swearing - Fact or Myth.
Other data recorded comprised the specialty of the surgeon, the length of the operation, and the type of foul language used. The swear words were classified into three groups, with points assigned to each swear word to reflect its strength: heaven and hell (such as "God," "bloody hell," "bugger"), 1 point; bodily products (such as "sh*t," "p*ss"), 2 points; so called four letter words (such as "f***," "c***," "b***ard") 3 points.
The 100 operations from five surgical specialties totalled 80 hours 30 minutes' operating time. Ninety four swearing points were scored, with an average of one point scored every 51.4 minutes. Different surgical specialties had different swearing rates (figure). Rates for a typical eight hour operating day were 16.5 swearing points from the orthopaedic surgeons and 10.6, 10, and 3.1 from the general surgeons, gynaecologists, and urologists respectively. In contrast, during eight hours of ear, nose, and throat surgery, little more than one "bugger!" is likely (figure).
Surgeons do swear when operating but the rate differs by specialty. Orthopaedic surgeons on average register one swear point every 29 minutes, almost twice as often as surgeons overall. Although orthopaedic surgeons triumph in the field of foul language, general surgeons are by no means without sin, being only slightly less foul mouthed than their orthopaedic colleagues. Gynaecologists also seem anything but angelic but may have been penalised by a small sample size of operating time. The 95% confidence interval shows that gynaecologists may actually use more foul language than general surgeons. Meanwhile the mild mannered ear, nose, and throat surgeons contribute little, with nearly five hours of operating time on average without any obscenity.The full and interesting article can be read here.
Does Prof Paice and Needham feel that all these surgeons should be suspended?
So given Paice's admission today, I wanted to study the use of expletives. This is an interesting article on fleeting expletives. The article's title was "Fleeting Expletives Ok on network TV".
"The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has overturned a Federal Communications Commission indecency ruling, sending the case back down to the FCC for further deliberation. At issue were an f-bomb dropped by pop diva Cher during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards along with a couple of choice expletives voiced by reality show star Nicole Ritchie during the 2003 show, both of which were televised live on Fox"
"In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the FCC's policy against fleeting expletives is "arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy." It cited the FCC's own history of distinguishing between material that "dwells" on indecent content versus material that was "fleeting and isolated."
"The Court disagreed with the Commission's reasoning that allowing fleeting curse words would result in a 24-hour barrage of expletives, saying that the Commission was "divorced from reality." It is important to note that the Court's decision is limited to fleeting curse words and should not be interpreted as a blanket license to allow swearing on TV"
We align this logic with the Department of Health's guidance on suspensions. There is no guidance on offensive material or what is deemed offensive. My argument is that Elizabeth Paice is divorced from reality. Moreover, the General Medical Council has no guidance on the use of expletives online.
In art, expletives are accepted and not used as a sword of democles :-
Then there is the use of profanity in art eg Transpotting.
The use was further described in the Guardian
"It helped that the obscenities used by Oliver and by Sugar's apprentices are, though tediously repetitive, socially embarrassing rather than offensive if repeated. The curious paradox of "fuck patois" is that, though technically maximising offensive language, it actually minimises its impact. Words which once had lethal and shocking definitions are drained of all meaning and therefore, logically, can cause no harm to young ears"How Does Swearing work is an interesting examination of the social use of expletives
Beyond angry or upset words said in the heat of the moment, swearing does a lot of work in social interactions. In the past, researchers have theorized that men swear to create a masculine identity and women swear to be more like men. More recent studies, however, theorize that women swear in part because they are emulating women they admire [ref].
In addition, the use of particular expletives can:
- Establish a group identity
- Establish membership in a group and maintain the group's boundaries
- Express solidarity with other people
- Express trust and intimacy (mostly when women swear in the presence of other women)
- Add humor, emphasis or "shock value"
- Attempt to camouflage a person's fear or insecurity
So, more interesting material can be found on Wikipaedia.
0 comments:
Post a Comment