> the tone of that article was definitely odd Yeah, I interpret it as self-serving propaganda and mendacity. I will assume the worst at every turn—for example

> the tone of that article was definitely odd Yeah, I interpret it as self-serving propaganda and mendacity. I will assume the worst at every turn—for example, that the supportive quotes are cherry-picked; that they insert pictures of smiling doctors to try to make people think those opinions are normal; that they made certain that the dissenting doctor's opinion was described as "a minority opinion", and was immediately followed with "Dr. Mathis did acknowledge, however, that the ACGME change in requirements was here to stay"; that the "members of the AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section" they apparently polled were cherry-picked; that they asked several poll questions and chose to report the one with the most favorable result (and that "Do you think it's a good idea?" scored worse than "Do you think it's better than 16-hour shifts?"); that they reported it as "a majority" because it sounds higher than "52%"; et cetera. This is unfair, but I expect it's the best starting point for understanding. > Similarly, it takes as a given that after a 16-hour shift, you only get 8 hours off Yeah, it appears to be easier to work for an additional 8 hours and get the whole next day off, than to persuade those who choose the shifts to let you come in a couple of hours later on the day following a 16-hour shift.