Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Actually, Polish is very hard on automatic translators, oh how very hard indeed (as it goes both ways, so translating into Polish too, I have had a share of such problems, but I'm now speaking English good enough to avoid it actually). Also, yes, both those articles are mostly right-sided, but there is a reason for that; left-sided media (which are, like, 90% majority here) would never report on such a thing.

Maybe they never report on it because it doesn't happen.

[LordSlowpoke]

Actually, Polish is very hard on automatic translators, oh how very hard indeed (as it goes both ways, so translating into Polish too, I have had a share of such problems, but I'm now speaking English good enough to avoid it actually). Also, yes, both those articles are mostly right-sided, but there is a reason for that; left-sided media (which are, like, 90% majority here) would never report on such a thing.

Maybe they never report on it because it doesn't happen.

broadcast bias confirmed for not existing

also, poland confirmed for leftist

i learn fucktonnes of super legit things from this thread

[martinuzz]

Poland confirmed great place to go if you like live jazz music. At least it was a few years ago when I visited Krakow and Auschwitz.

[SalmonGod]

On the topic of trusting experts, especially in the medical field -- my trust is muddled by the motives behind the application of expertise.  It's true that a doctor is likely to know more than me about how to care for my health.  But it's also true that doctors operate within the context of a business establishment, whose primary purpose is not to care for my health, but to make money.  In America, this is a very relevant concern.

[GavJ]

On the topic of trusting experts, especially in the medical field -- my trust is muddled by the motives behind the application of expertise.  It's true that a doctor is likely to know more than me about how to care for my health.  But it's also true that doctors operate within the context of a business establishment, whose primary purpose is not to care for my health, but to make money.  In America, this is a very relevant concern.

True! For example, non-medically-indicated circumcision is anti-Hippocratic amputation that is in no way in the best interest of a child's health. (The European Council of has recently called for 47 member nations to consider banning it entirely: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20057&lang=en)

Yet rather than applying their expertise to reach the obvious conclusion of refusing such procedures, OBGYNs (pretty much ONLY in the U.S.) routinely encourage parents to sign off on them.

There is no apparent justification for this except that they run $700 each for the procedure AND they can and do then sell foreskins they get to skin grafting and research companies for thousands more dollars: http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2011/08/10/interest-in-circumcision-more-than-foreskin-deep Making this an especially obvious example of business-couched experts not being inherently trustworthy due to bias of monetary gain.

It leads you to wonder how much of the rest of the time, in less obvious and blatant circumstances, the same sort of motivations are at play.

[penguinofhonor]

That sounds like the counterpart to the "abortion industry" argument. I feel like the obvious answer for why male circumcision is still around is sufficient.

[GavJ]

I feel like the obvious answer for why male circumcision is still around is sufficient.

What might that obvious answer (I assume you mean other than profit) be...?

[Descan]

Father is circumcised so the kid should be is the "obvious answer."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The obvious answer seems more to be pushy doctors following inertia and a combination of fake and real religious traditions on the subject.

[penguinofhonor]

What might that obvious answer (I assume you mean other than profit) be...?

Tradition. Cultural momentum. It's always been done and a lot of people believe it's beneficial. This influences medicine, which is bad, but still happens.

[GavJ]

The most common oath taken by doctors includes:
"I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient."
"The health of my patient will be my first consideration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva

Thus

Tradition.

Cultural momentum.

religious traditions

Are irrelevant, because these are not in their job description and additionally, most doctors even explicitly denounce such things as barriers or obstacles to promotion of patient health.

Father is circumcised so the kid should be is the "obvious answer."

If my father lost his leg in Vietnam, should I also be expected to amputate my leg out of family tradition?
In addition to also not being a valid professional concern by oath like the other things, the logic of this in particular is especially silly.

It's always been done and a lot of people believe it's beneficial.

Presumably doctors are literate to have gotten through medical school, and have the ability and education to read, you know, studies, not ancient traditional beliefs as the basis of their medical understanding.
This doesn't stand up for a second as a convincing explanation of why doctors actually perform these procedures. They know full well it isn't beneficial.




Which still leaves profit as pretty much the only slightly believable motive to me for why it actually happens.

But regardless, for purposes of this thread, even if some of the other things listed do contribute partially, they are still ALSO good reasons to not treat the advice of professionals as sacrosanct by default. If doctors are basing medical decisions on "cultural tradition" etc., that's just yet another great reason why people shouldn't be just doing whatever they say in spite of their own research.

[Frumple]

The most common oath taken by doctors[...]

[...] is unfortunately irrelevant, because it's not legally binding. Or binding at all, really. Or even required, last I checked. Sadly.

[GavJ]

The original argument was that doctors' advice can be and in fact often is wrong about what is best for you or your child's health.
Thus, you are under no obligation and should not be shamed for intentionally not heeding their advice, if you have reason to believe they are either less informed or motivated by things other than you or your child's health.

The oath, even if not legally binding, still stands as a clear and professionally- and socially-agreed-upon description of what doctors SHOULD be doing, which we can look to as a reference standard.
The fact that people just now listed pretty much anything and everything except the things embodied by that oath as doctors' motivation in this example strongly reinforces the original argument.

[i2amroy]

Thus, you are under no obligation and should not be shamed for intentionally not heeding their advice, if you have reason to believe they are either less informed or motivated by things other than you or your child's health.

I agree with this right here, assuming that it isn't for a stupid reason like "prayer will heal my child". While you might not be obligated to follow a doctor's advice, it's important to keep in mind when they have more knowledge than you. While things like your arthritis example might stand, I find that in many cases my doctor certainly knows more than I know, and it's important to know where the line is.

[palsch]

I think the example of circumcision is far from as clear cut as it is being presented. While I don't support it in any way, I don't think it is an obvious case of financial gain overruling medical ethics.

The 2004 BMA ethic guidance noted that;

There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral, or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proved except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices. What those limits currently are is discussed below, together with the legal and ethical considerations for doctors asked to perform non-therapeutic circumcision.

The BMA ethics committees are hardly financial interest groups. I'd say their guidance, if old there, is accurate to the perspective on circumcision by most medical practitioners.

The question of medical benefits and harms crops up in the literature every few years, most famously the AIDS prevention stories. WebMD still lists more medical benefits than risks to the procedure. Whether these benefits hold up - or if they can justify non-voluntary circumcision of babies - is a debate I think is valid and important, but not one that is so clear cut that a blanket ban on the procedure for Hippocratic reasons is obvious and inherent. Especially when you take into account the cultural and social factors, not least preventing non-expert circumcisions by refusing and having it done by untrained practitioners.



I'd also note that most people are really bad at researching things. I'm often shocked by people with university educations failing to do a cursory search beyond that one amusing article their friend linked on Facebook to check the validity of a story or article. Actually digging into primary evidence is way beyond most people, at least in the time investment they are willing/able to make and their ability to assess such information. Tertiary resources that most people rely on are easily biased or selective about the points they present, swaying people to their own viewpoints (so often themselves financially or ideologically motivated).

The most obvious examples here would be climate change (even with reports like the IPCC making a point of summarising and presenting evidence on a politician's level) and anti-vaccination bullshit. But even for not obviously politicised medical treatments you get a lot of nonsense out there that people can absurdly lock onto.

And all too often the idea that something is financially profitable therefore evil is the key argument to a lot of that bullshit. Take the industry of alternative cancer cures. They argue that proven (if unpleasant and often desperate) treatments like chemo- and radio-therapy are pure evil designed to keep people sick for the profit of medical practitioners. They know the secret to treating cancer, which usually involves some pseudo-science and a few thousand dollars invested in their own miracle cure based on pre-germ theory medical science. Or the alt-med push for vitamins to cure everything, if you only ignore what the drug companies say about medical treatment. Just buy these vitamin pills (pumped out in the downtime on GlaxoSmithKline and relabelled) and ignore the doctors. They are obviously just financially motivated...