In 2022 lawmakers in the U.S. state of California passed legislation which empowered the state medical board to discipline doctors in the state who “disseminate misinformation or disinformation” that contradicts the “contemporary scientific consensus” or is “contrary to the standard of care.” Proponents of the law argue that doctors should be punished for spreading misinformation and that there is clear consensus on certain issues such as that apples contain sugar, measles is caused by a virus, and Down syndrome is caused by a chromosomal abnormality. Opponents argue that the law limits freedom of speech and scientific “consensus” often changes within mere months.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No
@9MD9TJ9 11mos11MO
The authorities that determine what qualifies as scientific consensus are unreliable. Both the NHS and NICE have policies and guidance set based on poor evidence and ocassionally outright speculation.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient
@9G3G6WC1yr1Y
If the doctor is conducting these unorthodox untested methods on patients then by definition it is impossible to prove that harm will be done until after he tests it on that patient
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, and the doctors should also lose their medical license
@9MD9TJ9 11mos11MO
The authorities that determine what qualifies as scientific consensus are unreliable. Both the NHS and NICE have policies and guidance set based on poor evidence and ocassionally outright speculation.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas
@9P4DB8Y10mos10MO
People who are scared for their health are likely to make spur of the moment decisions that may not truly be in their best interests. This is something that charlatans can abuse.
@9LXL38Y11mos11MO
A method that is built upon rigorous, evidence-based research and peer-reviewed studies which aim to ensure safety and efficacy is always preferable. This process mitigates the risks of harm that can arise from unproven treatments. While scientific consensus can indeed evolve, this evolution is generally slow and methodical, driven by accumulating evidence rather than abrupt shifts.
Allowing patients to pursue treatments that have not been thoroughly vetted increases the risk of exposure to ineffective or dangerous interventions. It can also lead to a fragmentation of care standards, where tre… Read more
@9LW8HYX11mos11MO
It is unethical to try untested and novel ideas on patients where good evidence based practice exists which is tried and tested. In the case where the patient is in part of a trial or no such evidence exists this may be different but ultimately it is unethical for a doctor to prescribe a treatment that where the benefits and risks are largely unknown, and would probably not fulfil the criteria for the Bolam test and would potentially be medically negligent.
@9G3G6WC1yr1Y
That would be illogical because no doctors should be performing such unconventional ideas and experiments on real patients as risk of injury and side effects is unknown and there is great risk of causing more harm.
@9ZPK6TL4mos4MO
Doctors should be required to disclose the contradiction and if the advice is taken and goes wrong both sides should be held accountable for the decision. With more accountability on the doctor's end, (so yes to a degree.)
@9RT5H6HConservative8mos8MO
Only if the consensus has been in place for a significant enough period of time to be sufficiently proven - i.e., years - and not where the information is questionable and subjective (e.g., the COVID pandemic).
if you are going into the medical industry, you should fully belive that what you give out to patients works, if you have any doubts then you shouldn’t be in that industry
@9QD8ZFR9mos9MO
Yes, only if the advice can be proven harmful or if it has not been explicitly stated to the patient that this advice is contrary to scientific consensus.
@9Q83PJ89mos9MO
No, but the doctor must be required to disclose that it contradicts contemporary consensus, and be liable if it contributes to further harm
advice differing from scientific consensus should be passed through peer review as to remove ridiculous ideas.
@9PT49RH9mos9MO
We need to sort out contemporary science consensus and make sure it's correct. Dr Fauci said he made up a lot of COVID restrictions
@9PRC3G69mos9MO
This depends on the effectiveness of the advice, if that results in an injury or death of the patient they should be suspended.
@9NJKCZCCount Binface10mos10MO
Yes, and the doctors should also lose their medical license if the misinformation is especially harmful, such as anti-vax or promoting harmful alternative medicine practices
@9FQSM5Q1yr1Y
No, as there are always individuals who benefit from atypical treatments but if any religious or political interest is found to be involved in the recommendation, immediately revoke the medical licence and impost jail time
@9FLZYCS2yrs2Y
if they are part of the NHS then yes
@9F58ZK42yrs2Y
Doctors should be punished when they cause deliberate or foreseeable harm. But unconventional treatments are sometimes necessary.
@9DW4LKH2yrs2Y
If its a public doctor, yes. Private doctor, no.
@9P7M63P10mos10MO
If it is deemed to be actually false and with malicious intent, whether that's due to intentional malice or anti-intellectual ideology like the anti-vaxxers.
There should not be penalties for research deemed to be erroneous by mistake as this would discourage scientific thought.
@9P74FMX10mos10MO
Yes, if the treatment can be proven as harmful to the patient, or is the only option offered to the patient
@9P6B5NR10mos10MO
Yes, and doctors should explain the benefits of healthy living rather than being dependant on drugs.
@9P4KZ5R10mos10MO
If a doctor explains scientific advice and then gives there personal opinion on other remedy treatments then its up to the patient. The more serious illness the same option would be open but more leaning into scientific medicine.
@9NTTJLS10mos10MO
No, unless the advice given harms the patient. The doctor should also be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus and if they do not then they should be penalised
@9NQRVWK10mos10MO
Yes, but only on topics where scientific consensus is well established and these issues should be kept under review.
@9NM5XQY10mos10MO
Yes, but only if the doctor cannot provide a reasonable, evidence-based justification why medical advice contrary to the current consensus was given.
@9NCK9TTIndependent10mos10MO
Yes, but only if there is risk of death/permanent physical or mental damage to the patient in deviating from the consensus
@9MZP8PV10mos10MO
Only when the advice was proven to harm the patient, and the doctors should be required to disclose that their advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
Deleted10mos10MO
No, unless the advice was proven to harm the patient. Scientific consequence can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas, but doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@9MV4FB510mos10MO
No, Doctor's took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm; political and financial influences should be removed from scientific and medical spheres where it is being done to drive forward a negative or unproven theory or situation
@9MQN4TL10mos10MO
No, Governments have shown a lack of understand of what a scientific concensus is and shouldn't be trusted with that decision.
Yes and no, on the one hand, scientific consensus does change quickly and there is a lot of consensuses that still relies on a lot of assumptions without much scientific backing, but on the other hand, the doctor should at the very least provide evidence as to why they feel they need to stray away from consensus, each case should be peer-reviewed and suspensions should be carried out in the situation peer review shows any reckless endangerment of health, or if there is a case to be made that the doctor in question is performing a grift for their benefit.
@9LQKWWG11mos11MO
No, only when the advice is proven to harm the patient, and doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus and this should be recorded within medical records
@9LPL9DN11mos11MO
This depends, if the doctor offers a different way than just paying and taking pills, then no, if the doctor says that being obese is okay/healthy or encouraged, they should lose their position, and their medical license
@9CLYVLZ 1yr1Y
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient and doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
This depends on the case in question. Anti vaccine yes, but things like homeopathic remedies no (unless advised in place of life saving treatment)
@9HRMVMY1yr1Y
Yes, however patients should be offered all the information available in order to choose their own course of treatment.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Should doctors who disagree with prevalent scientific consensus have a platform to express their views, and why?
@9H8LW441yr1Y
No, because it adds confusion to situations - and can lead to panic.
@9GZD6SJConservative1yr1Y
Depends, generally doctors should stick to contemporary scientific consensus but if there ideas works better or just as well then it should be taken into consideration.
@9GLZWCQ1yr1Y
No, medical boards should be fined and scrutinised for NOT keeping upto date with actual cutting edge science. The GMC does not own "contemporary scientific consensus"; they are decades behind.
@9GJDDQ61yr1Y
Yes, but only if the advice was proven to harm the patient OR if the doctor did not disclose that this advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@9GDVMLK1yr1Y
No, so long as the advice is issued with appropriate information for the patient to have informed consent.
@9G5MCLJ1yr1Y
Yes, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient, and then the doctors should also lose their licenses. The doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus but scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas.
@9PP8NJV9mos9MO
They should be able to advise but say if their recommendation lies outside current thinking. If they have caused harm they should lose licence. Perhaps more could be done to fund research to expedite new discoveries so that valid substantiated studies can move more quickly.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@9BGL4Q92yrs2Y
Yes, if the information being provided has been proven to be false. And if it has not been proven to be false, the patient should be informed that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus.
information given by the doctors must be proven properly.
@99ZXKGXAnimal Welfare2yrs2Y
well personally in my opinion according to my statistic therefore i suggest idk
@9D2Q5C82yrs2Y
No, but all procedures will need to go through peer review before it’s considered legal
@99M4YNF2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if they do this repeatedly and if that medical advice is potentially dangerous.
@99LJRCM2yrs2Y
It should be considered in a case by case basis.
@99L7SPV2yrs2Y
send them to solitary confiment
@9CZPTF82yrs2Y
I think that’s fine as long as the patients who have the requisite mental capacity are given advice on both scientific stance and alternative options they can make their own informed decision
@9CP2FCQ2yrs2Y
Neutral, depends on circumstances but also science can change and sub unconventional or generally different approaches should not be discarded or disapproved/sneered at, either way things should be done appropriately and safeguarded, and more should be done to protect and prevent people/things, as much as possible, but even treatments etc are not always one size fits all and not all data is rigid or right.
@9BPYVF32yrs2Y
No, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus and show evidence to patients to demonstrate why their stance is what it is
@9BNG3452yrs2Y
Yes, but allow a probation period for doctors within their first year after qualification.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@9DYT8S32yrs2Y
The board should only penalise medical practitioners when the advice has been proven to harm the patient and also if such medical practitioners do not disclose that the advice contradicts with modern scientific understanding.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
