Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#91

Post by evgen »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #90
puffoflogic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moderator is too busy fighting the culture war on the side of the flaggers (in this case), why would he help you?

HN offers very little in the way of recourse. What do we do when the site doesn't adhere to its' own guidelines?

I think that the standard reply to such a complaint is that you are free to leave at any time. No one owes you a platform upon which to speak and if you are consistently downvoted into oblivion then perhaps that is a signal that it is time to go...

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#92

Post by upsidesinclude »

evgen wrote: post #91
upsidesinclude wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN offers very little in the way of recourse. What do we do when the site doesn't adhere to its' own guidelines?

I think that the standard reply to such a complaint is that you are free to leave at any time. No one owes you a platform upon which to speak and if you are consistently downvoted into oblivion then perhaps that is a signal that it is time to go...

No, that's the blind and uninquisitive reply.

My comments very often receive mixed reviews but that is what healthy debate engenders. It is what the guidelines for HN explicitly intend to produce.

You want a site to provide you with a furtherance of your own thought. Yet another place to tell you that you're right, by golly, and smart too!

Your echochamber can never be large enough until the bounds exceed the space available for any critical thought at all.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#93

Post by evgen »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #92
evgen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the standard reply to such a complaint is that you are free to leave at any time. No one owes you a platform upon which to speak and if you are consistently downvoted into oblivion then perhaps that is a signal that it is time to go...

No, that's the blind and uninquisitive reply. My comments very often receive mixed reviews but that is what healthy debate engenders. It is what the guidelines for HN explicitly intend to produce. You want a site to provide you with a furtherance of your own thought. Yet another place to tell you that you're right, by golly, and smart too! Your echochamber can never be large enough until the bounds exceed the space a…

It takes a huge amount of arrogance for a newcomer to waltz in and declare that a site's norms and standards are merely reflective surfaces used to build an imagined echo chamber. I frequently disagree with these same norms and bump up against them as well, I just don't whine about it. Few things reveal the weaknesses of your arguments more than complaining that the tools to enforce these norms are somehow unfair or indicative of anything other than the fact that (apparently) most people have better things to do than engage with arguments which they feel are beneath them.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#94

Post by upsidesinclude »

evgen wrote: post #93
upsidesinclude wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's the blind and uninquisitive reply. My comments very often receive mixed reviews but that is what healthy debate engenders. It is what the guidelines for HN explicitly intend to produce. You want a site to provide you with a furtherance of your own thought. Yet another place to tell you that you're right, by golly, and smart too! Your echochamber can never be large enough until the bounds exceed the space a…

It takes a huge amount of arrogance for a newcomer to waltz in and declare that a site's norms and standards are merely reflective surfaces used to build an imagined echo chamber. I frequently disagree with these same norms and bump up against them as well, I just don't whine about it. Few things reveal the weaknesses of your arguments more than complaining that the tools to enforce these norms are somehow unfair or…

I've made fairly concise statements about recourse in the moderation on HN.

I've posted a concise question regarding the guidelines set by the venue.

You have waxxed on... arrogance, newcomer, waltz-in, whine, weakness, beneath them...

So, sure. I'm the problem

Edit: Oh God, you're from FB security...

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#95

Post by nradov »

anigbrowl wrote: post #86
nradov wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confused about medical ethics. A physician's fiduciary responsibility has nothing to do with unorthodox medical opinions. Fiduciary issues generally only come up when there is a financial conflict of interest, like if the doctor is taking advantage of the patient to make extra money by performing unnecessary procedures.

A fiduciary is a person in a position of trust. It's commonly used in a financial context but is by no means limited to that. I think it's you who is confused about medical ethics; Take a look at the AMA's guidance and note that it's used in many other contexts besides the one you mention. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics...

No, you are confused and I had it right the first time. Read the AMA document again. Physicians have an ethical responsibility to give patients accurate medical information, but that is not among their fiduciary obligations. Medical ethics rules stem from multiple sources and only a few of them are fiduciary in nature.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#96

Post by hayst4ck »

ralusek wrote: post #89
ralusek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep telling me that I'm failing to understand what motivations someone might have for controlling information. I understand perfectly well what the motivations might be, and I understand how it could actually be beneficial given that the information that they're controlling for is unbiased and correct. The issue is that there is no unbiased or correct in the middle of an emerging pandemic with a novel pathogen a…

A few more came to mind: - Two senior members of the FDA resign as a result of the politically pressured decision to recommend boosters, despite a lack of a safety profile and subsequent risk analyses having been laid out - Monoclonal antibodies were downplayed as a treatment for COVID during the Alpha and Delta waves, a time during which they were incredibly effective, and a surplus supply was available in every sta…

I have to ask, do you think you are being convincing? I've heard most of these talking points, but don't find them as compelling as you do. That means it's probably not some information that you have that I don't, so more bullet points probably aren't going to be convincing.

What is your mental model for why we seem to come to different conclusions from the same information?

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#97

Post by anigbrowl »

nradov wrote: post #95
anigbrowl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fiduciary is a person in a position of trust. It's commonly used in a financial context but is by no means limited to that. I think it's you who is confused about medical ethics; Take a look at the AMA's guidance and note that it's used in many other contexts besides the one you mention. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics...

No, you are confused and I had it right the first time. Read the AMA document again. Physicians have an ethical responsibility to give patients accurate medical information, but that is not among their fiduciary obligations. Medical ethics rules stem from multiple sources and only a few of them are fiduciary in nature.

You're just flailing because you don't like the evidence. Here's more, going into the many different forms that a physician's fiduciary obligations can take, including the dispensation of medical advice where a conflict of interest might arise between the physician's financial wellbeing and the health of the patient. This is from a book published in 1983, so it's not a new concept.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216764/

Here's some examples of how that can manifest:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183...

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#98

Post by nradov »

anigbrowl wrote: post #97
nradov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are confused and I had it right the first time. Read the AMA document again. Physicians have an ethical responsibility to give patients accurate medical information, but that is not among their fiduciary obligations. Medical ethics rules stem from multiple sources and only a few of them are fiduciary in nature.

You're just flailing because you don't like the evidence. Here's more, going into the many different forms that a physician's fiduciary obligations can take, including the dispensation of medical advice where a conflict of interest might arise between the physician's financial wellbeing and the health of the patient. This is from a book published in 1983, so it's not a new concept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/…

You're flailing because your statements are irrelevant and off topic. Physicians have a fiduciary duty to their patients. No one disputes that. However, contrary to what jhanschoo stated above, that fiduciary duty has nothing to do with stating "an unorthodox opinion regarding their patient's health“ unless the physician is gaining an unusual financial benefit from it (like making fake medicine and then selling it directly to patients). Go back and read the thread again so that you can understand the issue under discussion.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#99

Post by anigbrowl »

nradov wrote: post #98
anigbrowl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just flailing because you don't like the evidence. Here's more, going into the many different forms that a physician's fiduciary obligations can take, including the dispensation of medical advice where a conflict of interest might arise between the physician's financial wellbeing and the health of the patient. This is from a book published in 1983, so it's not a new concept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/…

You're flailing because your statements are irrelevant and off topic. Physicians have a fiduciary duty to their patients. No one disputes that. However, contrary to what jhanschoo stated above, that fiduciary duty has nothing to do with stating "an unorthodox opinion regarding their patient's health“ unless the physician is gaining an unusual financial benefit from it (like making fake medicine and then selling it di…

unless the physician is gaining an unusual financial benefit from it (like making fake medicine and then selling it directly to patients)

So precisely what the legislation is trying to protect patients from. Apparenyl you don't have anything besides 'no u' arguments. Bye.

Post reply on HN