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.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
No, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas
@9FJXGHX8mos8MO
Only treatments with scientific backing should be funded. Doctors should use research and testing information to make informedd3cisions
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@9FZ3ZJH7mos7MO
No, but doctors should inform patients it contradicts consensus, but there should be consequences if it's proven harmful (combo of two)
@9FWVPBS7mos7MO
Disciplinary processes should remain in the hands of professional bodies - and yes, of course patients should know that the advice is inconsistent with current science.
@9FV9PNRDemocracyNZ7mos7MO
covid advice was misinformation, and bad science based on cooperate greed and gain. doctors lost license by saying not to get the shot which is 100% understandable
@9FTJZG37mos7MO
Doctors should be trained more holistically and refer patients to other practitioners if they don’t know what is going on
@9DYWX488mos8MO
The issue is so called contemporary scientific consensus is not science. Science is about asking questions & experimenting CONTINUOSLY. CONSENSUS is pseudo-science, so NO
@9DVZLJ38mos8MO
This should be determined on a case-by-case basis
Need to consider individual circumstances case bu case
@9DK5XRY9mos9MO
No but doctors should be held responsible if there are any adverse impacts on their patients who took the advice.
@9DGGGXJ9mos9MO
No, as so long as the advice is found to be reasonable and is in the patients best interest, not the Governments.
@9DF8H589mos9MO
Yes, they are supposed to protect lives not put them at risk. This pandemic many have aided in causing a lot of harm and division.
@99LT9RM1yr1Y
yes but depends on the practice and what information is being given
It depends on how that advice is given and if that advice would cause more harm
@9F8CR2R8mos8MO
depends if it is to the benifit of the patient and if the doctor or patient started the conversation
It should be assessed on a case by case basis
@9DZSY7NNew Zealand First8mos8MO
Govt’s shouldn’t force doctors to push drugs in their behalf. Labour are evil!
@9DYVFRFOpportunities8mos8MO
Another American question in an NZ quiz.
Yes, but only if by doing so they put the patient at proven risk of a comparatively harmful outcome
@9D85JWT9mos9MO
Should only penalize if it is clearly is not the best interest of the patient.
Either way the doctor shall disclose that this is not contemporary scientific consensus.
More importantly, if a alternative is disused the doctor shall give evidence why this method is effective.
No, because there is too much pressure from social movements and this will be used to persecute genuine medical and scientific thought.
Doctors should be required to state the scientific consensus but also allow patients to try unconventional or naturopathic methods and ideas as long as they will not cause the patient harm.
@9CXCN95Opportunities10mos10MO
The question is too simplistic. Scientific consensus can be deeply flawed and unconventional ideas are sometimes proved by history to be correct- eg the evidence that bacteria caused disease and infection control was resisted for years by the medical consensus of the time. Evidence can be misleading. However doctors who are supporting dangerous 'beliefs' should be censured.
@9CV34WQOpportunities10mos10MO
Yes, but with adequate investigation.
@9CLLQCBOpportunities10mos10MO
Medical boards already have a process for dealing these issues
@9CHGZYDDemocracyNZ11mos11MO
No, it is imperative that doctors uphold the Hippocratic oath and practice individualised health care
@9B8PBMD1yr1Y
Yes, unless there is an exception for health reasons. Verified by 2 different GP practices.
@99ZWHQY1yr1Y
No, but the advice should still be based on Evidence Based Practice.
@9DCCQHCOpportunities9mos9MO
If it violates best practice.
Yes as long as it did not prevent practitioners putting forward evidence based questions or considering reasonable alternatives eg. dessicated thyroid vs synthetic T4, where there is strong evidence to support discussion and putting options forward; in regards to spreading false or misinformation such as those sadly shared about COVID-19 this is a definite yes!
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
