Posted by alexandra_k on August 5, 2021, at 17:27:04
In reply to Re: ... jump, posted by alexandra_k on August 5, 2021, at 17:19:02
there once was a pathologist in nz who refused to do his job and say that various slides were consistent with cervical cancer.
instead, he wanted to see what would happen if he did nothing.
so he just collected more samples more slides observing the progression of cancer.
and he observed that some of them would right themselves. that is to say the body managed to fight the cancer. but in however many others the cancer progressed and they died.
there was a court trial.
he was found to be guilty. what he did was found, by the court, to be wrong. unacceptable. he was supposed to diagnose cancer, according to international standards. he was not supposed to withhold information from the patients so he could see what would happen because he had his own ideaas...
_______
internationally this is a case whereby teh courts of nz upheld international standards on what is and what is not acceptable lpractice for medicine.
______
domestically... what the people involved in medicine and science say...
what they teach the kiddies...is that the courts are out of touch with how science, in nz, works.
the courts are out of touch with how science MUST work in nz.what they teach the kiddies is that it was really really really really unlucky and unfortunate that this particular pathologist got into trouble.
that is because there are many many other scientists and medical doctors in nz who are doing things just like that, or more extreme, every single day.
that's how science and medicine must work in nz. that's how it is. that's how it always must be.
scienc wouldn't advance or progress if we weren't doing that.
and of course they will point out international examples, if they can find them, usually examples of things conducted during times of war. hold these up as the tiems when sicence, allegedly, made the greatest progress. torturing detainees etc.
_______
that's the line they teach teh kiddies in sciecne.
they do not teach that the courts set precedent of NZ is required to follow international standards on best practice where his little 'experiment' would not have been ethics board approved by any other nation for the obvious reason that the experiment or observational study was highly unethical.
they don't think it was unethical. they think that those things are required in ordre for science to progress.
they don't understand that science in nz does not progress precisely because they refuse to comply iwth internaitonal best practice.
they prevent science from develoing in nz.
by refusing to allow people to engage in science.
if you don't want to do a longitudinal study of how x intervention (or the lack of x intervention) will harm people (such that you get to inflict harm on half the people) then forget having it funded.
they cannot allow things to be any other way.
thtey need to go.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1116125
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20200305/msgs/1116265.html