View Single Post
Old 9th July 2018, 09:11 PM   #161
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,297
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't need to prove anything to you.
I guess that's true if you aren't interested in actually debating the issue but, instead, dictating from a position of authority.
Multiple persons with volumes more education, experience and credentials publicly spoke up about Trump's blatantly obvious diagnosis and spelled out their reasoning for challenging the two rules in question.
That's an argument from authority. And that's fine; they are well-qualified experts in the field. They are not the only authorities in the field, however. Plenty of equally qualified experts have spoken out against them. There is also a higher authority in play: the APA, which writes the standards and the DSM. That process occurs through consulting the science and debate amongst committees to reach consensus.

It's much like the climate change debate: You have the scientific organizations who set the standards, do the research, debate positions etc who put out position statements in agreement that CC is happening and it's caused by humans. Then you have a few scientists who disagree with them. When you weigh the two, which side to choose seems obvious.
You have nothing on them. You are siding with the organizations that have the position statements. Where's your evidence? Where's your expertise?
Take the layperson's view and let's look at an area where neither of us can claim expertise: climate change. The major organizations have reached a consensus and there are individual scientists who disagree. Who do we as laypeople trust? I'd bet that we both side with the organizations. So why shouldn't we trust the opinion of the APA over individual practitioners who disagree with them?
Did you contact those organizations and ask them to respond to the professional challenge?
I didn't need to; they spontaneously responded with several commentaries. Why shouldn't I trust those commentaries?
Do you have evidence that said in-person exam is necessary? Studies? Research?
I trust that the APA does. Should I not trust them? I'd like to see the research that shows that, in some cases, the in-person exam is inferior to public record information, if you have it. Some individual expert's opinion is not evidence.
No, all you have is a professional organization that has no legal authority to dictate practice.
They do, indirectly. How do State Boards determine malpractice, for instance? By determining whether or not the physician followed the standard of care -legally defined as, the customary practices of the average physician. Where does the average physician learn these customary practices? In residency, the first place they actually practice medicine. Ultimately, the specialty organizations have the biggest influence in the residency programs.
In fact when it was suggested one might challenge the professionals' public statements by complaining to the licensing board, it was noted that would be a violation of the First Amendment.
IANAL, but I think this is probably true. Rights, in any case, are a red herring. The issue here is whether or not professionals should make such speech, not whether or not they legally can.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top