View Single Post
Old 10th July 2018, 12:17 AM   #166
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,323
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post

I love the line, "I guess you don't want to debate the issues" on page 5.
You keep using the same kinds of arguments from authority so; no, I don't think you really want to debate the issues. What you want to do is say, "I think these professionals are right," without backing it up with anything solid.
You should look that definition up, you don't have it right.
Sure I do: an argument from authority is when you argue that a person is right merely because they are an expert:

Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.
In this case, where is the preponderance of evidence that "remote diagnosis" is a valid and reliable diagnostic tool? You haven't presented that and neither have your experts. What they say is stuff like, "I know dangerousness when I see it."

You just got done complaining about accepting expert opinions.
As I argued before and you conveniently snipped, it's a matter of deciding which authority to trust. You are essentially arguing that we should not trust the APA on this matter. However, you have not presented any evidence other than the opinions of a handful of professionals and your own.

It's exactly like arguing that we shouldn't trust the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and all the other organizations simply because a handful of climate scientists disagree with them. That's not a "poor analogy," just a very inconvenient one for your position.
Wow, that some classic Dunning Kruger rambling there. The ANA influences residency programs?
No, that's just bad reading comprehension on your part. Nurses don't have residency programs, for starters. You will notice that I specifically said "physicians." But even for nurses, the certifying organizations (ANCC and the AANP for FNPs) have influence over the training programs. The nursing organizations have influence over the certifying organizations; heck, the ANCC is a part of the ANA.
Nope, sorry, that is not how works.
Of course it is. How could it be otherwise?
Residency programs are based in practice settings. Nobody looks up the ANA position statements to guide a residency program. That's bizarre.
A psychiatry residency is based on APA standards of practice, programs don't just make stuff up. The residency has to teach what the board tests on. The APA works with the accrediting organization, certifying Board and the residency programs in order to develop what is in the curriculum. The APA has a hand in every step of the process to becoming a practicing psychiatrist.
Professional groups are the thing we join after we are practicing providers, though they typically have reduced rates for students who want to join.
Well, they are also that. You don't have to join any professional organization after you graduate. But these organizations are also one of the primary shapers of the curriculums.
You do know professional health care providers are independent practitioners, right? That came up earlier when some people in the thread had the mistaken idea there were a set of legal guidelines for every procedure an advanced practice nurse might do.
Well, that is true as far as it goes; there is not literally a legal guideline for every procedure. However, the standard of care is enshrined, one way or another, in every State law. An illustrative example from the Texas Medical Board rules:

(1) Practice Inconsistent with Public Health and Welfare. Failure to practice in an acceptable professional manner consistent with public health and welfare within the meaning of the Act includes, but is not limited to:
(A) failure to treat a patient according to the generally accepted standard of care;
The specialty organizations promulgate the "generally accepted standard of care."

From the instructions jurors are given in malpractice cases in Washington:
A (fill in type of health care provider) owes to the patient a duty to comply with the standard of care for one of the profession or class to which he or she belongs.

A (type of health care provider) has a duty to exercise the degree of skill, care, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent (health care provider) in the State of Washington acting in the same or similar circumstances at the time of the care or treatment in question.
Failure to exercise such skill, care, and learning constitutes a breach of the standard of care and is negligence.
You simply can't get around it: the practice of medicine is shaped by the standards of care that are developed by the professional/specialty organizations.
Malpractice doesn't happen because you have a professional opinion on a public figure. Someone might try to sue you for slander or libel if you didn't have a basis, but Trump would lose if he tried that recourse.
That isn't a foregone conclusion. But no, I would not say that publicly stating a opinion about someone you've never met is legally malpractice. Not being malpractice does not mean that it's a good idea, though.
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