ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags racial issues , sexual issues

Reply
Old 29th April 2019, 11:11 AM   #41
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,717
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Another question: If the investigation finds that his work is acceptable, does he get reinstated? Or do they find some other reason to maintain his suspension? Or is the investigation guaranteed to find some fatal flaw in his work?

On the other hand: If they already know that he published patient information, why are they wasting time on an investigation at all? Shouldn't he already be disqualified, by that one confirmed act alone?
A couple of points. I think where you draw the line in cases of doctors (or other people) expressing unsavory beliefs on internet platforms is a legitimate question, and I'd hate to see it reach the point where one had go closely adhere to political correctness to be a physician but I'm pretty sure this particular doctor is on the wrong side of the line. Also, releasing patient records is beyond the pale. In the US, I'm pretty sure he'd be looking at serious prison time for that. I don't know if that's true in Australia, but I can't imagine that it's acceptable anywhere.
CORed is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 11:57 AM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It matters because doctors are not robots. You don't have the extreme beliefs about women and have it not manifest in your attitude toward patients.

The extent the males on this forum are going to to dismiss this as some unrelated FB posts or posts on a forum is interesting.
I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I'm trying to understand the extent of the problem in a dispassionate way. This seems to be a passionate subject for you, to the extent that you're lashing out with unfounded and sexist attacks on other members. You probably aren't the right person to answer my questions right now.

If a doctor's attitude causes him to do bad work, then you can disqualify him on the grounds of the bad work, without ever even having to reference his attitude. In this case, though, there doesn't seem to be any problem with his work, just his attitude. I'm not sure it should be disqualifying in a doctor, to good work with a bad attitude.

I can see employers not wanting to employ him, because of the attitude. And I can see patients not wanting him as their doctor, because of the attitude. But I can't see a certifying organization suspending certification because of the attitude. Does the Australian Medical License Exam (or whatever they call it) even measure bedside manner? Or does it just measure knowledge and skill, when licensing a doctor?
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:00 PM   #43
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I suggest you read the posts that you are criticizing, not the OP article.
Well, I have to agree with Thermal (a rare occurrence for me) that your post did not fully reflect the views/opinions I've offered in this thread. But it's not worth arguing about.
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:00 PM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
A couple of points. I think where you draw the line in cases of doctors (or other people) expressing unsavory beliefs on internet platforms is a legitimate question, and I'd hate to see it reach the point where one had go closely adhere to political correctness to be a physician but I'm pretty sure this particular doctor is on the wrong side of the line. Also, releasing patient records is beyond the pale. In the US, I'm pretty sure he'd be looking at serious prison time for that. I don't know if that's true in Australia, but I can't imagine that it's acceptable anywhere.
I'd revoke his license and begin criminal proceedings over the patient records, full stop. But that's not what the article says is the main issue.

I'd be fine if his attitude made him unemployable to healthcare providers. I'd be fine if his attitude made him unsuccessful in private practice. What I'm not necessarily fine with is the idea that the state can or should withdraw his license, because of his attitude.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:10 PM   #45
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It matters because doctors are not robots. You don't have the extreme beliefs about women and have it not manifest in your attitude toward patients.

The extent the males on this forum are going to to dismiss this as some unrelated FB posts or posts on a forum is interesting.
I fully agree with you on this. It is absurd to suggest that one's feelings about (a subset of one's patients) would not very, very likely affect one's professional treatment of them, and this can manifest in ways that would hard to prove in a large medical practice. It can even happen even if one is "trying" to ignore one's hatred/biases in one's professional life. Hating women will likely color one's professional interactoins with them even if one is attempting to act professionally.

O, BTW- I am male. Even more, I am an old-fart of a male.
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:15 PM   #46
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,295
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Oh hey, I love that show! I hadn't run into someone else that watched it before.

I believe they're finally filming the final season now.

Louisa and Martin fight too much though. It can be super boring, and gives me claustrophobia. But everything else is gold.
Their relationship does not seem to be terribly healthy. She seems aware of his issues but unwilling to address them in any straightforward way.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The thing is that Doc Martin is a good doctor who really wants to help people when they need it, and has done so sometimes even at the risk of his own safety, but he hates stupidity, and he sees a lot of people around him doing a lot of stupid stuff. Doc Martin would never even think, let alone say, the stuff this real-life doc does.
Agreed completely, but that stiff bedside manner does sometimes come off as "not caring" to some of his patients. And while "not caring" is not the best vibe to get from your doctor, it is far better than "vicious hate".
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:18 PM   #47
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,610
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Well, I have to agree with Thermal (a rare occurrence for me) that your post did not fully reflect the views/opinions I've offered in this thread. But it's not worth arguing about.
?? You quote me, respond in both the third and second person. Is this directed to Skeptic Ginger? Plus we were earlier in agreement on main points twice here. Feelings hurt either way.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:20 PM   #48
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,295
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'd revoke his license and begin criminal proceedings over the patient records, full stop. But that's not what the article says is the main issue.

I'd be fine if his attitude made him unemployable to healthcare providers. I'd be fine if his attitude made him unsuccessful in private practice. What I'm not necessarily fine with is the idea that the state can or should withdraw his license, because of his attitude.
What about his actions?

I mean, publicly announcing such stuff in a purposefully non-anonymous way seems to be an act that is highly unprofessional. Not just an attitude.

I do agree with your hesitation on this type of matter, though. My first thought upon reading the OP was: Is Cain a doctor in Australia?

I can just see the hearing: No, really, look it is sarcasm. Sure, many people don't get it, but if you look at all 10,000 of my posts in context the trend is pretty clear . . .
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:27 PM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I fully agree with you on this. It is absurd to suggest that one's feelings about (a subset of one's patients) would not very, very likely affect one's professional treatment of them, and this can manifest in ways that would hard to prove in a large medical practice.
Sure. But I don't think the right way to handle this is to simply say, "I don't like your attitude, it must be a problem, you're suspended."

Have there been any complaints about the quality of his work?

Have any of his patients complained about the way he's treated them?

To me, those are reasons to suspend his license pending an investigation.

Him exhibiting a bad attitude online is, to me, a reason to check about whether there have been any complaints.

---

Ignoring, of course, the fact that he published patient information. In a sane world, that would render the debate about his attitude entirely moot, since he'd already be terminated with extreme prejudice for that act alone. But apparently in Australia, it's just a footnote to the real crime - his attitude.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:27 PM   #50
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
I see 3 layers:

1. Beliefs that are so abhorrent that they would question the suitability of the believer to share the planet as a fellow human being, let alone their suitability for a given career. Example: an advocate for mass genocide. Advocating all Tutsi be exterminated disqualifies one's right to treat even non-Tutsi. Pro-rape fits this category as well.

2. Other beliefs might simply restrict the suitability of the believer to work in a particular practice/partnership/setting. Seriously disliking children would disqualify them from joining/staying in a family practice; not as disqualifying in a geriatric one.

3. Beliefs that don't disqualify the individual from a given career or a given practice, but that might convince certain individual patients to not chose them as their own doctor. Okay as I see it, although sometimes due to insurance or the health care delivery organization it may be difficult for the patient to have other options. But it does happen all the time and not always based on legitimate reasons (e.g. patients who avoid doctors due to the patients' racial bigotry).
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:34 PM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
What about his actions?

I mean, publicly announcing such stuff in a purposefully non-anonymous way seems to be an act that is highly unprofessional. Not just an attitude.
I don't agree. Presumably the Australian licensing authority spells out the professional qualities required to earn and keep a license. Unless expressing distasteful opinions is spelled out, then it's not an unprofessional act to do so - in the context of licensing. I think it's an obvious problem of professionalism for employers. But that's a different issue.

Narrowly speaking, you are ineligible for a medical license if you practice bad medicine. Is being an ass online practicing bad medicine? I don't think so.

A good doctor with a bad bedside manner will lose patients, but he won't lose his license. This is as it should be.

Likewise, a bad doctor with a good bedside manner may not lose patients (except when he gets them killed), but he should definitely lose his license.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:43 PM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I see 3 layers:

1. Beliefs that are so abhorrent that they would question the suitability of the believer to share the planet as a fellow human being, let alone their suitability for a given career. Example: an advocate for mass genocide. Advocating all Tutsi be exterminated disqualifies one's right to treat even non-Tutsi. Pro-rape fits this category as well.

2. Other beliefs might simply restrict the suitability of the believer to work in a particular practice/partnership/setting. Seriously disliking children would disqualify them from joining/staying in a family practice; not as disqualifying in a geriatric one.

3. Beliefs that don't disqualify the individual from a given career or a given practice, but that might convince certain individual patients to not chose them as their own doctor. Okay as I see it, although sometimes due to insurance or the health care delivery organization it may be difficult for the patient to have other options. But it does happen all the time and not always based on legitimate reasons (e.g. patients who avoid doctors due to the patients' racial bigotry).
I don't see three layers. I see one layer, roughly equivalent to your #3.

Regarding:

"Advocating all Tutsi be exterminated disqualifies one's right to treat even non-Tutsi. Pro-rape fits this category as well."

I disagree. I don't think anyone has the right to treat anyone else. So that can't be revoked.

I do think anyone has the right to study medicine, and the right to get certified to practice medicine through a non-discriminatory process that examines knowledge and skill while ignoring belief, and the right to offer their treatment to anyone who wishes to receive it.

And I think that everyone has the right to *not* be treated by a physician because of their beliefs, or for any other reason, or for no reason at all. If you don't want to be treated by a rape apologist, you should have the right to say "no" to that guy. But the state shouldn't be in the business of preemptively refusing to license the guy because of his beliefs - no matter how repugnant they might be.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:45 PM   #53
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sure. But I don't think the right way to handle this is to simply say, "I don't like your attitude, it must be a problem, you're suspended."

Have there been any complaints about the quality of his work?

Have any of his patients complained about the way he's treated them?

To me, those are reasons to suspend his license pending an investigation.

Him exhibiting a bad attitude online is, to me, a reason to check about whether there have been any complaints.

---

Ignoring, of course, the fact that he published patient information. In a sane world, that would render the debate about his attitude entirely moot. But apparently in Australia, it's just a footnote to the real crime - his attitude.
The failure to deliver equal quality work would have to be fairly egregious before it could be detected in most medical settings. Each patient presents with different diseases, to different extents, with different ages, with different other medical conditions. To note just one extreme: if a doctor hates women how easy is it to compare the quality of their treatments of sex-related conditions in women versus those in men? they are inherently different. And different patients with the same disease see different physicians, making it hard to compare if one doctor is delivering a less enthusiastic treatment of one population vs another. Especially given that there are a range of accepted treatments.

If one of my doctors slighted the treatment of Jews (who are only a small percent of my town) it would be very hard for his/her employers to detect that statistically. I am not certain my religion is even known to my health care provider organization although it is know to my doctors. If my oncologist decided that Jews don't deserve the most expensive gen3 anti-neoplastic drug how would that be detected, given that sometimes the gen1 and gen2 drugs are prescribed instead of the gen3 drug for legitimate medical reasons rather than due to anti-Semitism?

Last edited by Giordano; 29th April 2019 at 12:50 PM.
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:48 PM   #54
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
?? You quote me, respond in both the third and second person. Is this directed to Skeptic Ginger? Plus we were earlier in agreement on main points twice here. Feelings hurt either way.
Sorry: the first quote was to agree with you statement to Skeptic Ginger. My apologies to you because that was not clear.

I reserve the right to hurt your feelings in another thread. And vis-versa
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:49 PM   #55
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,759
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't agree. Presumably the Australian licensing authority spells out the professional qualities required to earn and keep a license. Unless expressing distasteful opinions is spelled out, then it's not an unprofessional act to do so - in the context of licensing. I think it's an obvious problem of professionalism for employers. But that's a different issue.
......
This guy isn't just expressing political opinions. He is claiming that women deserve to be criminally assaulted. He threatened to murder his wife. Most professional licensing standards require a commitment to ethical conduct, and advocating a crime is way outside it. Imagine what would happen to a lawyer who said "Liberal judges should be killed!," or a teacher who said "Cute little girls (or boys) are just begging to be effed!"

No one is threatening to lock him up for his opinions. He can say whatever he wants about anything. But someone who hates women so brutally can't be trusted to provide appropriate medical services, no matter what his technical skills might be.
Bob001 is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:52 PM   #56
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,295
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't agree. Presumably the Australian licensing authority spells out the professional qualities required to earn and keep a license. Unless expressing distasteful opinions is spelled out, then it's not an unprofessional act to do so - in the context of licensing. I think it's an obvious problem of professionalism for employers. But that's a different issue.
Many professional licenses carry with them baggage about tarnishing the image of the profession. Since it is a moot point in this case I won't even look to see if that is what is at issue.

I don't know if Andrew Wakefield had patients who valued him as a doctor, but I do feel it was proper to strip him of his license.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:57 PM   #57
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The failure to deliver equal quality work would have to be fairly egregious before it could be detected in most medical settings. Each patient presents with different diseases, to different extents, with different ages, with different other medical conditions. To note just one extreme: if a doctor hates women how easy is it to compare the quality of their treatments of sex-related conditions in women versus those in men? they are inherently different. And different patients with the same disease see different physicians, making it hard to compare if one doctor is delivering a less enthusiastic treatment of one population vs another. Especially given that there are a range of accepted treatments.

If one of my doctors slighted the treatment of Jews (who are only a small percent of my town) it would be very hard for his/her employers to detect that statistically. I am not certain my religion is even known to my health care provider organization although it is know to my doctors. If my oncologist decided that Jews don't deserve the most expensive gen3 anti-neoplastic drug how would that be detected, given that sometimes the gen1 and gen2 drugs are prescribed instead of the gen3 drug for legitimate medical reasons rather than due to anti-Semitism?
That's a lot of bloviation, just to say, "no, there have been no such complaints that I'm aware of."

The lack of actionable evidence is not an excuse to act without evidence.

The truth is that every doctor is going to have biases, and every doctor is going to express their biases in their work. Most doctors are going to do this well below the threshold of actionability - or even detectability.

If this doctor's biases have so far remained below the threshold of actionability in their work, how do you justify singling him out for special persecution? Why don't you hold his work to the same standard as every other doctor?

Because even though you can't show any cause for disqualification in his work, you don't like his opinions.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 12:59 PM   #58
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
One easy example of "if there are no known complaints and they appear to be performing professionally" as a flawed test of one's suitability for a professional position (whatever one's "internal dialog): child abuse. It has often taken years for even egregious criminal sexual acts by teachers, coaches, doctors to come to light. These are abhorrent, blatant, physical acts; imagine how difficult to detect, let alone prove, a more subtle but realdisparity in care delivery that might arise from bias.
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:00 PM   #59
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But someone who hates women so brutally can't be trusted to provide appropriate medical services, no matter what his technical skills might be.
Is that how it's written in the Australian licensing requirements?
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:02 PM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
One easy example of "if there are no known complaints and they appear to be performing professionally" as a flawed test of one's suitability for a professional position (whatever one's "internal dialog): child abuse. It has often taken years for even egregious criminal sexual acts by teachers, coaches, doctors to come to light. These are abhorrent, blatant, physical acts; imagine how difficult to detect, let alone prove, a more subtle but realdisparity in care delivery that might arise from bias.
I don't see the flaw in the test at all.

"No known complaints and appears to be performing professionally" seems like it's about the only test you could reasonably apply - to any professional.

It's not like employers go around telling their employees, "nobody's complained, and your work looks professional, but that doesn't tell us if you're abusing children, so you're on suspension while we investigate that."

Because that would be insane.

---

You're still trying to argue that a lack of actionable evidence is a justification for acting without evidence.

Last edited by theprestige; 29th April 2019 at 01:04 PM.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:09 PM   #61
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's a lot of bloviation, just to say, "no, there have been no such complaints that I'm aware of."

The lack of actionable evidence is not an excuse to act without evidence.

The truth is that every doctor is going to have biases, and every doctor is going to express their biases in their work. Most doctors are going to do this well below the threshold of actionability - or even detectability.

If this doctor's biases have so far remained below the threshold of actionability in their work, how do you justify singling him out for special persecution? Why don't you hold his work to the same standard as every other doctor?

Because even though you can't show any cause for disqualification in his work, you don't like his opinions.
My post #58 was a generic response I composed before seeing this post. But to be specific in terms of your post cited here: I've already explained further upthread why it is almost impossible for real differences due to bias to be detected in practice in most medical settings. The threshold of detection is far below the threshold that one would wish to hold accountable, the threshold that should be actionable because it does affect actual patients. And, as I and others in this thread have pointed out, hating women, or Jews (or name it) is going to affect one's ability to deliver the correct health care to them even if the doctor tries to suppress it.

If a doctor's internal view of a patient is irrelevant to their ability to deliver good health care to them, why is it considered very important for doctors to not treat their own close relatives?
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:10 PM   #62
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I'm trying to understand the extent of the problem in a dispassionate way. This seems to be a passionate subject for you, to the extent that you're lashing out with unfounded and sexist attacks on other members. You probably aren't the right person to answer my questions right now.
I should be concerned that I'm passionate about a doctor posting such awful stuff about women? OMG! Of course I'm passionate. That doesn't make you superior in this case. It makes you oblivious to the problem, tone deaf so to speak.

The fact you pretend to be "trying to understand the extent of the problem in a dispassionate way" is an example of exactly what I said: some of the men posting in this thread don't seem to understand the seriousness of such disgusting misogynist views.

I suspect if the guy had been posting that any man with an STD should have his penis hacked off, you might actually feel differently. Then again, maybe not because it wouldn't be anything you could relate to.

Consider something else since you don't understand what women face, suppose this was a guy that posted pictures of lynchings with comments that strange fruit looks good on those trees, or suppose he posted crap like too bad Hitler didn't get them all, how would you be sure said doctor didn't treat Jews and blacks with contempt?

Do you seriously think that's fine as long as his diagnoses and suture skills were acceptable?



Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If a doctor's attitude causes him to do bad work, then you can disqualify him on the grounds of the bad work, without ever even having to reference his attitude. In this case, though, there doesn't seem to be any problem with his work, just his attitude. I'm not sure it should be disqualifying in a doctor, to good work with a bad attitude.

I can see employers not wanting to employ him, because of the attitude. And I can see patients not wanting him as their doctor, because of the attitude. But I can't see a certifying organization suspending certification because of the attitude. Does the Australian Medical License Exam (or whatever they call it) even measure bedside manner? Or does it just measure knowledge and skill, when licensing a doctor?
How are you going to measure contempt toward patients?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th April 2019 at 01:11 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:15 PM   #63
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Well, I have to agree with Thermal (a rare occurrence for me) that your post did not fully reflect the views/opinions I've offered in this thread. But it's not worth arguing about.
I was addressing the paragraph I quoted, not the person who posted. He posted an example of a bad analogy accompanied by an attempt to make it relevant.

How about this: attempt to make a bad analogy relevant was a waste of post space.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:21 PM   #64
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,610
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I was addressing the paragraph I quoted, not the person who posted. He posted an example of a bad analogy accompanied by an attempt to make it relevant.

How about this: attempt to make a bad analogy relevant was a waste of post space.
It wasn't a bad analogy. Your head was in a different place, when the post clearly qualified the context

Eta: you, Giordano, and myself are in agreement here. What the hell are you arguing about?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 29th April 2019 at 01:23 PM.
Thermal is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:22 PM   #65
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Consider something else since you don't understand what women face, suppose this was a guy that posted pictures of lynchings with comments that strange fruit looks good on those trees, or suppose he posted crap like too bad Hitler didn't get them all, how would you be sure said doctor didn't treat Jews and blacks with contempt?
The same way I'd be sure he doesn't treat his patients with contempt if he kept his contempt to himself: I wouldn't.

Quote:
Do you seriously think that's fine as long as his diagnoses and suture skills were acceptable?
In terms of employment? Or in terms of licensing?

Practically speaking, what's the difference between a closet bigot who treats his patients equally and well, and an open bigot who treats his patients equally and well?

If your doctor treats you well, do you spend even one second worrying about whether he might be a secret misogynist?

Quote:
How are you going to measure contempt toward patients?
If it's not even measurable, then how can it possibly matter? Especially to licensing?
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:29 PM   #66
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't agree. Presumably the Australian licensing authority spells out the professional qualities required to earn and keep a license. Unless expressing distasteful opinions is spelled out, then it's not an unprofessional act to do so - in the context of licensing. I think it's an obvious problem of professionalism for employers. But that's a different issue.

Narrowly speaking, you are ineligible for a medical license if you practice bad medicine. Is being an ass online practicing bad medicine? I don't think so.

A good doctor with a bad bedside manner will lose patients, but he won't lose his license. This is as it should be.

Likewise, a bad doctor with a good bedside manner may not lose patients (except when he gets them killed), but he should definitely lose his license.
I imagine there is a "of good moral character" clause somewhere in a physician's job description. These are US standards, but Oz should be similar:

Mass board of Medical Licensing ...

"Good Moral Character" as a Licensing Standard


Certificate of Moral and Professional Character .....
Quote:
As part of the full license application process, a physician is required to provide a number of primary
source documents verifying information including, but not limited to: medical education,
postgraduate training, examination scores; malpractice claims history; disciplinary action, criminal
history, competency and moral character. Timely completion of a full license application is intensive
and requires the applicant’s cooperation to supply all required documents....

Grounds for Denial: Each applicant’s qualifications for licensure in Massachusetts are reviewed on an
individual basis. The Board has the authority to deny licensure based upon an applicant’s failure to meet the
Board’s requirements for licensure; failure to provide satisfactory proof of good moral character; or because of
acts which, were they engaged in by a licensee, would violate M.G.L. c. 112, Section 5 or 243 CMR 1.03(5)....

CERTIFICATE OF MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER
The Certificate of Moral and Professional Character must be completed and signed by a physician who has a
current medical license in the United States. The designated physician must not be the applicant’s relative but
should have known the applicant for at least one (1) year. The form must be notarized by a U.S. notary. This
form must be sent to the Board in a sealed envelope with the certifying physician’s signature across the seal. ...

An honest “yes” answer to a question on your
application is not definitive as to the Board’s assessment of your present moral character and fitness to practice,
but a dishonest “no” answer may be evidence of a lack of candor and honesty, which may be definitive on the
character and fitness to practice issue. Please be advised that a false response to any of these questions may be
grounds for denial of licensure and reported to the appropriate data banks....
I think you get the picture.


Like I said, doctors are not robots. Maybe it's more than the fact I am female that this bothers me so much. Maybe it's because I am also a medical provider and I recognize this is not acceptable in patient care.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:30 PM   #67
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Wouldn't a doctor that wants to hurt Jews not say things publicly? So they can have more access to vulnerable Jewish patients?
An interesting point whether meant as humor or not. People post all sorts of things on the Internet that they somehow assume will never get back to them in real life, such as nude selfes

I also am not limiting the issue to those who actively wish to hurt a certain subpopulation of their patients so much as those who simply are less driven to help them.
Giordano is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:33 PM   #68
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,759
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
.....
If your doctor treats you well, do you spend even one second worrying about whether he might be a secret misogynist?
.....
Doctors frequently tell us that "medicine is an art, not a science." A doctor is free to make choices. A doctor could treat patients respectfully and courteously, and still not provide emotional support or offer a full breadth of treatment options to a woman who he feels deserves to be raped. The patient can't always know whether he/she is being treated as well as they could be.
Bob001 is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:45 PM   #69
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I imagine there is a "of good moral character" clause somewhere in a physician's job description. These are US standards, but Oz should be similar:
Well, that's something, anyway. Nice to get an answer for a change. Thanks!
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:46 PM   #70
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The same way I'd be sure he doesn't treat his patients with contempt if he kept his contempt to himself: I wouldn't.


In terms of employment? Or in terms of licensing?

Practically speaking, what's the difference between a closet bigot who treats his patients equally and well, and an open bigot who treats his patients equally and well?

If your doctor treats you well, do you spend even one second worrying about whether he might be a secret misogynist?
You make assumptions his attitude doesn't leak through, that patients don't notice. That is highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If it's not even measurable, then how can it possibly matter? Especially to licensing?
I didn't say it wasn't measurable. I asked how would this doctor's peers or his employer go about measuring it?

I suspect it would be unacceptable to put hidden cameras around observing this doctor when he was alone with female patients.

Likewise it might be difficult to interview colleagues and get them to honestly report what they observe about the man.

Contempt is measurable but that doesn't mean it is practical to measure. Being impractical to measure doesn't mean it is not measurable or that something is imperceptible by the patients and co-workers.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:47 PM   #71
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, that's something, anyway. Nice to get an answer for a change. Thanks!
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:48 PM   #72
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Doctors frequently tell us that "medicine is an art, not a science." A doctor is free to make choices. A doctor could treat patients respectfully and courteously, and still not provide emotional support or offer a full breadth of treatment options to a woman who he feels deserves to be raped. The patient can't always know whether he/she is being treated as well as they could be.


Consider the extent of this man's posts. It wasn't an offhand comment. It was full-on misogyny of the most detestable kind.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th April 2019 at 01:50 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:49 PM   #73
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Doctors frequently tell us that "medicine is an art, not a science." A doctor is free to make choices. A doctor could treat patients respectfully and courteously, and still not provide emotional support or offer a full breadth of treatment options to a woman who he feels deserves to be raped. The patient can't always know whether he/she is being treated as well as they could be.
Sure. But a patient can certainly switch doctors if they don't like this one's manner.

And, again, this is the same standard you apply to all doctors: It's hard to tell if they're acting on their bias. This doesn't mean you get to revoke their license simply because you know their bias but you still can't tell if they're acting on it.

And as an employer, you can certainly say, "too many of our patients have switched off of your service due to your manner. We can't justify keeping you on staff," and let the guy go. But that only works if you've actually had a lot of patients doing that. It would be insane to have that conversation with a doctor who wasn't receiving those complaints.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 01:54 PM   #74
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sure. But a patient can certainly switch doctors if they don't like this one's manner.

And, again, this is the same standard you apply to all doctors: It's hard to tell if they're acting on their bias. This doesn't mean you get to revoke their license simply because you know their bias but you still can't tell if they're acting on it.

And as an employer, you can certainly say, "too many of our patients have switched off of your service due to your manner. We can't justify keeping you on staff," and let the guy go. But that only works if you've actually had a lot of patients doing that. It would be insane to have that conversation with a doctor who wasn't receiving those complaints.
You don't get to choose your doctor in the ED. You also probably have no experience with that doctor until your one visit with him, such as coming in after a rape.


After my posts about the requirement for good moral character requirement for a medical license and you are still clinging to this POV that it doesn't matter.

If this guy was good at hiding his contempt for women he wouldn't have posted all that crap on social media sites.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 02:30 PM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You make assumptions his attitude doesn't leak through, that patients don't notice. That is highly unlikely.
I make no such assumption.

In fact, I assume that all doctors have biases, and that the bias always leaks through.

I also assume that patients do notice when they don't like the way a doctor treats them.

And I also assume that patients can - and should - switch off a doctor if they don't like their treatment, without knowing or having to know anything about the doctor's underlying motivations for giving bad treatment.

Quote:
I didn't say it wasn't measurable. I asked how would this doctor's peers or his employer go about measuring it?

I suspect it would be unacceptable to put hidden cameras around observing this doctor when he was alone with female patients.

Likewise it might be difficult to interview colleagues and get them to honestly report what they observe about the man.

Contempt is measurable but that doesn't mean it is practical to measure. Being impractical to measure doesn't mean it is not measurable or that something is imperceptible by the patients and co-workers.
How do you propose firing a doctor for treating patients with contempt, if you can't actually figure out any way to tell if he's treating patients with contempt?

How would you normally go about evaluating a doctor's work?

How is your work normally evaluated? How does your own employer go about reviewing whether its nurses treat their patients with dignity and respect?
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 02:31 PM   #76
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If this guy was good at hiding his contempt for women he wouldn't have posted all that crap on social media sites.
In that case we should have plenty of reports from women about the mistreatment of them that he sucked at hiding.
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 02:53 PM   #77
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,861
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In that case we should have plenty of reports from women about the mistreatment of them that he sucked at hiding.
Another false assumption.

You're looking for evidence when it is public and in sufficient quantity.

Let this ass defend his social media comments. It's not up to the women he treated to prove what is in the public record.

"Good moral character" doesn't say "evidence you treat your patients with respect".

You apparently want it to say that, you want this jerk to have free speech rights, let others prove it affects his work.

That is not how it works in the medical profession. If you don't have good moral character, don't choose a career as a medical provider.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 03:01 PM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Another false assumption.

You're looking for evidence when it is public and in sufficient quantity.

Let this ass defend his social media comments. It's not up to the women he treated to prove what is in the public record.

"Good moral character" doesn't say "evidence you treat your patients with respect".

You apparently want it to say that, you want this jerk to have free speech rights, let others prove it affects his work.

That is not how it works in the medical profession. If you don't have good moral character, don't choose a career as a medical provider.
Fair enough.

So how do you normally assess wether a doctor or nurse is treating their patients with the appropriate respect and professionalism?
theprestige is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 04:23 PM   #79
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,972
Here’s the way I see it:

You can’t read people’s minds. As long as a professional treats all patients according to the standard of care, it really doesn’t matter what hidden biases the professional might harbor. You can only judge them by the quality of care they provide.

The problem here is that the professional came right out and made his biases public and crystal clear. Most licensing boards have provisions for unprofessional conduct. Physicians also have free speech. Ultimately, I don’t think mere speech is enough for the state to take action on a professional license. Speech that incites violence, misrepresents a professional’s credentials -IOW speech that is likely to lead to harm...that is what is actionable by a medical board.

“Some women deserve to be raped,” is a horrible, misogynistic thing to say, but it’s mere speech -it’s not illegal to simply have that opinion and express it. That’s a matter for his employers and patients to decide.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   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
Old 29th April 2019, 04:29 PM   #80
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,562
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Fair enough.

So how do you normally assess wether a doctor or nurse is treating their patients with the appropriate respect and professionalism?
Indeed it is typically very difficult for a health organization or licensing agency to accurately assess this even when the doctor or nurse is failing to deliver appropriate respect and professionalism for all patients due to an internal bias. That's been my point and that of other posters. For the reasons I explained upthread it has to be so egregious, blatant, and dramatic that it glaringly stands out from the individual differences in treatment inherent in a doctor or nurse seeing different diseases, different stages of the same disease, different presentations of the same disease, and different patients.

Trust me on this. I am not a medical doctor nor do I play one on TV. But I've seen more than I wish of the medical establishment as a patient, and a lot as a PhD Biomed researcher.

So what's a good hint? Someone saying publicly (feeling the need to say and expecting approval for saying) that some women should be raped strikes me as a good indication of not being of good moral character and therefore not being appropriate to make life and death decisions.

Last edited by Giordano; 29th April 2019 at 04:55 PM. Reason: changed wording of last sentence to make it clearer
Giordano is offline   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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.