Related Articles

3 Comments

  1. 1
    Avatar

    MJM

    Great article. Most informative paper I have read for ages. Thanks heaps.

    Reply
    1. 1.1
      Avatar

      Des

      may be informative – but irrelevant
      This silliness of medicine trying to ape the law in ‘evidence’ based decisions.
      Actually evidence in law means – every fact is evidence – but is it admissible in
      the case before the court.

      Reply
  2. 2
    Avatar

    George Michaelson

    There is a clear need for doctors experienced in a field to have a role to play in helping define what is or is not ethically, and on cost-benefit grounds funding. But having them trash good science that critiques procedures they have a vested financial interest in, takes this to another level. This is really pretty bad.

    What if their professional standing as members of their college/speciality was at risk, if they are found to have acted in self-interest? I think that there has to be a balancing consequence to their role, as adjudicators of the public health funds directed to their field.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2021 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey