4 ms·

> I don't trust the "move fast and break things" approach with for-profit healthcare. This is a non-sequitur. Why is it relevant what you trust or don't trust?

> I don't trust the "move fast and break things" approach with for-profit healthcare. This is a non-sequitur. Why is it relevant what you trust or don't trust? You should can be free to conclude for yourself what methodologies you trust, while allowing others to disagree with your judgement given their personal risk tolerance, scientific disagreements, etc. It's one thing to have an opinion on a scientific matter, its quite another to enforce it on an entire nation-state. > With open source stuff like this, it works because nobody is pushing this tech for any reason other than it works. But if commercial products were able to move at this rate, we might see a lot of snake oil because companies can be pretty effective at producing misinformation. A company also wants to produce tech that works -- people tend to buy tech that works. If they are lying about their evidence then we already have laws against fraud/false-advertising/tort-law which should be enforced.

jonfw 7y ago
Why don't those laws against fraud apply to those companies that sell "power bracelets" or "healing crystals"? Or like 80% of the supplement industry? Snake oil is sold with regularity under our current false-advertising laws. The impact of that happening in the medical industry would obviously be drastic. With regards to forcing my opinion onto others- I'll concede that point. This is certainly an infringement of people's liberty and you're right that it's difficult to justify. I think that in this case (medical industry), the ends justify the means. But we certainly need to be concerned of overregulation.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  How do you know "the ends justify the means"? What if I disagree?
  - jonfw 7y ago
    Then by all means, disagree. That's just my opinion man. Any amount of law or regulation will have some amount of citizens who disagree with it. For me, I think that the average citizen should be able to trust the medical community, and I think that the best way to accomplish that is to require the medical community to meet safety standards, and to support their claims of effectiveness with science. And I think that the less regulated parts of the health industry (supplements and fitness) have proven that many businesses will not back their claims with science if not required by law to do so. And that uneducated americans aren't able to see through that sort of nonsense and will purchase from those businesses anyways. This isn't a big deal with something relatively harmless like supplements, but when it comes to medical treatment you could potentially cause a lot of harm.
    - ibeckermayer 7y ago
      > Then by all means, disagree. That's just my opinion man. But it's not just your opinion, because I'm forced to go along with it. If it was just your opinion then we'd have a more just world, where disagreements are reconciled by argument or agreement to go our separate ways, rather than by force. > I think that the average citizen should be able to trust the medical community, and I think that the best way to accomplish that is to require the medical community to meet safety standards, and to support their claims of effectiveness with science. Trust is a two way street. In order to justifiably trust some person or institution, I need to know their reasoning for their decisions and decide for myself whether I agree. There can be no trust (and no science) where reasoning is enforced. > when it comes to medical treatment you could potentially cause a lot of harm This can be dealt with via non-enforced regulatory bodies that people consent to trusting, and through the court of law if those fail (with basic institutions like innocence until proven guilty, the opposite standard of what the FDA enforces).
      - jonfw 7y ago
        > But it's not just your opinion, because I'm forced to go along with it Welcome to society? I don't like speed limits so I feel your pain. > There can be no trust (and no science) where reasoning is enforced. I'm not sure what your point is here. Is there no science in the current medical community? >through the court of law if those fail Unless the judicial system learns how to resurrect dead people, I'm not sure that suing after the damage is done is really going to help victims of malpractice. In the event of those who aren't killed, only injured, how do you prove malpractice if there are no legal standards of care by which to judge? Even good doctors (or good medical tech companies) can have bad outcomes, so it can't be results driven.

jonfw 7y ago

Why don't those laws against fraud apply to those companies that sell "power bracelets" or "healing crystals"? Or like 80% of the supplement industry? Snake oil is sold with regularity under our current false-advertising laws. The impact of that happening in the medical industry would obviously be drastic. With regards to forcing my opinion onto others- I'll concede that point. This is certainly an infringement of people's liberty and you're right that it's difficult to justify. I think that in this case (medical industry), the ends justify the means. But we certainly need to be concerned of overregulation.

ibeckermayer 7y ago
How do you know "the ends justify the means"? What if I disagree?
- jonfw 7y ago
  Then by all means, disagree. That's just my opinion man. Any amount of law or regulation will have some amount of citizens who disagree with it. For me, I think that the average citizen should be able to trust the medical community, and I think that the best way to accomplish that is to require the medical community to meet safety standards, and to support their claims of effectiveness with science. And I think that the less regulated parts of the health industry (supplements and fitness) have proven that many businesses will not back their claims with science if not required by law to do so. And that uneducated americans aren't able to see through that sort of nonsense and will purchase from those businesses anyways. This isn't a big deal with something relatively harmless like supplements, but when it comes to medical treatment you could potentially cause a lot of harm.
  - ibeckermayer 7y ago
    > Then by all means, disagree. That's just my opinion man. But it's not just your opinion, because I'm forced to go along with it. If it was just your opinion then we'd have a more just world, where disagreements are reconciled by argument or agreement to go our separate ways, rather than by force. > I think that the average citizen should be able to trust the medical community, and I think that the best way to accomplish that is to require the medical community to meet safety standards, and to support their claims of effectiveness with science. Trust is a two way street. In order to justifiably trust some person or institution, I need to know their reasoning for their decisions and decide for myself whether I agree. There can be no trust (and no science) where reasoning is enforced. > when it comes to medical treatment you could potentially cause a lot of harm This can be dealt with via non-enforced regulatory bodies that people consent to trusting, and through the court of law if those fail (with basic institutions like innocence until proven guilty, the opposite standard of what the FDA enforces).
    - jonfw 7y ago
      > But it's not just your opinion, because I'm forced to go along with it Welcome to society? I don't like speed limits so I feel your pain. > There can be no trust (and no science) where reasoning is enforced. I'm not sure what your point is here. Is there no science in the current medical community? >through the court of law if those fail Unless the judicial system learns how to resurrect dead people, I'm not sure that suing after the damage is done is really going to help victims of malpractice. In the event of those who aren't killed, only injured, how do you prove malpractice if there are no legal standards of care by which to judge? Even good doctors (or good medical tech companies) can have bad outcomes, so it can't be results driven.