3 ms·
I don’t really know what your point is. The fact that some researchers or doctors were more diligent, scientifically principled, and didn’t fall into the “no ev
by erentz 7y ago
I don’t really know what your point is. The fact that some researchers or doctors were more diligent, scientifically principled, and didn’t fall into the “no evidence yet == psychogenic” trap, does not free those that did from the criticism.
Those that do label illnesses psychogenic without any evidence do harm to patients. They cause grief, delay or hinder access to further research, and so forth.
- dmix 7y agoDoctors are very quick to find some reason it’s not their ‘fault’, meaning they can’t help. Anyone with a serious illness or who has spent a lot of time with doctors will be well aware of this. That’s pretty common in software too where we want to blame the users endpoint computer or browser cache or something. We never want it to be an actual bug in our software. But those are local problems, when you have multiple eyes (and variety of experts) looking at it and a major geopolitical implication, simple dismissal is less of a problem. But agreed this is something that all professionals should be aware of, fighting our natural instincts, and try not to be so lazy or dismissive, and ask the harder questions.