4 ms·
“First, do no harm.” Isn’t it irresponsible to ignore people’s reports of side effects?
by teh_infallible 6y ago
“First, do no harm.” Isn’t it irresponsible to ignore people’s reports of side effects?
- hartator 6y ago> “First, do no harm.” Isn’t it irresponsible to ignore people’s reports of side effects? The health debate seems to have shifted to mostly politics.
- damnyou 6y agoThere is no "first, do no harm" principle in medicine. And for good reason, it's a bad principle.
- guscost 6y ago> Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all students in healthcare are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
- damnyou 6y agoI mean, yes, in some cases not doing anything is the right call, but that is a much weaker statement than "first, do no harm".
- throwaway4220 6y agoThis is the first thought that goes through every good MD's mind. "A good surgeon knows when not to operate."
- damnyou 6y agoThat is very different from "first, do no harm". That is a cost-benefit calculation that many of us are familiar with in our own professions. "First, do no harm" just encodes status quo bias.
- throwaway4220 6y agoI think I understand what you mean. In med ethics you weigh: autonomy, justice, nonmaleficence (do no harm) and beneficence (do good). You're right, no harm is not blindly followed, but it is relevant to bring it up in this discussion.
- damnyou 6y agoRight, exactly.
- throwaway4220 6y agoI'm obviously biased but I think the same general principles should be disseminated widely to software engineering/programmers.
- bdcravens 6y agoThat's cost/benefit analysis, not adherence to a maxim.
- skwb 6y agoNot when they're in bad faith.
- MrZongle2 6y agoAnd how does one determine if a claim is made in bad faith?
- skwb 6y agoThe public health and medical professional communities.
- forgotmypw17 6y agoHow do you know you can trust them?
- wavepruner 6y agoThey have a terrible track record of being able to tell who is faking and who isn't.
- forgotmypw17 6y agoHow do you tell the two apart?
- rzz3 6y agoYou just check who they voted for. Only Biden voters can have valid perspectives and pure intentions.
- entropicdrifter 6y agoThe scientific method
- forgotmypw17 6y agoThat sounds nice... So if someone reports e.g. diarrhea and headaches, how do you do that?
- throwaway4220 6y agoAll phase 3 clinical trials should include odds ratios of side effects of drug versus placebo (should be usually found in the drug instructions for use). These side effects will be reported.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoNobody is "ignoring" anything. The process for approval includes three rounds of trials with tens of thousands volunteers being closely monitored in a standard, double-blind protocol. Some side effects are expected. A needle hurts, for example. So the very first act does, indeed, harm. If you consider that needles have been a standard feature of medicine for a while, you may want to rethink your interpretation of that "first, do no harm" principle. Before needles it was leeches and bloodletting and mercury, by the way. So I don't think harm avoidance was ever as paramount as Paramount may make it seem. Anyway, and I'm not entirely sure why this needs spelling out, but treatment decisions are always trade-offs involving uncertainties. Vaccines seem to specifically elicit fear in some people who, as far as I can tell, have a surprisingly large overlap with the group that was chucking aquarium cleaners like a goldfish with OCD just a few months back. (My bafflement here is not rhetorical. If you have an explanation that doesn't involve autism, I'm eager to hear it)
- NationalPark 6y agoCheck out the article, he's talking about the fact that when you distribute so many vaccines, you're almost guaranteed to have a coincidence like a massive heart attack (to give a stark example) that appears correlated. So he's not saying you should ignore people saying there are side effects (in fact the whole point of clinical trials is to listen REALLY REALLY CLOSELY to what people say about side effects), he's saying be prepared for these correlations to be blown out of proportion.
- _ph_ 6y agoNo one talks about "ignoring side effects". The article nicely lays out how many diseases, which would be expected in any sizable part of the population, would get wrongly categorized as side effects of the vaccination.