2 ms·

Apart from the issue with China's control of information, I don't think we have the same memory. That last paragraph does not match what I saw in most of the w

by epgui 4y ago

Apart from the issue with China's control of information, I don't think we have the same memory. That last paragraph does not match what I saw in most of the world. In particular, this perspective does not really match what happened in Canada, the US, or Europe, at least not in the way I think you are suggesting.

ipaddr 4y ago
Here are the Canadian examples. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2022/05/03/ontario-doctor-accused-of-disgraceful-covid-conduct-gets-suspended.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 4 doctors landmark hearing https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/canada-doctors-covid-vaccine-disinformation/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/cana...
- epgui 4y ago
  This is the system working as it should. When you are a physician, you have an incredibly high burden of care towards your patients, and you have an ethical and a deontological obligation (in some cases a legal one, though doctors do have a lot of leeway, for patient-centred care, in Canada) to give them the highest standard of care. As far as I can tell, these are all examples of serious breaches of this duty. These physicians didn't just accidentally cross some fuzzy line, or slip off a tight rope. They were way off in their conduct. Heck, with the exception of one, they apparently didn't even show up in court. In all of the above cases, it is the public and the patients who are being protected.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    The ones being protected are not tbe patients. They lose access to many good doctors who should still be doctors. Many more now don't get the highest standard of care and in some cases any access to care because of these decisions. Removing experienced doctors for political reasons does not provide the highest quality of care..
    - epgui 4y ago
      This is not a "political reason", it's a "professionalism reason" or even arguably a "malpractice reason", whether you like it or not.

by epgui 4y ago

ipaddr 4y ago

Here are the Canadian examples. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2022/05/03/ontario-doctor-accused-of-disgraceful-covid-conduct-gets-suspended.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 4 doctors landmark hearing https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/canada-doctors-covid-vaccine-disinformation/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/cana...

epgui 4y ago
This is the system working as it should. When you are a physician, you have an incredibly high burden of care towards your patients, and you have an ethical and a deontological obligation (in some cases a legal one, though doctors do have a lot of leeway, for patient-centred care, in Canada) to give them the highest standard of care. As far as I can tell, these are all examples of serious breaches of this duty. These physicians didn't just accidentally cross some fuzzy line, or slip off a tight rope. They were way off in their conduct. Heck, with the exception of one, they apparently didn't even show up in court. In all of the above cases, it is the public and the patients who are being protected.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  The ones being protected are not tbe patients. They lose access to many good doctors who should still be doctors. Many more now don't get the highest standard of care and in some cases any access to care because of these decisions. Removing experienced doctors for political reasons does not provide the highest quality of care..
  - epgui 4y ago
    This is not a "political reason", it's a "professionalism reason" or even arguably a "malpractice reason", whether you like it or not.