4 ms·

This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is e

This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is exactly what is supposed to have happened in Wuhan and those doctors were, surprise surprise, punished by their government. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor-li-wenliang-covid-warning.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor...

mc32 4y ago
With this law would Fauci and the CDC flip-flopping as they tried to figure out what was happening land them in hot water? When doctors repeated their advice and then the CDC reversed, would they have been spreading misinformation, or is official information, even though wrong, by definition not misinformation even when it is false? This's pretty ill conceived.
- donw 4y ago
  Of course it wouldn’t get them in trouble. This law is for enemies, not allies.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Let's say they post on some blog or something. What sort of timeframe do they have to correct those? And how long back does it go?
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  If it was well-crafted enough, there could easily be carve-outs for "at the time" advice, and requiring updates/clarifications, etc. However, I don't know anyone who would trust Cali lawmakers to actually craft bills well.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    "We passed a bill to show those right-wingers that we mean business!" "Did you consider <insert obvious edge case here>?" "Oh..."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jhanschoo 4y ago
> The law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as “unprofessional conduct,” subject to punishment by the agency that licenses doctors, the Medical Board of California. That could include suspending or revoking a doctor’s license to practice medicine in the state. You are discussing a completely different situation compared to the one that the news reports is addressed by the bill. I see this enforcing the fiduciary duty doctors already have toward their patients. If a doctor has an unorthodox opinion regarding their patient's health, they should perhaps clearly mark it as such in their communications to their patients, in which case I suppose it won't be false information anymore. Perhaps you should read TFA before commenting to prevent yourself from, y'know, spreading false or misleading information.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  All laws are subject to interpretation. Didn't you just appoint a judge to your Supreme Court who openly admitted that she couldn't define "a woman" because she "wasn't a biologist?" When you have such people interpreting laws, good luck to you with this one. It's clearly designed to suppress dissent, given the disastrous events of the last two years.
  - jhanschoo 4y ago
    If laws are so openly subject to interpretation as to qualify for your scenario, this legislation would change nothing since doctors can presumably already be suppressed under "unprofessional conduct" by negligent treatment etc. as determined by CA's Medical Board. On the other hand, if laws were not that subject to interpretation, then I don't see how it affects your scenario.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    Here is an edge case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCevedoce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCevedoce Here's another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome A general page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence A podcast from a Stanford professor that talks about the topic from a biological point of view (not really social): https://hubermanlab.com/biological-influences-on-sex-sex-differences-and-preferences/ https://hubermanlab.com/biological-influences-on-sex-sex-dif... Between genetic factors, hormonal factors, environmental factors, social factors, and developmental factors it seems pretty clear that the definition of "woman" is a little more complicated than "has a vagina." The judge knew she didn't know things and said the equivalent of "I'm not an expert, I would defer to someone who knows more." When someone asks a yes or no question and you answer "I don't have sufficient information to answer the question" that is the type of person who should be given power. Saying something confidently while being blissfully unaware of complexity is a major problem, especially for a position that primarily deals with legal edge cases. The most valuable lesson in college is that "just because something is intuitive, doesn't mean it's correct." Personally, I trust a judge that thinks about edge cases much more than one ignores them or one that thinks they're an expert in a field they're not.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
There's a bit of a 'boy who cried wolf' situation here, since every sensible thing that Californian lawmakers do, is described as civilization ending stupidity and/or authoritarian fascism. So, my prior is that this is perfectly fine, and the people complaining about it are lying and intentionally misunderstanding this. But I've not read anything about the specific law, so this is entirely based on the way people react to Californian laws generally. Which is a bad precedent for when/if California does pass a bad law (say something like prop 13) because ... well see the end of the boy who cried wolf. story.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  It took me minimal effort to find the text of the bill. It took me even less effort to find people who ran afoul of the bill for telling the truth as we currently understand it. It even cites the major news outlets(unidentified) which seem to receive their information from the same government. I don't like the circus either.
feet 4y ago
A single doctor should not be reporting something like that to the public on a hunch. Doctors are not researchers, they are not scientists. Generally they are repair technicians Sure they should report it, but report it to the appropriate people who can confirm and disseminate the information accurately

mc32 4y ago

With this law would Fauci and the CDC flip-flopping as they tried to figure out what was happening land them in hot water? When doctors repeated their advice and then the CDC reversed, would they have been spreading misinformation, or is official information, even though wrong, by definition not misinformation even when it is false? This's pretty ill conceived.

donw 4y ago
Of course it wouldn’t get them in trouble. This law is for enemies, not allies.
Ekaros 4y ago
Let's say they post on some blog or something. What sort of timeframe do they have to correct those? And how long back does it go?
BeefWellington 4y ago
If it was well-crafted enough, there could easily be carve-outs for "at the time" advice, and requiring updates/clarifications, etc. However, I don't know anyone who would trust Cali lawmakers to actually craft bills well.
- seanw444 4y ago
  "We passed a bill to show those right-wingers that we mean business!" "Did you consider <insert obvious edge case here>?" "Oh..."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jhanschoo 4y ago

> The law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as “unprofessional conduct,” subject to punishment by the agency that licenses doctors, the Medical Board of California. That could include suspending or revoking a doctor’s license to practice medicine in the state. You are discussing a completely different situation compared to the one that the news reports is addressed by the bill. I see this enforcing the fiduciary duty doctors already have toward their patients. If a doctor has an unorthodox opinion regarding their patient's health, they should perhaps clearly mark it as such in their communications to their patients, in which case I suppose it won't be false information anymore. Perhaps you should read TFA before commenting to prevent yourself from, y'know, spreading false or misleading information.

SanjayMehta 4y ago
All laws are subject to interpretation. Didn't you just appoint a judge to your Supreme Court who openly admitted that she couldn't define "a woman" because she "wasn't a biologist?" When you have such people interpreting laws, good luck to you with this one. It's clearly designed to suppress dissent, given the disastrous events of the last two years.
- jhanschoo 4y ago
  If laws are so openly subject to interpretation as to qualify for your scenario, this legislation would change nothing since doctors can presumably already be suppressed under "unprofessional conduct" by negligent treatment etc. as determined by CA's Medical Board. On the other hand, if laws were not that subject to interpretation, then I don't see how it affects your scenario.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  Here is an edge case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCevedoce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCevedoce Here's another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome A general page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence A podcast from a Stanford professor that talks about the topic from a biological point of view (not really social): https://hubermanlab.com/biological-influences-on-sex-sex-differences-and-preferences/ https://hubermanlab.com/biological-influences-on-sex-sex-dif... Between genetic factors, hormonal factors, environmental factors, social factors, and developmental factors it seems pretty clear that the definition of "woman" is a little more complicated than "has a vagina." The judge knew she didn't know things and said the equivalent of "I'm not an expert, I would defer to someone who knows more." When someone asks a yes or no question and you answer "I don't have sufficient information to answer the question" that is the type of person who should be given power. Saying something confidently while being blissfully unaware of complexity is a major problem, especially for a position that primarily deals with legal edge cases. The most valuable lesson in college is that "just because something is intuitive, doesn't mean it's correct." Personally, I trust a judge that thinks about edge cases much more than one ignores them or one that thinks they're an expert in a field they're not.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

There's a bit of a 'boy who cried wolf' situation here, since every sensible thing that Californian lawmakers do, is described as civilization ending stupidity and/or authoritarian fascism. So, my prior is that this is perfectly fine, and the people complaining about it are lying and intentionally misunderstanding this. But I've not read anything about the specific law, so this is entirely based on the way people react to Californian laws generally. Which is a bad precedent for when/if California does pass a bad law (say something like prop 13) because ... well see the end of the boy who cried wolf. story.

iinnPP 4y ago
It took me minimal effort to find the text of the bill. It took me even less effort to find people who ran afoul of the bill for telling the truth as we currently understand it. It even cites the major news outlets(unidentified) which seem to receive their information from the same government. I don't like the circus either.

feet 4y ago

A single doctor should not be reporting something like that to the public on a hunch. Doctors are not researchers, they are not scientists. Generally they are repair technicians Sure they should report it, but report it to the appropriate people who can confirm and disseminate the information accurately