15 ms·

> The law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as “unprofessional conduct,” subject to punishment by the agency that li

> 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.
  - SanjayMehta 4y ago
nradov 4y ago
You seem to be confused about medical ethics. A physician's fiduciary responsibility has nothing to do with unorthodox medical opinions. Fiduciary issues generally only come up when there is a financial conflict of interest, like if the doctor is taking advantage of the patient to make extra money by performing unnecessary procedures.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  A fiduciary is a person in a position of trust. It's commonly used in a financial context but is by no means limited to that. I think it's you who is confused about medical ethics; Take a look at the AMA's guidance and note that it's used in many other contexts besides the one you mention. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-1.pdf https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics...
  - nradov 4y ago
    No, you are confused and I had it right the first time. Read the AMA document again. Physicians have an ethical responsibility to give patients accurate medical information, but that is not among their fiduciary obligations. Medical ethics rules stem from multiple sources and only a few of them are fiduciary in nature.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      You're just flailing because you don't like the evidence. Here's more, going into the many different forms that a physician's fiduciary obligations can take, including the dispensation of medical advice where a conflict of interest might arise between the physician's financial wellbeing and the health of the patient. This is from a book published in 1983, so it's not a new concept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216764/ Here's some examples of how that can manifest: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-bottle-of-ivermectin-reveals-about-the-shadowy-world-of-covid-telemedicin https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183...

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.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

You seem to be confused about medical ethics. A physician's fiduciary responsibility has nothing to do with unorthodox medical opinions. Fiduciary issues generally only come up when there is a financial conflict of interest, like if the doctor is taking advantage of the patient to make extra money by performing unnecessary procedures.

anigbrowl 4y ago
A fiduciary is a person in a position of trust. It's commonly used in a financial context but is by no means limited to that. I think it's you who is confused about medical ethics; Take a look at the AMA's guidance and note that it's used in many other contexts besides the one you mention. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-1.pdf https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics...
- nradov 4y ago
  No, you are confused and I had it right the first time. Read the AMA document again. Physicians have an ethical responsibility to give patients accurate medical information, but that is not among their fiduciary obligations. Medical ethics rules stem from multiple sources and only a few of them are fiduciary in nature.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    You're just flailing because you don't like the evidence. Here's more, going into the many different forms that a physician's fiduciary obligations can take, including the dispensation of medical advice where a conflict of interest might arise between the physician's financial wellbeing and the health of the patient. This is from a book published in 1983, so it's not a new concept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216764/ Here's some examples of how that can manifest: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-bottle-of-ivermectin-reveals-about-the-shadowy-world-of-covid-telemedicin https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183...