3 ms·

Sorry, are you suggesting that people without a college education are too ignorant to make judgements about their own health and that it's therefore ok to lie t

by seneca 4y ago

Sorry, are you suggesting that people without a college education are too ignorant to make judgements about their own health and that it's therefore ok to lie to them? This sort of high handed paternalism is exactly the attitude that has destroyed faith in institutions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 4y ago
That's exactly what they are suggesting, unfortunately. I was about to reply to another comment but I think it was deleted. I think what I wrote is important enough to post here anyways. > It's obvious the messaging landed on was chosen was to maximize the individual choice to vaccinate as that was reasoned to the best possible outcome for all. This is inducing people to pick the choice you consider correct. This is unethical in the medical profession. Ethical conduct is to present the facts and let the patient decide. You don't "maximize" any outcome, nor do you "reason" about anything on behalf of the patient. To do so means you are prioritizing concerns other than your patient's best interests and once they figure this out you are done. If necessary, you can and must use simpler language to help them understand complex concepts. What you cannot do is decide for them in advance and then misrepresent facts in order to manufacture consent for the intervention you favor.
- 88913527 4y ago
  If people are as indeed as smart as you and your parent commenter say they are, then they will understand there doesn't exist any risk-free medical procedure. Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. The argument could evolve further to say, the messaging doesn't matter at all, since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice, so why be upset about it? Or, stated in other words, when exactly where they lied to if you claim they're smart enough to dissect the nuance? I guess the ultimate terminus of this discussion is the interpretation of what it means to characterize the vaccine as safe.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. Not really. You'd be surprised how many people believe that. They need to make informed choices. The way to do that is to say "the benefits are X and the risks are Y". If they have trouble understanding X or Y, you do whatever is necessary to help them understand. What you don't do is say "Oh COVID-19 vaccines? Yeah, go ahead, nothing to worry about, they're completely safe". It's not up to you to determine that they are safe, the patient makes that judgement. One person might consider them safe, another might not. > since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice They don't have to be "smart enough" to make choices. Unless they are mentally impaired to the point of dependence on a legal representative, they have the autonomy to decide about any matter regarding their own bodies. Even if they are uneducated. They could refuse it simply because they don't like vaccines or even you personally and it's your duty to respect that. Unless the patient is literally dying right in front of you, there is no case you could make for overriding their will on any medical treatment, and even that varies by nation. > so why be upset about it? Because it's unethical and undermines trust. When you do this, people notice. They immediately stop trusting you and start actively resisting you instead. As is their right as human beings with freedom and autonomy. > when exactly where they lied to if you claim they're smart enough to dissect the nuance? It's still a lie. Detecting the lie does not somehow invalidate the fact it is a lie.
    - 88913527 4y ago
      There's a difference between a national public health messaging and a 1:1 discussion with your physician, and I don't think you're reasonably distinguishing between the two. No politician would spend 60 minutes discussing how they'll do Big Goal X and here's the 40-point plan. Read the fact sheet if you want the details or talk to your doctor. I got a fact sheet and had to wait for my vaccine, so plenty of time to read and ask questions or change my mind. And your points about the forcing of vaccination, I don't recall any instance of forced covid vaccine injections. Yes, in a parent comment you linked to something terrible that happened in the 1900s. Lots of terrible things happened in history.
IOT_Apprentice 4y ago
There are people who have taken 2nd mortgages on their homes to send money to Trump for his “stop the steal” grift. People are too ignorant in general.
mhh__ 4y ago
We shouldn't lie but 99% of college grads are either nominally or practically innumerate, a probability alone isn't enough

by seneca 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 4y ago

That's exactly what they are suggesting, unfortunately. I was about to reply to another comment but I think it was deleted. I think what I wrote is important enough to post here anyways. > It's obvious the messaging landed on was chosen was to maximize the individual choice to vaccinate as that was reasoned to the best possible outcome for all. This is inducing people to pick the choice you consider correct. This is unethical in the medical profession. Ethical conduct is to present the facts and let the patient decide. You don't "maximize" any outcome, nor do you "reason" about anything on behalf of the patient. To do so means you are prioritizing concerns other than your patient's best interests and once they figure this out you are done. If necessary, you can and must use simpler language to help them understand complex concepts. What you cannot do is decide for them in advance and then misrepresent facts in order to manufacture consent for the intervention you favor.

88913527 4y ago
If people are as indeed as smart as you and your parent commenter say they are, then they will understand there doesn't exist any risk-free medical procedure. Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. The argument could evolve further to say, the messaging doesn't matter at all, since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice, so why be upset about it? Or, stated in other words, when exactly where they lied to if you claim they're smart enough to dissect the nuance? I guess the ultimate terminus of this discussion is the interpretation of what it means to characterize the vaccine as safe.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. Not really. You'd be surprised how many people believe that. They need to make informed choices. The way to do that is to say "the benefits are X and the risks are Y". If they have trouble understanding X or Y, you do whatever is necessary to help them understand. What you don't do is say "Oh COVID-19 vaccines? Yeah, go ahead, nothing to worry about, they're completely safe". It's not up to you to determine that they are safe, the patient makes that judgement. One person might consider them safe, another might not. > since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice They don't have to be "smart enough" to make choices. Unless they are mentally impaired to the point of dependence on a legal representative, they have the autonomy to decide about any matter regarding their own bodies. Even if they are uneducated. They could refuse it simply because they don't like vaccines or even you personally and it's your duty to respect that. Unless the patient is literally dying right in front of you, there is no case you could make for overriding their will on any medical treatment, and even that varies by nation. > so why be upset about it? Because it's unethical and undermines trust. When you do this, people notice. They immediately stop trusting you and start actively resisting you instead. As is their right as human beings with freedom and autonomy. > when exactly where they lied to if you claim they're smart enough to dissect the nuance? It's still a lie. Detecting the lie does not somehow invalidate the fact it is a lie.
  - 88913527 4y ago
    There's a difference between a national public health messaging and a 1:1 discussion with your physician, and I don't think you're reasonably distinguishing between the two. No politician would spend 60 minutes discussing how they'll do Big Goal X and here's the 40-point plan. Read the fact sheet if you want the details or talk to your doctor. I got a fact sheet and had to wait for my vaccine, so plenty of time to read and ask questions or change my mind. And your points about the forcing of vaccination, I don't recall any instance of forced covid vaccine injections. Yes, in a parent comment you linked to something terrible that happened in the 1900s. Lots of terrible things happened in history.

IOT_Apprentice 4y ago

There are people who have taken 2nd mortgages on their homes to send money to Trump for his “stop the steal” grift. People are too ignorant in general.

mhh__ 4y ago

We shouldn't lie but 99% of college grads are either nominally or practically innumerate, a probability alone isn't enough