> I believe at least in the UK, after the Tavistock scandal, people started asking questions. I mean, you mention taking do no harm seriously... I think that's

> I believe at least in the UK, after the Tavistock scandal, people started asking questions. I mean, you mention taking do no harm seriously... I think that's a good reminder/example that you you can't really reason from high-flying principles like "first do no harm" to actual behavior and effect, especially when politics and/or ideology are involved. If my ideology says X is harmful, and yours says X is needed to avoid harm, is harm being done or avoided? That's an political question, not a scientific one, and will ultimately come down to who has the power to impose their view.