12 ms·

It should be unsurprising that people don't want to entrust their health to people who don't share the same values as them regardless of what those values are.

It should be unsurprising that people don't want to entrust their health to people who don't share the same values as them regardless of what those values are. There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer, people aren't idiots, they're not going to add yet another one if they can help it. Nobody wants to have to worry about a values disagreement with their doctor on top of all the other stuff.

duxup 2y ago
Presumably being healthy is a value / hope everyone has in common with their doctor.
- latexr 2y ago
  Considering the number of doctors who refuse to assist women with miscarriages or any kind of abortion even when the women’s life is in danger, I wouldn’t trust that presumption. Doctors routinely refuse care for religious beliefs or recommend needless procedures and medications¹ for profit, you can’t trust they care for your health just because of their profession. ¹ Sometimes they’re even worse than needless and are actively harmful, such as the overprescription of antibiotics.
  - duxup 2y ago
    >Doctors routinely refuse care for religious beliefs or recommend needless procedures and medications¹ for profit I've never experienced the first part and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine. Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious, proven, and I suspect the decision to not do it is something other than day of "I don't like my doctor".
    - latexr 2y ago
      > I've never experienced the first part Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/religious-refusal-and-reproductive-health https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control... > and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine. Which most people don’t. Regardless, I’ve had doctors I know personally describe to me how certain colleagues are bad physicians who nevertheless make a ton of money for the hospital/clinic because they order a ton of unnecessary procedures. Yes, even when going for routine checks. > Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious Which is true, but also has nothing to do with the conversation. No one in this thread has mentioned vaccines before you did just now. The article doesn’t mention it either. I’m not an anti vaxxer, nor have I assumed you were.
      - rachofsunshine 2y ago
        > Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”. No, but it's a relevant data point that allows you to counterbalance possible sampling bias. If everyone tells you people are poisoning halloween candy all the time, but no one within your direct experience encounters it, you should investigate possible sampling bias. Perhaps you are in a privileged context that avoids poison halloween candy, so the sampling bias is in your local environment. Or perhaps such stories easily go viral, so the sampling bias is in people's tendency to share sensational stories. Either way, you have something to watch for. Relying on multiple weakly-correlated information channels is a good way to hedge yourself against dysfunction in any one of those channels.
      - maxerickson 2y ago
        How do we convince the doctors describing their colleagues to you to act in an ethical manner? I'm thinking the ones they describe are a lost cause and should be removed from the profession.
        latexr 2y ago
        I agree they should be removed from the profession. What I’ve been told is that it isn’t easy to do. As in, they would have to do something egregious, someone would have to lodge a complaint, and it would have to be proven they were negligent. Hard to do when you’re “just” ordering unnecessary and expensive procedures or prescribing the wrong medication which while ineffective might not be outright dangerous.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    > Considering the number of doctors who refuse to assist women with miscarriages or any kind of abortion even when the women’s life is in danger, I wouldn’t trust that presumption. To note, recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy prioritizing flawed belief systems over healthcare. https://www.propublica.org/series/life-of-the-mother https://www.propublica.org/series/life-of-the-mother > When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, doctors warned that women would die, but lawmakers who passed state abortion bans didn’t listen. The worst consequences are now becoming clear. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111924 (citations from a comment I wrote previously in a dead thread, linked for brevity vs wall of text)
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      >recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy Really bugs me that the people who championed the apparatus that enables the existence and implementation of such policy never consider their role. It's like ascribing your 9th inning loss to a mediocre batter who got lucky when your own pitcher was dumb enough to send one straight down the middle.
Braxton1980 2y ago
>It should be unsurprising that people don't want to entrust their health to people who don't share the same values as them regardless of what those values are. It's surprising and stupid. >There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer, Like what?
- ArinaS 2y ago
  > "It's surprising and stupid." I think it probably is irrational, but I don't think there's any way to combat such biases. It's just how humans as social species are - we're less likely to trust someone who doesn't trust our views or opinions.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    There are many instinctive desires that are illegal. Assault for example.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- latexr 2y ago
  > Like what? Like drug companies spending millions wining and dining doctors for them to recommend their products.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Does this corelate with the wrong decision for the patient in terms of their condition? I'm sure financially using brand drugs over a genetic, for example, could be more costly for the patient but that may not be danger medicially
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  > Like what? During COVID doctors had their licenses to practice revoked if they weren't on board with public health policies (set by people who were not doctors). In just one example of many, this doctor [1] had his license revoked and the tribunal specifically stated that he was expected to (ab)use his patient's trust to get them to comply with government policies, even though he disagreed with them on health grounds. Some people either didn't realize this, or agreed with the policy of forcing doctor's hands, and so have continued to trust. But I'd argue that if you knew about this policy, it was 100% irrational to trust what doctors told you on anything COVID related. The whole basis of trust is the assumption the doctor is doing what's best for you as an individual, but a doctor cannot do that if the advice they think is correct for your individual case is illegal to give you. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-tribunal-college-1.6868061 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-trib...
dboreham 2y ago
Why? Our vet is a massive Trumper, but I still believe he's going to treat our pets with compassion.
- soco 2y ago
  I think the original argument was, if you were a massive dem, you'd be possibly facing some speed bumps. Hopefully not, but doctors are humans as well. And pets don't vote anyway so they should receive a much milder treatment (again, hopefully). I think the whole discussion is long time over the economy, and runs now only about ethics - and doctors must navigate this line daily, so the topic is more important than ever.
- aisenik 2y ago
  A supporter of the party of summarily executing housepets is going to have wildly different ideas about compassion than I do. If you can support Kristi Noem shooting her dog and disappearing people to foreign torture prisons, you can't be trusted to treat my loved ones. Trump has recently used the word "love" to describe how Nazis treated Jewish prisoners. This is a party that has embraced attacking empathy as sinful. I'd trust a MAGA vet to get livestock to market profitably, maybe, but never with anything or anyone I love.
cogman10 2y ago
Ironically, the anti-medical viewpoint is FILLED with naked capitalism. The people most distrustful in the motivations of modern medicine seem highly inclined to buy supplements their favorite anti-medical media is almost certainly hawking. This isn't to say medicine is perfect, but you really should be questioning the motives of those calling it all a sham. Due to regulation, medicine is generally pretty well backed up.

duxup 2y ago

Presumably being healthy is a value / hope everyone has in common with their doctor.

latexr 2y ago
Considering the number of doctors who refuse to assist women with miscarriages or any kind of abortion even when the women’s life is in danger, I wouldn’t trust that presumption. Doctors routinely refuse care for religious beliefs or recommend needless procedures and medications¹ for profit, you can’t trust they care for your health just because of their profession. ¹ Sometimes they’re even worse than needless and are actively harmful, such as the overprescription of antibiotics.
- duxup 2y ago
  >Doctors routinely refuse care for religious beliefs or recommend needless procedures and medications¹ for profit I've never experienced the first part and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine. Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious, proven, and I suspect the decision to not do it is something other than day of "I don't like my doctor".
  - latexr 2y ago
    > I've never experienced the first part Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/religious-refusal-and-reproductive-health https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control... > and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine. Which most people don’t. Regardless, I’ve had doctors I know personally describe to me how certain colleagues are bad physicians who nevertheless make a ton of money for the hospital/clinic because they order a ton of unnecessary procedures. Yes, even when going for routine checks. > Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious Which is true, but also has nothing to do with the conversation. No one in this thread has mentioned vaccines before you did just now. The article doesn’t mention it either. I’m not an anti vaxxer, nor have I assumed you were.
    - rachofsunshine 2y ago
      > Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”. No, but it's a relevant data point that allows you to counterbalance possible sampling bias. If everyone tells you people are poisoning halloween candy all the time, but no one within your direct experience encounters it, you should investigate possible sampling bias. Perhaps you are in a privileged context that avoids poison halloween candy, so the sampling bias is in your local environment. Or perhaps such stories easily go viral, so the sampling bias is in people's tendency to share sensational stories. Either way, you have something to watch for. Relying on multiple weakly-correlated information channels is a good way to hedge yourself against dysfunction in any one of those channels.
    - maxerickson 2y ago
      How do we convince the doctors describing their colleagues to you to act in an ethical manner? I'm thinking the ones they describe are a lost cause and should be removed from the profession.
      - latexr 2y ago
        I agree they should be removed from the profession. What I’ve been told is that it isn’t easy to do. As in, they would have to do something egregious, someone would have to lodge a complaint, and it would have to be proven they were negligent. Hard to do when you’re “just” ordering unnecessary and expensive procedures or prescribing the wrong medication which while ineffective might not be outright dangerous.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > Considering the number of doctors who refuse to assist women with miscarriages or any kind of abortion even when the women’s life is in danger, I wouldn’t trust that presumption. To note, recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy prioritizing flawed belief systems over healthcare. https://www.propublica.org/series/life-of-the-mother https://www.propublica.org/series/life-of-the-mother > When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, doctors warned that women would die, but lawmakers who passed state abortion bans didn’t listen. The worst consequences are now becoming clear. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111924 (citations from a comment I wrote previously in a dead thread, linked for brevity vs wall of text)
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    >recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy Really bugs me that the people who championed the apparatus that enables the existence and implementation of such policy never consider their role. It's like ascribing your 9th inning loss to a mediocre batter who got lucky when your own pitcher was dumb enough to send one straight down the middle.

Braxton1980 2y ago

>It should be unsurprising that people don't want to entrust their health to people who don't share the same values as them regardless of what those values are. It's surprising and stupid. >There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer, Like what?

ArinaS 2y ago
> "It's surprising and stupid." I think it probably is irrational, but I don't think there's any way to combat such biases. It's just how humans as social species are - we're less likely to trust someone who doesn't trust our views or opinions.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  There are many instinctive desires that are illegal. Assault for example.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
latexr 2y ago
> Like what? Like drug companies spending millions wining and dining doctors for them to recommend their products.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Does this corelate with the wrong decision for the patient in terms of their condition? I'm sure financially using brand drugs over a genetic, for example, could be more costly for the patient but that may not be danger medicially
mike_hearn 2y ago
> Like what? During COVID doctors had their licenses to practice revoked if they weren't on board with public health policies (set by people who were not doctors). In just one example of many, this doctor [1] had his license revoked and the tribunal specifically stated that he was expected to (ab)use his patient's trust to get them to comply with government policies, even though he disagreed with them on health grounds. Some people either didn't realize this, or agreed with the policy of forcing doctor's hands, and so have continued to trust. But I'd argue that if you knew about this policy, it was 100% irrational to trust what doctors told you on anything COVID related. The whole basis of trust is the assumption the doctor is doing what's best for you as an individual, but a doctor cannot do that if the advice they think is correct for your individual case is illegal to give you. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-tribunal-college-1.6868061 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-trib...

dboreham 2y ago

Why? Our vet is a massive Trumper, but I still believe he's going to treat our pets with compassion.

soco 2y ago
I think the original argument was, if you were a massive dem, you'd be possibly facing some speed bumps. Hopefully not, but doctors are humans as well. And pets don't vote anyway so they should receive a much milder treatment (again, hopefully). I think the whole discussion is long time over the economy, and runs now only about ethics - and doctors must navigate this line daily, so the topic is more important than ever.
aisenik 2y ago
A supporter of the party of summarily executing housepets is going to have wildly different ideas about compassion than I do. If you can support Kristi Noem shooting her dog and disappearing people to foreign torture prisons, you can't be trusted to treat my loved ones. Trump has recently used the word "love" to describe how Nazis treated Jewish prisoners. This is a party that has embraced attacking empathy as sinful. I'd trust a MAGA vet to get livestock to market profitably, maybe, but never with anything or anyone I love.

cogman10 2y ago

Ironically, the anti-medical viewpoint is FILLED with naked capitalism. The people most distrustful in the motivations of modern medicine seem highly inclined to buy supplements their favorite anti-medical media is almost certainly hawking. This isn't to say medicine is perfect, but you really should be questioning the motives of those calling it all a sham. Due to regulation, medicine is generally pretty well backed up.