Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lesuorac 1344 days ago
No, my take is that you should manage your risk. If you don't want the risk of the state changing its rules don't tie your employment to that state.

My second point is that professionals should already accurately tell the truth to their patients.
1 comments
AnimalMuppet 1344 days ago
The truth, or what the state decides is the truth? Those are not always the same thing.
link
lesuorac 1344 days ago
Sure.

Professionals should be sticking to positive statements [1] though. So saying something like, the covid vaccine will give you austim I think should be grounds for losing your license.

On the other hand, saying something like, there's a high change you'll have flu like symptoms if you get the vaccine would not be grounds (the symptoms are disclosed as part of the vaccine trials).

But saying something like, I would like to try X treatment that isn't typically done but I've done it a few times recently and had good results I think should also be fine.

The law makes the claim of "contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care" which I think is a very reasonable statement. In general, you want people to recommend treatments that historically have worked for a condition. And for experimental type situations all the Licensee needs to do is to make it clear that the treatment isn't backed up by existing studies.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement

link
skissane 1344 days ago
> The law makes the claim of "contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care"

One thing I have observed - a lot of what people call “scientific consensus” is not the consensus of the research literature, rather it is the “consensus” of position statements put out by professional bodies. The later often lack much of the tentative and provisional nature of the former, with doubts and uncertainties being hidden rather than highlighted. While even peer-reviewed research is not immune to political pressures, these kinds of “position statements” are much more susceptible to political influence than the actual research literature is.

link