[bonsai_spool]

> This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.

And yet I haven't heard how this affects this person's ability to be an endocrinologist. Most of any job is routine busywork—and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public, we may never have a politician (or hospital chief) for the rest of humanity.

I am not saying that OP should love their endocrinologist. I am saying that all of this is a non sequitur.

[BrenBarn]

I think the simple answer is: a person who cannot be trusted cannot be trusted with your health.

[svnt]

People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.

I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

[bonsai_spool]

> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

So much pathos—I was responding to an illogical set of statements.

People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar. - or maybe the evidence was insufficient?

> hippocratic oath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

I don't see a comment about research standards. Let's stick to rationality here, please.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for.

Exactly the opposite of what I am asking.

> about the origins of professional standards.

The suggestions of your comment have been falling flat, so I'm not going to take this ill-defined assignment. If there are logical statements you wish to provide, please do.

---

Again, the OP did not say anything about malpractice. Had the OP done so, I would have made no comment.

The incidental prior incidence of alleged research fraud has no a priori bearing on why OP did not like this person.

[svnt]

It is not alleged research fraud. It is admitted fraud. The person is saying they sensed something wrong with her. Dishonest behavior is often discernible in advance if you know what to look for.

> Jamal now takes full responsibility and “regrets having exposed patients to the risk of harm by enrolling them in studies which had no value.”

There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.

[bonsai_spool]

> There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.

You may not understand what pathos means.

[svnt]

By defining any ethical statements as pathos you are attempting to force medical practice to be assessed in a logical frame. It is not valid to do so. It is an interpersonal endeavor with ethical requirements.

[bonsai_spool]

Whenever medicine is discussed on HN, there is a knee jerk response to assume physicians are incompetent and that search engines replace their training. We’re on the same path here. Is lying bad? Yes. Does that mean that a liar can’t be a good physician? Exercise left to reader.

Regarding your supposedly ‘ethical statements’ that aren’t actually arguments meant to draw emotion:

> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

Where’s your argument? Also, total elision of the actual panel of the professional society that did not remove licenses. I don’t see ethics, or logic. Appeal to emotion.

> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver .

You don’t even know what the Hippocratic oath is, friend. And on your incorrect premise, you make some grand statement that does not follow (nurses don’t take this oath, so they clearly can’t be fit to be caregivers? Oh wait, that’s absurd. So is the oath important or not?)

> Medical care is about more than technical competence.

Emotional argument all day. And not even something in contention.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

Analysis left as an exercise for the reader.

[brendoelfrendo]

> and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public

Yes!

[switchbak]

"all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

[blobbers]

Haha; I have been trying to and then realized it was senseless. I actually wonder if this an ai designed to troll.

I could see someone using a prompt that says something like “make a poor argument based on ______ and repeatedly alter it in further comments. Use words from a list of logical fallacies incorrectly, make yourself sound credible.”

[bonsai_spool]

> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post.

Here is an example for the HN crowd.

"I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management.

I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB"

---

> I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.

I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.

[svnt]

I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.

[blobbers]

The twist ending is that this commenter IS Sophie Jamal, the endocrinologist in question!!!