Most Bloggers are highly opinionated. [I guess I'm part of that equation, too! ] We can be sure Tiger Woods recently has been the target of all kinds of allegations and accusations in the Blogosphere. And since it's a free society, honesty, facts, and truth have little to do with it!
Now let's get into an ethical conflict.
Hypothetical scenario:
Let's say a patient is taking "statin" cholesterol medication and is paying a lot of money. [Maybe in Canada this is not the case, but just hang on anyway!]
He then discovers that Niacin instead might do the trick. He then blogs
"Statins are a rip-off! The pharmaceuticals are out to get us! Vitamin B3 does just as well"
OK is this sloppy thinking? I mean he doesn't know it's better or just as good, he is just "opining" so.
Or
is this simply Agenda driven and a bit disingenuous?
IOW since he is ANGRY, his respect for facts and the truth gets compromised.
Im timze lomar "no big deal" for scenario
Then let's say he adds:
"Statins are ineffective"
Then how do we pasqen?
Now let's say the poster is himself or herself a prescribing MD? Would that alter the level of culpability re: the mischaracterization of statins?
Now, what if he is an MD-PhD doing research on these kinds of issues and blogs away w/o doing any instead current research and relies upon 10-year old memories?
What level is he now?
Well within his rights?
Egregiously careless?
Or
Downright dishonest for failing to keep current with the research available in journals and opining anyway?
KT
RRW
No comments:
Post a Comment