Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Political Correctness infects the CDC
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 72103617" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>Evidence-Based is jargon from Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). I quite frankly cannot see how any medical organisation or regulatory body worth its salt can fail to refer to it.</p><p></p><p>Similarly Foetus, else how are you supposed to refer to an unborn human? It is a medical term related to foetal circulation and physiology being a bit different, it is only in the popular sphere that it becomes a battleground between baby and foetus. I doubt most doctors really make such a big hoopla over the inherent implicated meaning of the distinction. A foetus is merely an early form of the human organism.</p><p></p><p>Science-Based is much less relevant in a Medical sphere, though. Generally recommendations from Infective Diseases departments should not be impacted much thereby. They are generally made via EBM, not from scientific investigations, which tend to be far more generic, less structured, and tend to run afoul of ethical constraints.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, when we are not dealing with the purely organic, a lot of factors come into play. In Psychiatry, if something is normal within the population, it is not treated as aberant - so a Pentocostal speaking in tongues is not mentally ill, but someone else would be; or a hallucinating shaman or sangoma is not considered schizophrenic.</p><p>This is very relevant in our current Transgender situation. A few years ago when I was working in a Psychiatric hospital, I diagnosed people with Gender Identity Disorder - today, due to Psycho-Social factors, this diagnosis would not be made.</p><p>Similarly, we had homosexuality considered mental illness a hundred years ago, or 'uppity women' being labelled as suffering from the disease Hysteria.</p><p></p><p>What is or is not considered a disease, considered Pathology, is determined by the society one finds yourself in - especially in the spheres of Mental Illness, Psychology and Social work. It is there where these recommendations seems to be aimed at. I doubt anybody would object at the use of Evidence-Based or Science-Based in a Pneumonia recommendation.</p><p></p><p>So this really has nothing to do with Science, Medicine or Medical Science outside a few narrow cases. This is about culture, about allowing voluntary abortion or not, allowing Euthanasia, normalising Transgenderism, etc. These things have precious little to do with Evidence, but more with psychosocial cultural trends. Data can be interpreted in different ways.</p><p></p><p>I don't know what they were specifically told at the CDC, but if interpreted correctly, ommiting such terms may be sage advice in order to keep it out of political and cultural squabbles. Otherwise it may be an attempt to mire them in it...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 72103617, member: 385144"] Evidence-Based is jargon from Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). I quite frankly cannot see how any medical organisation or regulatory body worth its salt can fail to refer to it. Similarly Foetus, else how are you supposed to refer to an unborn human? It is a medical term related to foetal circulation and physiology being a bit different, it is only in the popular sphere that it becomes a battleground between baby and foetus. I doubt most doctors really make such a big hoopla over the inherent implicated meaning of the distinction. A foetus is merely an early form of the human organism. Science-Based is much less relevant in a Medical sphere, though. Generally recommendations from Infective Diseases departments should not be impacted much thereby. They are generally made via EBM, not from scientific investigations, which tend to be far more generic, less structured, and tend to run afoul of ethical constraints. Unfortunately, when we are not dealing with the purely organic, a lot of factors come into play. In Psychiatry, if something is normal within the population, it is not treated as aberant - so a Pentocostal speaking in tongues is not mentally ill, but someone else would be; or a hallucinating shaman or sangoma is not considered schizophrenic. This is very relevant in our current Transgender situation. A few years ago when I was working in a Psychiatric hospital, I diagnosed people with Gender Identity Disorder - today, due to Psycho-Social factors, this diagnosis would not be made. Similarly, we had homosexuality considered mental illness a hundred years ago, or 'uppity women' being labelled as suffering from the disease Hysteria. What is or is not considered a disease, considered Pathology, is determined by the society one finds yourself in - especially in the spheres of Mental Illness, Psychology and Social work. It is there where these recommendations seems to be aimed at. I doubt anybody would object at the use of Evidence-Based or Science-Based in a Pneumonia recommendation. So this really has nothing to do with Science, Medicine or Medical Science outside a few narrow cases. This is about culture, about allowing voluntary abortion or not, allowing Euthanasia, normalising Transgenderism, etc. These things have precious little to do with Evidence, but more with psychosocial cultural trends. Data can be interpreted in different ways. I don't know what they were specifically told at the CDC, but if interpreted correctly, ommiting such terms may be sage advice in order to keep it out of political and cultural squabbles. Otherwise it may be an attempt to mire them in it... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Political Correctness infects the CDC
Top
Bottom