In 2022 lawmakers in the U.S. state of California passed legislation which empowered the state medical board to discipline doctors in the state who “disseminate misinformation or disinformation” that contradicts the “contemporary scientific consensus” or is “contrary to the standard of care.” Proponents of the law argue that doctors should be punished for spreading misinformation and that there is clear consensus on certain issues such as that apples contain sugar, measles is caused by a virus, and Down syndrome is caused by a chromosomal abnormality. Opponents argue that the law limits freedom of speech and scientific “consensus” often changes within mere months.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political theme:
Voting for candidate:
City:
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No
@9FZJ2MG2yrs2Y
People who have genuine medical degrees get booted off of social media accounts all the time for using information backed up by scientific consensus. Everybody should be punished the same. People like to say what they would like to hear but that could harm the medical field and lead to misinformation.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, this will decrease the amount of misinformation patients receive
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, and the doctors should also lose their medical license
No, only if the advice was proven to harm the patient. Doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts scientific consensus.
@9BJF3B42yrs2Y
Yes, but only when the advice was proven to harm the patient
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
If a doctor's advice based on old scientific beliefs harms a patient, who should be held responsible?
@9H8L3TNIndependent1yr1Y
The doctor, the patient went in to seek help in the first place and if at the advice or doing of a doctors their condition was somehow made worse or they were harmed thats on the doctor as it was there responsibility to protect and care for the patient’s health.
@9H9GRS81yr1Y
The doctor because it is their responsibility to be up to date on science
@9H8L7K61yr1Y
The doctor unless there was some kind of user agreement/ terms of use or a policy that the patient had to agree on, or if citizens are more likely to view doctors as authority and that it’s too risky to not follow the advice as a result.
@9GWKTHP1yr1Y
They should not. Scientific consensus about transgenderism and such has been proven WRONG, and yet everyone acts like it is true.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
What is "transgenderism"..? There is no system or ideology or whatever you think this "-ism" is supposed to be. Some people are just trans, it's not a wild concept...
@9TH84YH8mos8MO
it isnt just a wild concept it’s the most wild concept trans is a mental illness
@9LZNMDX1yr1Y
No, it hasn't. In this particular issue, current science is rapidly evolving, learning is ongoing, and the traditional view that gender and sexuality is purely binary is what has been proven to be wrong. If you're not familiar with the actual evidence, and you haven't read the actual studies in the peer reviewed journals, then you don't know what's been proven right or wrong.
@9BP88YF2yrs2Y
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient and the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus.
@9WQGF95Peace and Freedom7mos7MO
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient
No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas
No, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How might punishing doctors for their advice affect the patient-doctor trust relationship?
@9H5VH621yr1Y
No, only if the advice was proven to harm the patient, but doctors should be required to disclose that their advice contradicts scientific consensus
@9GFPK3Z2yrs2Y
Yes, but only when the advice was proven to harm the patient, scientific consensus can change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas
@9FF9SFF2yrs2Y
No, but doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus, this must also be proven not to harm the patient
no, doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus, and be penalized if the advice is proven to harm the patient.
@9YFCKMN6mos6MO
Yes but have doctors give both health advice from the contemporary scientific consensus and what they believe.
@9X892CV6mos6MO
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient. Doctors should also be required to disclose when their advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus.
@9Q4DD6BRepublican10mos10MO
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient, and doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@9L74FFC1yr1Y
No, only if the advice was proven to harm the patient. Require doctors to disclose that their advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus however.
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient. The doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@9KKJ3CD1yr1Y
Yes, but only if it is clear that significant harm was done to the patient because of that health advice
@9JPMCF71yr1Y
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient, and scientific consensus change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas.
@9GD75RN2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if the advice was proven to harm the patient, scientific consensus can change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas
@9DCJCKW 2yrs2Y
No, only when advice was proven to harm the patient and the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@99LGRGT2yrs2Y
No, but patients should be made aware of the contemporary scientific consensus so that patients are well informed to make their own decisions.
@9DDM37Z2yrs2Y
It honestly depends on the situation. The scientific consensus can be subject to change, so I’d say only penalize doctors if their advice led a patient’s health to decrease or cause them any harm due to the doctor’s negligence.
@9DBJY4WLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, mainly because this is a slippery slope and could lead to problems later on.
@9D9GC93Independent2yrs2Y
Yes, but leftist ideological dogma should not count as scientific consensus
@9FVTKHQ2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if the advice given has little or no evidence supporting it, and/or it harms the patient who took said advice.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How would you feel if a doctor gave you health advice that later turned out to be incorrect?
@9LZNMDX1yr1Y
How would you feel if medical consensus lagged fifteen years behind actual data, and the doctor gave you advice based on the latest information, knowing that it will take years for scientific consensus to catch up?
@99KHGST2yrs2Y
If they go against consensus, they need to present their argument to the board and get their recommendation approved.
@9CM45RL2yrs2Y
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient because scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas
@99KWDRF2yrs2Y
Only if the advice causes direct harm to a patient
@9CLC4ZP2yrs2Y
Yes, in certain situations
@99KPDXK2yrs2Y
No, these contradictions allow us to view another perspective and possibly even a more effective one
@99KJ75K2yrs2Y
Doctors shouldn't be permitted to give out information that contradicts contemporary scientific consensuses, but in the event that a patient is in severe pain or suffering and the doctor can provide a quick fix in an "unorthodox way", as long as the doctor can still provide a long term solution; I don't see an issue with that.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@9F4D5762yrs2Y
Doctors should give the best advice for health and not for political or societal reasons.
@9DRHX76 2yrs2Y
Outside of any monitored clinical trials, or case-by-case board-approved exceptions, any deviation from acceptable treatments or advice should be considered malpractice
@9DM85TD2yrs2Y
@B58WV7W4 days4D
a mix of: No, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus, and No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas.
Yes, if doctors don't trust medical science then they should be practicing it; including abortions, vaccinations, and mental health.
@B4XBT9RRepublican 2wks2W
This should only be done when the advice is proven to harm the patient, the doctor should also be required to disclose that the medical opinion contradicts the consensus of the moment. Science changes rapidly and constantly.
@B4Q9C9ZLibertarian3wks3W
No, I think doctors should be penalized to decrease the amount of misinformation patients receive but doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus at the very least
@B4KLCSB4wks4W
scientific consensus is constantly changing and as long as their advice didn't cause harm to a patient then they should be good
Diet and exercise should be included as permitted medical advice. Use of drugs and surgery should be optional in many cases. Patients should be allowed to die peacefully if they choose.
@B4FCJW4Republican1mo1MO
Yes, only if it was proven to intentionally harm the patient for the sake of health and law and order. However, they should still have access to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments for the sake of the constitution, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
No, unless it was to intentionally harm the patient for the sake of health and law and order. Even so, for the sake of freedom, the constitution, federalism, checks and balances, and weak government, they should still be allowed to have access to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments.
@B3SSNPB2mos2MO
no, so long as the patient is made aware that it isn't a traditional recommendation, is fully informed on what it may entail, and is offered a traditional option
@B3Q2S6H2mos2MO
No, only when it is proven to harm the patient without the doctor's warning as well as if they didn't disclose that it contradicts with the contemporary scientific consensus
If the advice ends up harming the patient or pure information, they should be restricted of their license.
@B3KF54R2mos2MO
No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient, however they should be told this in advance that it does not match current scientific consensus.
@B3HQLYW2mos2MO
No, the response to COVID in America is a clear example of why this would be a horrible idea. The government and media pushing people to get vaccinated was a clear abuse of power which made them billions of dollars while they silenced the medical professionals saying there were alternative remedies who ended up being correct.
@B3HG27Z2mos2MO
Combination of no, but state it contradicts the status quo and if it harms the patient then go case by case.
@B3B8VRF2mos2MO
If the advice was proven to harm the patient, I think there should be some sort of consequences for the doctor. I think they should also have to tell the patient their advice does go against scientific consensus, but also explain their reasoning for giving them the advice and make sure they know scientific consensus's change often and are not always accurate.
@B34MFZD3mos3MO
No, scientific consensus can change quickly and patients should be allowed to try unconventional methods but also doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus
@B2TSSGR3mos3MO
No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patient should be allowed to try unconventional ideas but the doctors should be required to disclose to the patient that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus and penalize doctors as well lose their medical license if the health advice that contradicts scientific consensus was proven to harm the patient.
@B2RVGJ83mos3MO
Yes, and if this advice has negative effects on the patient the doctor should lose their medical license.
@B2R684N3mos3MO
No, people can listen to whoever they want. They should always get multiple opinions, but if they die a preventable death then the doctors should be held accountable for their death. And then we wouldn’t have a healthcare system anymore. And people would stop dying for “no apparent reason”
@B2FNVYT4mos4MO
Yes. Some of the misinformation being spread from health professionals to patients can cause unnecessary suffering and even death.
@B289TV74mos4MO
Depends on the patient, the specific case/condition, and the advice given. Whether it is life threatening or not or just a lightly disputed topic in the medical community that could vary in correct treatment (ex. Eastern v Western medicine techniques). There should be penalties for doctors that are subscribing to an anti-vax sentiment because that ideology is very dangerous and could result in a loss of life for a patient.
@B24D5LP5mos5MO
Physicians should be required to disclose it, and also provide resources to support why they would recommend it and the research on why it is contradictory.
@9ZYNHQ4 5mos5MO
It depends on if they have different ideas, findings, and expertise, or if they are promoting conspiracies
@9ZWSHBB5mos5MO
No, science is an ever-changing art. I also think doctors should only be penalized if their advice to their patients has proven harmful.
@9ZRCF966mos6MO
Yes, but it should be up to the state only. This is because doctors are a regulated profession requiring a state license.
@9ZQTP866mos6MO
Doctors should be held responsible if their advice is dangerous or harmful, but open to other views if backed by evidence.
@9ZHYFDJ 6mos6MO
The advice should be studied and practiced as well as looked into. Spreading misinformation beyond that should be criminalized.
@9YGSJKP6mos6MO
no, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient & doctors should be required to disclose that its contradictory
@domkowskikj 6mos6MO
No. Doctors aren’t the end all be all for every patient. One thing may work while another thing may not work.
@9Y7H8MF6mos6MO
Yes, if the doctor does not give both options current consensus and other unconventional options. Also help to penalize those that are not staying up to date on current scientific improvements.
This does not seem like an issue related to government and should be left to the various medical institutions that govern medical practices.
@83BYVHGIndependent 6mos6MO
yes, but only when the advice has proven to harm the patient, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus and why they think it will benefit the patient
@9XXTTXMIndependent6mos6MO
Only if they are spreading misinformation and giving out advice that is truly not helpful, there are other doctors that aren’t in the mainstream healthcare system that are providing great service and they should not be penalized
@9XRF5PQIndependent6mos6MO
No as long as they also disclose the contemporary scientific consensus as well as the unconventional methods
@9XJZTXHRepublican6mos6MO
I feel the Dr. should only be punished if the intent of the Dr. at the time in which he/she rendered their advice was done in a malicious way towards their patient. If this can not be proven, then No I do not think they should be able to be punished. Science does change very frequent, and to hold a Dr. accountable for something they may suggest/recommend during one encounter, that may be different months down the line is not just and would be careless.
@9XJ88FVIndependent6mos6MO
No, doctors should only be giving patients all available information so patients can make their own decisions. Doctors should not have biases, and should have their medical license revoked if they go against best practice
@9XH6MMSRepublican6mos6MO
I don't believe they should be fired unless it was an incredibly serious issue, but I believe doctors should only focus on facts and not their own opinion. Like saying a fetus is just tissues, that is not fact it is an opinion.
@9XF8X2S6mos6MO
Generally yes, however, if the doctor gives their opinion/stance (i.e. LGBT issues) and then states the contemporary scientific consensus while setting boundaries on what the doctor wants to treat, that's fine.
@9XCJX8HIndependent6mos6MO
There is merit to many of these options. Their advice does need to have scientific causative backing, but healthcare has to progress, and so new and experimental treatments need to be available, but the patient needs to be thoroughly informed of the risks and the lack of history surrounding a treatment.
@9X9WM4C6mos6MO
The doctors should disclose that the advice is contradictory and face repercussions if this advice directly harms a patient.
Yes, but only when the advice was proven to harm the patient as scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus, if done correctly this will decrease the amount of misinformation patients receive, in addition the doctors should also lose their medical license if the patient is harmed
@9X5F76T6mos6MO
We should be funding more medical research and updating curriculum for the sake of accuracy. If doctors can debate outcomes then it’s not accurate information.
@9X4CQH56mos6MO
No, but patient safety should remain a priority, while still allowing room for innovation through informed consent.
@9WYVXWJ6mos6MO
Yes and No, they should be penalized depending on what they told the patient. Some of the information though it may contrast scientific consensus could be beneficial for the patient.
@Manti_core01 6mos6MO
It depends, if they knew it was against best practice or if new studies had simply just come out. Too nuanced to say yes or no.
@9WSZXX6 7mos7MO
Doctors should have to disclose the fact that it contradicts consensus and if it harms the patient they should be penalized
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
