Threat to doctors giving medical advice on PPRUNE
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds to me , just another "protection-racket"
If the old boy's network can stifle the dissemination of information ,outwith "the club", they can claim to be protecting their venerable profession whilst maintaining a stranglehold on consultancy for those with a vested interest (the membership)
Anyone remember the huge outcry when the property -transfer market was opened to "licensed conveyancers"? Closely-guarded was the knowledge that anyone could do their own conveyancing..arcane procedures, lack of co-operation and the lack of a central land-registry ensured this particular gravy-train remained firmly in the hands of Solicitors. the cost, nowadays, is less than it was 40 years ago...so about 1/3 in true terms.
40 years ago, Medics were infallible Gods. They closed-ranks, covered each -others' backsides and were only answerable to their Professional Body, which would throw it's weight behind the rare occasion where a Member was involved in a Court case.... Even then, ISTR, the "Patient-Confidentiality" and " Hippocratic oath" trump-cards usually got played.
I see no reason why anybody should not give advice over the Internet. It's little different to bar-room gossip and , by and large, most will accept the caveat,"it's worth what you paid for it"
I question the true motives for this rwellian attempt to control the freedom of knowledge.. Have we really not moved on from the days when the printing-press bought literacy to the lower-classes?
The obvious solution is to use an "unqualified" provy to publish your opinions
If the old boy's network can stifle the dissemination of information ,outwith "the club", they can claim to be protecting their venerable profession whilst maintaining a stranglehold on consultancy for those with a vested interest (the membership)
Anyone remember the huge outcry when the property -transfer market was opened to "licensed conveyancers"? Closely-guarded was the knowledge that anyone could do their own conveyancing..arcane procedures, lack of co-operation and the lack of a central land-registry ensured this particular gravy-train remained firmly in the hands of Solicitors. the cost, nowadays, is less than it was 40 years ago...so about 1/3 in true terms.
40 years ago, Medics were infallible Gods. They closed-ranks, covered each -others' backsides and were only answerable to their Professional Body, which would throw it's weight behind the rare occasion where a Member was involved in a Court case.... Even then, ISTR, the "Patient-Confidentiality" and " Hippocratic oath" trump-cards usually got played.
I see no reason why anybody should not give advice over the Internet. It's little different to bar-room gossip and , by and large, most will accept the caveat,"it's worth what you paid for it"
I question the true motives for this rwellian attempt to control the freedom of knowledge.. Have we really not moved on from the days when the printing-press bought literacy to the lower-classes?
The obvious solution is to use an "unqualified" provy to publish your opinions
Thread Starter
CS
Before the iron curtain comes down at midnight let me answer your post
The GMC is no longer the doctors old boy network. They are the equivalent of the CAA to pilots but unlike the CAA they do not give advice or try to help individuals by being flexible with regulations. They merely regulate and in effect operate their own hearings, although they claim that stopping you working is not a punishment. Most doctors are trepedacious of being on the receiving end of this, and I know of doctors who have retired when they have been involved.
Whether this is necessary for patient safety or excessive is something I cannot answer but we dare not risk it by going against their guidance.
Before the iron curtain comes down at midnight let me answer your post
The GMC is no longer the doctors old boy network. They are the equivalent of the CAA to pilots but unlike the CAA they do not give advice or try to help individuals by being flexible with regulations. They merely regulate and in effect operate their own hearings, although they claim that stopping you working is not a punishment. Most doctors are trepedacious of being on the receiving end of this, and I know of doctors who have retired when they have been involved.
Whether this is necessary for patient safety or excessive is something I cannot answer but we dare not risk it by going against their guidance.
Last edited by homonculus; 21st Apr 2013 at 13:45.
Plastic PPRuNer
CS: Just to confirm what homunculus said; the GMC is no longer the doctors old boy network.
To be fair, it never really was. It was tough if you really stepped out of line, but fair in that it generally declined to investigate clearly frivolous or insane allegations. When it did investigate it generally accepted a clear explanation so long as the practitioner involved was within the ethical limits of standard practice. The Council were all experienced and qualified so they had a pretty good idea of practicalities.
As I said, the the GMC of today mostly consists of non-medical bureaucrat jobsworths, whose principal aim is to neuter medical practitioners and "prevent another Shipman" (they won't).
This is purely a government exercise to remove the last elements of independence from the profession.
Very sad.
To be fair, it never really was. It was tough if you really stepped out of line, but fair in that it generally declined to investigate clearly frivolous or insane allegations. When it did investigate it generally accepted a clear explanation so long as the practitioner involved was within the ethical limits of standard practice. The Council were all experienced and qualified so they had a pretty good idea of practicalities.
As I said, the the GMC of today mostly consists of non-medical bureaucrat jobsworths, whose principal aim is to neuter medical practitioners and "prevent another Shipman" (they won't).
This is purely a government exercise to remove the last elements of independence from the profession.
Very sad.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will not give medical advice on an internet forum. A diagnosis (and thus a treatment opinion) can only be reached by a face to face interaction with a patient and if necessary, a physical examination and laboratory or imaging investigations. There are many visual and behavioral clues which are important contributors to an assessment.
That said, I will continue to offer my opinions on the psychopathological phenomenology of contributors text and the pronouncements of public officials.
That said, I will continue to offer my opinions on the psychopathological phenomenology of contributors text and the pronouncements of public officials.
A diagnosis (and thus a treatment opinion) can only be reached by a face to face interaction with a patient and if necessary, a physical examination and laboratory or imaging investigations. There are many visual and behavioral clues which are important contributors to an assessment.
111 anybody ?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we certainly have the GNC equivalent over here -- each state has its licensing board, now euphemistically referred to as "Quality Assurance Committee". In truth, it is a most undemocratic bureaucracy, with a committee made up of a few docs and a group of lawyers, regulators, non-physician practitioners and "community representatives" (i.e. activists). All power to the complainant, and the doc is largely assumed guilty until proven innocent, after a press release.
I don't disagree with your sentiments about the GNC. Same thing here.
That said, it's unfortunate that discussing any medical topic outside a formal doctor-patient encounter is now considered rendering inappropriate medical advice. Whereas one can spout whatever dangerous advice one wishes so long as you are not medically qualified. This is supposed to be beneficial to patients.
I don't disagree with your sentiments about the GNC. Same thing here.
That said, it's unfortunate that discussing any medical topic outside a formal doctor-patient encounter is now considered rendering inappropriate medical advice. Whereas one can spout whatever dangerous advice one wishes so long as you are not medically qualified. This is supposed to be beneficial to patients.
