> There is one other point that clearly falsifies the "first do no
> harm" taken as an absolute rule for medicine. Take, for example, the
> fact that there are always unknown factors and low probability events
> in medicine. For example, even with the most common su
tor isn't removing enough healthy ones, then he is
actually not serving his patents properly.
You may wish to reflect on this as regards your stance.
There is one other point that clearly falsifies the "first do no
harm" taken
as an absolute rule for medicine. Take, for example,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Dan M wrote:
>
>
> There is one other point that clearly falsifies the "first do no harm"
> taken
> as an absolute rule for medicine. Take, for example, the fact that there
> are always unknown factors and low probability events in me
ertain percentage of healthy
>> appendixes. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it's
>> significant. Why? Because the effects of an acute burst appendix are
>> so nasty. If a doctor isn't removing enough healthy ones, then he is
>> actually not serving his
hy? Because the effects of an acute burst appendix are
> so nasty. If a doctor isn't removing enough healthy ones, then he is
> actually not serving his patents properly.
>
> You may wish to reflect on this as regards your stance.
There is one other point that clearly falsifies the
