I think you forgot to specifically mention the ongoing efforts of the US medical profession and its auxiliaries to prevent meaningful reform.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Emily Monroe<[email protected]> wrote: > If I may jump into the conversation with an ethical question: > > It has occurred to me that sometimes people legitimately can't get to > a doctor (or other professional) that will help them. Sometimes they > can't even *get* to a doctor to begin with. If they are lucky to have > the internet, it would make sense to use it. Wikipedia is on the > internet, and so it does make some sense (less sense than say, > checking a medical website, but still some sense) to check it. > > What obligation does Wikipedia have to these people? > > Emily > On Aug 3, 2009, at 3:11 PM, David Goodman wrote: > >> People are always going to mistreat and misdiagnose; let them at least >> have correct information, which is more likely to guide them right >> than incomplete information. Not doing this when in one's power is as >> immoral as telling deliberate lies. >> >> Considering only public information for now, I think there are no >> exceptions at all to the requirement to give full information in all >> cases and all subjects, except for young children, and except for >> information intended to specifically & unjustly harm a private >> individual. I mean it quite literally, essentially following JS Mill. >> For those who do think we have a responsibility not to tell the public >> what they might use improperly, I remind them, first, that this is >> the explanation used for all censorship--censorship is the classic >> valid example of a slippery slope. And second, that this is >> information the governments of the English-speaking countries not only >> permit but require to be publicly available, and that is in fact >> widely available. We are not breaking new ground here. >> >> In any case, I cannot see how standard drug dosage information is more >> harmful than any other facet of medicine. >> >> >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Kovitz<[email protected]> wrote: >>> David Goodman wrote: >>> >>>> this is information that essentially >>>> everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is >>>> available in authoritative form for all the english speaking >>>> countries >>>> (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with >>>> absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine >>>> wikiproject refuses to add. >>>> >>>> why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to >>>> treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in >>>> different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of >>>> special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each >>>> should >>>> be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the >>>> illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we >>>> can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the >>>> different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes >>>> also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there >>>> are >>>> exceptions as with everything else in the world.) >>> >>> Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance? >>> >>> That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or >>> ethical responsibility, because people will take important action >>> based on that information. Legal and medical information are the >>> classic examples. >>> >>> However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better >>> to >>> make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to >>> prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and >>> it >>> goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a >>> strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad >>> category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and >>> noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are >>> possible. >>> >>> Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of >>> dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they >>> can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have >>> trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments >>> affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone >>> to >>> lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: >>> "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually >>> the >>> text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% >>> of >>> people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other >>> information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical >>> extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always >>> shifting, and there is always dissent. >>> >>> Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you >>> tell a >>> few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, >>> that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related >>> objections? >>> >>> (Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about >>> that.) >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
