![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2002, at 21:18:59
In reply to Re: please be supportive of religious faith » Dr. Bob, posted by fachad on December 15, 2002, at 16:54:20
> As a thought experiment, imagine if you applied that same idea to the main PsychoBabble med board. Positive experiences with meds would be shared there, but negative experiences would have to be posted elsewhere?
It started out that way, but I didn't think it worked so well... And if we go ahead with a "healthy habits" board:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/8320.html
I think it would focus on the positive, too...
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on December 26, 2002, at 20:31:26
In reply to Re: please be supportive of religious faith, posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2002, at 21:18:59
As the child of a Baptist family in the American South, I am astounded that a psychologically oriented web site would bannish open discussion of harm caused by presumptive thinking patterns often referred to as faith. This defies scientific and academic standards of language.
Here is the short version of my formative years firmly grounded in a southern church: family violence that I was aware of, and whispered among adults, lynchings, church burnings and the Sunday morning shooting of a civil rights activist, in the presence of his family, just two blocks from the Baptist church where the activist had been denied entry.
What about the children who were allowed entry? Are we to call our religious experience positive and be good quiet Germans when somebody speaks of human rights violations? I can say with certainty that, in settings where I am otherwise invited to promote religious speech as a healthy behavior, prohibitions against honest discussion of my childhood experience comprise abuse of authority. Consider how the child of Nazi parents would feel reading a site where only positive aspects of the Nazi experience may be discusseed.
Much of the injury I suffer now as a child of the South focuses on the silence I must maintain regarding inappropriate authority. From my childhood experiences, I learned to recognize abusive authority. Now I see abusive power relationships more plainly than many who grew up without challenging innappropriate authority. Now, I live in a world where I routinely witness abusive use of power by public officials, merchants, scholars and employers, but am required to act as if their abuse is legitimate. To find an ostensible mental-health-related site were religious thought, speech and activity can only be treated as a healthy activity adds insult to my injury.
Maybe this is not your religous experience, but it is mine, Dr. Hsuing. I am sorry you want no part of my experience, and are unwilling to allow here public consideration of suffering such as I encountered before I was old enough to defend myself or my community. I wonder whose interests you are protecting. Perhaps other schools not founded on Baptist principals will allow acurate discourse in their public forums.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2002, at 21:15:33
In reply to Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns, posted by Mitchell on December 26, 2002, at 20:31:26
Mitchell,
You wrote,[...harm caused by presumptive thinking patterns often referred to as faith.]
Are you saying,
A)that faith is [always] a presumptive thinking pattern and causes harm?
B)that there is a faith [that does not cause harm] that is not a presumptive thinking pattern, but your account of your childhood in a Baptist home in the American South is an exception?
If you could clarify that, then I could be better able to communicate with you about the issues that you have raised in your post.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2002, at 21:53:19
In reply to Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns, posted by Mitchell on December 26, 2002, at 20:31:26
Mitchell,
You wrote,[...bannish open discussion of harm...refered to as faith.]
A) Are you saying that the religious dogma of your Baptist community [induced] intolerance to those who advocated civil rights as you have described .as ...lynchings,...shootings...]? If so, could you relate some of the most important things that were talked about that you consider to be the things that induced this type of intolerance? If you could, then I could better discuss this here with you.
B) Are you equating [all] faith-based groupes of people with being intolerant to civil rights activists?
D) Are you saying that this site [banishes] open discussion of your formentioned topic because the site relegates that type of discussion to the [social] board? If so, what would be your definition of [bannish]?
If you could clarify these things, then I could have a better understanding of your points that you are trying to make in your post and be better able to communicate with you in regards to them.
Best,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2002, at 22:12:17
In reply to Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns, posted by Mitchell on December 26, 2002, at 20:31:26
Mitchell,
You wrote,[... other schools not founded on Baptist principles will allow...in their public forums.]
Are you saying that;
A) you consider this site to be under the auspices of Chicago University?
B)If so, then do you consider the University to be founded on Baptist principles? If so, could you clarify your rational for thinking that? If you could, then I could be better able to communicate with you in this discussion.
Best,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2002, at 22:25:44
In reply to Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns, posted by Mitchell on December 26, 2002, at 20:31:26
Mitchell,
You wrote,[Are {we}...to be good quiet Germans....consider how the child of a [Nazi] parents...]
Are you saying that;
A) all Baptist are Germans?
B) only your family are the [Germans] that you are referring to
C)The [Germans]are the [Nazi] parents that you referr to ?
D)some other explanation.
If you could clarify this, then I could have a btter understanding of what you are writing in your post and be better able to communicate with you in regards to your post.
Best,
Lou
Posted by Mitchell on December 27, 2002, at 0:34:34
In reply to Re: Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns » Mitchell, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2002, at 21:15:33
> Are you saying,
> A)that faith is [always] a presumptive thinking pattern and causes harm?I said what I said. Presumptive thoughts, when accurate, would seem harmless. Our thought processes are dominated by presumption at most levels.
When presumptions evoke thoughts of harm, humans often supplant well-founded but threatening presumptions with false presumptions.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2002, at 16:51:37
In reply to Re: Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns, posted by Mitchell on December 27, 2002, at 0:34:34
Mitchell,
You wrote that [Our thought processes are dominated by presumption at most levels.]
Could you clarify if that is a conclusion, and if it is, that you are making that conclusion based on your experiances , or if it is based on something that you have read by someone else, perhaps, in a body of psychiatric or psychological study? If it is something that you have read from someone else, could you give some sort of citation so that one could research this conclusion, if it is a conclusion? If you could, then I could discuss more about this conclusion, if it is a conclusion, with you.
Best,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2002, at 17:49:28
In reply to Re: Denying reality of presumptive thought patterns » Mitchell, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2002, at 21:53:19
> D) Are you saying that this site [banishes] open discussion of your formentioned topic because the site relegates that type of discussion to the [social] board?
That I think addresses the administrative question that was raised. I'd like the other issues to be redirected to either Psychological Babble or Psycho-Social-Babble, thanks.
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 8:24:07
In reply to Re: open discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2002, at 17:49:28
The question will probably remain on the table until people of western nations stand up to abusive authority.
The process demonstrated in this research project typifies a group process enforced across the nation under the guise of substance-abuse treatment. In the case of drug treatment, pseudo-medical settings are defined by courts, who order defendants into group therapy.
Here, the pseudo-medical setting is defined by the pseudo-medical authority of a physician.
In drug treatment, private firms operated mostly by former substance abusers attempt behavioral modification procedures that require clients to accept unqualified diagnoses of addiction or acoholism, to embrace disproven notions about addictive personalities, and about the existence of a hypothyesized "higher power." Meta-reviews have shown most of the work attempted in these behavioral modification groups to be inneffective.
Here, medical authority infers there is some advantage to participating in a group where often harmful processes are only treated as positive influences. There is no reliable science or qualified consensus underlying the procedure. A scientific approach to medical policy related to spiritual matters will consider harm reduction.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2002, at 8:42:16
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion, posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 8:24:07
Mitchell,
You wrote,[...people ...stand up to abusive authority....]
Could you clarify if the [abusive authority that you are referring to is :
A) The government of Western Nations
B) The Federal Drug agencys of these nations
C) the physician that is the administrator of this site
D) The courts that order defendants into group therapy
E) Private firms operated mostly by former drug abusers
F) all of these
G) some of these which are_[_____fill in________]_
H None of these
K) some othes not mentioned
If you could clarify which ones you are saying belong in the [abusive authority], then I can be better able to respond to your post , if possible, in an administrative manner.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Phil on December 28, 2002, at 11:29:06
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion, posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 8:24:07
"In drug treatment, private firms operated mostly by former substance abusers attempt behavioral modification procedures that require clients to accept unqualified diagnoses of addiction or acoholism, to embrace disproven notions about addictive personalities, and about the existence of a hypothyesized "higher power." Meta-reviews have shown most of the work attempted in these behavioral modification groups to be inneffective."
____Ineffective? What are your numbers? Nobody gets better, 20% get better? Which institutions are unqualified, Betty Ford? Hazeldon?
To embrace disproven 'notions' about a higher power? So you're saying that someone's belief system has been disproven? By whom? How can you prove to an individual that, despite his belief in a higher power, that a higher power doesn't exist. God exists when you believe and accept that he exists and live your life accordingly.
Let me fill you in on some personal experience and observations. How difficult is it to diagnose alcoholism when, after 24 hours, a patient goes into DT's. Or by the time they arrived, they have blown through millions of dollars doing coke? Your diagnosis is bs. Your job is to get the person straight long enough so someone can stop them before they kill themselves. There's no disproven addiction theory; there may not be an 'addictive personality' but does that matter when a person has used a substance to the extent they are almost dead? You don't have to prove to a recovered drunk that they had an addiction problem and that they need people who have been there to help them.
Not all recovery centers are legit, nor are all churches, doctors, etc. I'll give you that.
You could argue that AA is a behavior modification group and many, if not most, of these places base recovery on the 12 steps. Now, you can take all of your meta-reviews and trash them because they are worthless.
People close to death get well because of many of these programs. Not everyone there will believe in a higher power-just like they would swear to you they have everything under control.
Programs fail when people think they are smarter than those treating them. Did you know that doctors and lawyers are some of the hardest people to treat. Many believe they are smarter than the disease. Many read meta-analysis. God doesn't.
________"The question will probably remain on the table until people of western nations stand up to abusive authority."
We don't stand up to abusive authority?
_______The process demonstrated in this research project typifies a group process enforced across the nation under the guise of substance-abuse treatment.
Wrong. How do you weave those two together?
Gotta go, the margaritas are ready.
Phil
Posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 13:51:31
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Mitchell, posted by Phil on December 28, 2002, at 11:29:06
Phil,
I understand your strong sentiments regarding the urgency of delivering behavioral health care to individuals whose lives are overwhelmed by self-titrated psychoactives.
It is somewhat difficult to unweave administrative issues, which is my primary interest in this discussion, from related issues involving efficacy and legitimacy of communication-based medical procedures. The difficulty is in comparison. If this approach (an asynchronous self-help group administered by a medical professional who arbitrates group rules) represents the better of any world, to discuss administration we need to consider the world against which this project is compared.
At least one commercial treatment program you mentioned issued a statement denouncing techniques it formerly embraced, and which are still in use among by many if not most providers of court-ordered group therapy. The common thread I identified here and in behavioral healthcare approaches shown less effective in qualitative meta analysis than other approaches is the element of authority.
But 12-step communities and some approaches recognized by research to be effective share one common element. Both discourage communities from shielding a person from the natural consequences of their behavior. The natural consequence of reliance on an authority to define matters of faith is that a person who does so will naturally encounter others who challenge their faith, or who propose faith in an other, perhaps conflicting authority. To create an environment where only affirmative statements may be offered about trust in an authority shields members from the natural consequences of placing too much confidence in authority. A comparison would be a group for all opiod users, prescribed or self-titrated in which only positive statements could be made about opiod use.
Posted by Phil on December 28, 2002, at 18:18:16
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Phil, posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 13:51:31
> Phil,
>
> I understand your strong sentiments regarding the urgency of delivering behavioral health care to individuals whose lives are overwhelmed by self-titrated psychoactives.
>
> It is somewhat difficult to unweave administrative issues, which is my primary interest in this discussion, from related issues involving efficacy and legitimacy of communication-based medical procedures. The difficulty is in comparison. If this approach (an asynchronous self-help group administered by a medical professional who arbitrates group rules) represents the better of any world, to discuss administration we need to consider the world against which this project is compared.
>
> At least one commercial treatment program you mentioned issued a statement denouncing techniques it formerly embraced, and which are still in use among by many if not most providers of court-ordered group therapy. The common thread I identified here and in behavioral healthcare approaches shown less effective in qualitative meta analysis than other approaches is the element of authority.
>
> But 12-step communities and some approaches recognized by research to be effective share one common element. Both discourage communities from shielding a person from the natural consequences of their behavior.>>True
The natural consequence of reliance on an authority to define matters of faith is that a person who does so will naturally encounter others who challenge their faith, or who propose faith in an other, perhaps conflicting authority. To create an environment where only affirmative statements may be offered about trust in an authority shields members from the natural consequences of placing too much confidence in authority. A comparison would be a group for all opiod users, prescribed or self-titrated in which only positive statements could be made about opiod use.
>
>>I won't ask which group has stopped using certain techniques.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying about people only able to discuss palatible aspects of their faith as defined by authority.Actually, I don't think the faith board should have been instituted because you have to put personal beliefs across to someone who may abhor religion or anything to do with it. The argument or personalities then becomes the focus of the discussion.
We are asked here to not say that there's only one way to the kingdom but that's what most Cristians believe. The problem is that religious discussions turn into very heated discussions where, if you're reading, the party's involved sound like they haven't grasped their own beliefs yet.
Posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 9:20:17
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion, posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 8:24:07
> The process demonstrated in this research project typifies a group process enforced across the nation under the guise of substance-abuse treatment. In the case of drug treatment, pseudo-medical settings are defined by courts, who order defendants into group therapy.How is this group which is entirely voluntary typical of court ordered therapy? PB specifically denies being therapy. It claims its mission as "support and education".
>
> Here, the pseudo-medical setting is defined by the pseudo-medical authority of a physician.
I agree that the setting is defined by Bob but it seems to come from his private definition of civility without any pretense to medical justification.
> In drug treatment, private firms operated mostly by former substance abusers attempt behavioral modification procedures that require clients to accept unqualified diagnoses of addiction or acoholism, to embrace disproven notions about addictive personalities, and about the existence of a hypothyesized "higher power." Meta-reviews have shown most of the work attempted in these behavioral modification groups to be inneffective.
>
There seems to be a lot of truth in what you say. Have you read "12-Step Coersion" ? (Hope my double quotes work)
> Here, medical authority infers there is some advantage to participating in a group where often harmful processes are only treated as positive influences. There is no reliable science or qualified consensus underlying the procedure. A scientific approach to medical policy related to spiritual matters will consider harm reduction.I really don't see that. Do you think Bob also believes there is some advantage to participating in PSB where positive discussion of faith is forbidden but critical or negative discussion is allowed? And what about people like yr humble poster whose beliefs are not allowed on any board? Do you think Bob actually believes my beliefs are harmful and that's why they are banned? I don't see it that way. It seems to me his main concern is keeping the board itself running smoothly rather than making "therapeutic" decisions about what's best for individuals.
Not saying I agree with him of course.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2002, at 9:40:10
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Mitchell, posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 9:20:17
OddipusRex,
That was a stimulating response that you posted. It stimulated me to inquier about your statement that you wrote,[...whose beliefes are not allowed on any board...].
Could you clarify if the poster is yourself? If it is, could you clarify what the [beliefs] are that are not allowed on [any] board? If you could, then I could have a better undersdtanding about the adminisration of the boards, as you percieve, and be aware of the administrtaive aspects of censorship that prohibits whatever these[ beliefs] are that you state are [not allowed on {any} board]and reply accordingly.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Mitchell on December 29, 2002, at 11:23:07
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Mitchell, posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 9:20:17
Oddipus,
It's fortunate that we don't all see things the same way. Can you imagine 6 billion people sharing the same two eyes?
Technically, courts don't order clients into group therapy; they usually order them to attend educational meetings as part of a probationary sentence. Usually, contracts with non-profit providers mask differences in the putative educational sentence and the prohibition based behavioral modification tactics employed by contractors who operate the groups.
The two (PBF and court-ordered education) are similar in that in each an arbiter determines direction of group discussion.
The availability of a similar group nearby (PBS), in my view, does little to resolve flaws in the educational process proposed on PBF.
PB and Co. are not styled as psychotherapy, for sure. But education and support, in their myriad forms, are recognized as therapeutic procedures across the spectrum of medical services. Time spent directing medical self-help groups or providing educational information is often a billable medical cost. This site is styled to minimize the medical input of the medical professional who directs group process. However, when administrative duty is solely in the hands of a single high-level practitioner, the administration implies, nay it indicates that direction of a medical site is in the hands of a medical professional.
It matters none whether Robert Hsuing plays doctor when he arbitrates and PBCs. Regardless the lack of pretense in his presentation, he is a doctor. He holds the license, but we the people licensed him. In a remote emergency, I would ask him to employ his best medical judgement. I absolutely expect it in his research work.
Consider a theorized medical doctor who creates a site where only positive statements can be written about the value of leeches in medical therapy. A local hierarchy of credibility is allowed to form around nominally selected users' experience, and around who most aggressively or most carefully presents their personal views. When a physician directs formal, public, ongoing medical dialogue, regardless caveats and disclaimers, the public must make a determination about the merits of a medical service offered by a physician. Lucy's trick of taking the football Charlie Brown is trying to kick might not be the best way for doctors to teach the public to use their own best judgement.
Do I think Dr. Hsuing considers participation in PBF to be psychologically helpful for some people, and that harm may come from allowing others to participate? If he is a doctor and he is encouraging participation, I hope his best medical judgement is that participation is helpful. I know of no other rational reason he would exclude participation than that he felt some participation to be harmful, at least in the microcosm of this group. The only benevolent reason I have imagined a doctor would encourage people to participate in an educational process he does not believe therapeutic would be if he does not know if the procedure is helpful, but for research purposes wants to assess efficacy of the procedure.
Do I think being told by a doctor that one is harmful to a group can in turn be harmful to the person turned away? If I did not think so, I would not be as interested in arbitrary exclusions. If the smooth operation of a research project has eclipsed a physician's concern for the therapeutic value of his services, we have a problem. Otherwise, it is an interesting dilemma.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2002, at 11:51:08
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » OddipusRex, posted by Mitchell on December 29, 2002, at 11:23:07
Mitchell,
I consider your post to be one of the most, if not the most, stimulating post that I have ever read, in any forum.
Could you transferr this post , in toto, to the social board so that I can respond to it?
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Mitchell on December 29, 2002, at 12:43:20
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Mitchell, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2002, at 11:51:08
Lou,
Administratively, I wonder what would be the consequence of a person sharing on the social board thoughts that occured while reading a post on the administrative board.
I do not know if a person's opportunity to write to the social board depends on the choice of another. I know how I would begin to find out if I wanted to know. I would try it or seek a qualified author who could provide more information. I do not know that I am any better able than you to identify a qualified author. Since I can't offer reliable advice in this matter, I do better to decline to advise.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2002, at 13:31:41
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Lou Pilder, posted by Mitchell on December 29, 2002, at 12:43:20
Mitchell,
I have asked for administrative clarification as to how one can respond to a post on the administrative board, for there is a post, titled [open discussion] here, stateing that replys to posts on the administrative board that are about non-administrative matters could be transposed to the socal board or some other board for discussion about the non-administraive aspects of the post. My request to the administration for how this could be done was promted by another post other than any of yours, but then your post was posted after that. You can see that below on this page. I also have asked how this can be accomplished, for I do not know the mechinism involved to transferr a post to another board here and I am awaiting that clarifcation from the administration. That is why I requested for you to repost your post on the social board, for some of my response to your post could be about the non-administrative aspects of your post, which I think is in the caliber of few in respect to its givng arrise to stimulating discussion, both pro and con.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 13:49:38
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » OddipusRex, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2002, at 9:40:10
Lou-Yes I was referring to myself but it could apply to anyone who has beliefs which Bob disallows-for example yours referenced in the posts below :) It seems a little Alice Through the Looking Glass to be told some beliefs are not allowed to be posted but then leave them posted so that a link can be made and a discussion of the "forbidden post" ensue.
> That was a stimulating response that you posted. It stimulated me to inquier about your statement that you wrote,[...whose beliefes are not allowed on any board...].
> Could you clarify if the poster is yourself? If it is, could you clarify what the [beliefs] are that are not allowed on [any] board? If you could, then I could have a better undersdtanding about the adminisration of the boards, as you percieve, and be aware of the administrtaive aspects of censorship that prohibits whatever these[ beliefs] are that you state are [not allowed on {any} board]and reply accordingly.
> Best regards,
> Lou
>
>
Posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 13:52:15
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion, posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 13:49:38
Posted by Phil on December 29, 2002, at 13:57:42
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Lou Pilder, posted by Mitchell on December 29, 2002, at 12:43:20
My opinion, Dr. Bob is honest and doing the best he can to keep the board from turning into a screaming, nightmare of conflicting veiws. You know Mitchell, like the Southern Baptist Convention.
We could make it a board with no cross-posting. In others words, I can tell my story of how unicorns flew me out of a burning building to safety. Now I will embrace Unicornyism. As part of my faith I have to tell others to believe it too or they burn in hell.Next poster says thank you, then tells about their religion, Satanism.
They finish, an Omish runaway tells of his nightmare.
Thank you..now a Christian says his piece which, in all likelihood, is going to make another Christian furious because their faith doesn't mesh. Same Bible. Rules are clear.
More people are killed for their beliefs,you know, and I like this-it's a "Holy War".
So, with that in mind, I think the faith board has problems. Just like every religion, some more than others, has WAY bigger problems than a faith board.
I think I've stumbled across my point. If religion and church's could get their message out to 85% of their congregation that are there for show, the faith board could work.
Blame Dr Bob or UC being Baptist. Thank you, you illustrated my point. It gets nasty fast in regards to religion. That's why he has to make the judgements he makes. If you said that on the religion board, several posters might get unhappy. Then another finger pointing Holy War breaks out.
We could get an independent moderator...oh, Jewish, we'll tell him we'll get back to him. Nation of Islam. Nope. Catholic, bad press.
Baptist, what flavor? Church of Christ, what, no music?We all have some sort of 'mental illness' here. Despite our best efforts, almost all of us fall short of the mark and life can be very unpleasant. The last thing we need is controversy over faith.
Maybe I'm still missing your point, I don't know.
Carry on.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2002, at 14:24:22
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion » Mitchell, posted by OddipusRex on December 29, 2002, at 9:20:17
> Do you think Bob also believes there is some advantage to participating in PSB where positive discussion of faith is forbidden but critical or negative discussion is allowed?
>
> OddipusRexJust to try to clarify, discussion of positive aspects of faith is also welcome at PSB. So it can be more "balanced", whereas I'd like PBF to be more "supportive".
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on December 29, 2002, at 14:54:31
In reply to Re: Court-ordered discussion, posted by Phil on December 29, 2002, at 13:57:42
> My opinion, Dr. Bob is honest and doing the best he can to keep the board from turning into a screaming, nightmare of conflicting veiws.
That is similar to the way some medications affect the thalamus of a schizophrenic - they help gate the flood of conflicting, undifferentiated information reaching the cerebrum.
Honesty and best effort are the minimum I expect from a physician's public presentation. A physician's honesty and personal best effort, however, might not be the most reliable standard by which to measure the efficacy and risk of an effort. Peer review and client response offer other measures of efficacy and risk. We can also assess the knowledge behind an effort and the context of the effort. As consumers and as citizens, we can independently assess and sometimes regulate medical claims.
> Blame Dr Bob or UC being Baptist. Thank you, you illustrated my point. It gets nasty fast in regards to religion. That's why he has to make the judgements he makes. If you said that on the religion board, several posters might get unhappy. Then another finger pointing Holy War breaks out.
Presumptions are often durable and carry through organizations though members of the organization may have tested and altered the presumption.
> The last thing we need is controversy over faith.
In our human minds, that might be the last thing we have when our mortal cognition fades. Maybe that's why so many of us spend so much time learning ways to negotiate conflicting presumptions.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.