This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.
> According to the regulator for Ontario doctors, Jamal initially tried to place all the blame on her innocent research associate, almost ruining her career. She then tried to discredit her colleagues, claiming they had ulterior motives for questioning her results.
> When that didn’t work, they found Jamal tried to cover up her fraud: She illegally accessed patient records to destroy and change files, disposed of an old computer so investigators couldn’t examine it and even went into the Canadian Blood Services facility and changed freezer temperatures to damage blood and urine samples to mask her deception.
> And in March 2018, after admitting her misconduct before a disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Jamal was stripped of her medical license.
> This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.
And yet I haven't heard how this affects this person's ability to be an endocrinologist. Most of any job is routine busywork—and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public, we may never have a politician (or hospital chief) for the rest of humanity.
I am not saying that OP should love their endocrinologist. I am saying that all of this is a non sequitur.
People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.
Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.
I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.
> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.
> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.
> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.
So much pathos—I was responding to an illogical set of statements.
People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar. - or maybe the evidence was insufficient?
I don't see a comment about research standards. Let's stick to rationality here, please.
> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for.
Exactly the opposite of what I am asking.
> about the origins of professional standards.
The suggestions of your comment have been falling flat, so I'm not going to take this ill-defined assignment. If there are logical statements you wish to provide, please do.
---
Again, the OP did not say anything about malpractice. Had the OP done so, I would have made no comment.
The incidental prior incidence of alleged research fraud has no a priori bearing on why OP did not like this person.
It is not alleged research fraud. It is admitted fraud. The person is saying they sensed something wrong with her. Dishonest behavior is often discernible in advance if you know what to look for.
> Jamal now takes full responsibility and “regrets having exposed patients to the risk of harm by enrolling them in studies which had no value.”
There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.
By defining any ethical statements as pathos you are attempting to force medical practice to be assessed in a logical frame. It is not valid to do so. It is an interpersonal endeavor with ethical requirements.
Whenever medicine is discussed on HN, there is a knee jerk response to assume physicians are incompetent and that search engines replace their training. We’re on the same path here. Is lying bad? Yes. Does that mean that a liar can’t be a good physician? Exercise left to reader.
Regarding your supposedly ‘ethical statements’ that aren’t actually arguments meant to draw emotion:
> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.
Where’s your argument? Also, total elision of the actual panel of the professional society that did not remove licenses. I don’t see ethics, or logic. Appeal to emotion.
> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver .
You don’t even know what the Hippocratic oath is, friend. And on your incorrect premise, you make some grand statement that does not follow (nurses don’t take this oath, so they clearly can’t be fit to be caregivers? Oh wait, that’s absurd. So is the oath important or not?)
> Medical care is about more than technical competence.
Emotional argument all day. And not even something in contention.
> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.
Haha; I have been trying to and then realized it was senseless. I actually wonder if this an ai designed to troll.
I could see someone using a prompt that says something like “make a poor argument based on ______ and repeatedly alter it in further comments. Use words from a list of logical fallacies incorrectly, make yourself sound credible.”
> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.
I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post.
Here is an example for the HN crowd.
"I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management.
I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB"
---
> I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.
I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.
I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.
This is exactly the main lesson of Finite and Infinite Games. There are finite games, in which the goal is to win, and there are infinite games, in which the goal is to continue playing the game. Using this framing, one can account for quite a large amount of long-term, large-scale problems as breakdowns wherein some participants choose to play formerly infinite games as finite ones, thus crushing their competition but destroying the game itself.
You're being obtuse. There's an obvious difference between "state-level actors can produce misleading films" and "anyone with an internet connection and 5 minutes can make anything they want".
Not in terms of effect. This might have been a gamechanger 20 years ago but nowadays people already trust TikTok memes more than they trust CNN. The bar for credibility is so low that this sort of thing is almost trying too hard.
“People” aren’t a monolith. Certain people are definitely falling for low effort TikTok trash but now more people will fall for these more “credible” fakes.
I think it will be like these "X celebrity is dead" fake articles that went viral on Facebook 201X something. People, as in enough people to make gossip, will only get fooled 3 or 4 times.
> I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.
Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation.
One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built this company|escalated privilege|retired early] by [twisting the rules of the system|exploiting a loophole|penetration testing]", and that ethos isn't entirely that far away from "did you know you can get the laws changed just by spending $50k on a senator?" or "Twitter only needs 50 engineers as long as they're all H1-B hostages".
It really feels like what we've lost is empathy and humanity.
There are plenty of places where this is the standard.
Anecdote time: I joined a not-quite-FAANG in an acquihire. Some of my teammates negotiated hard on the way in; I did not. After I got into management, I learned that they're perfectly willing to give you an extra $10k on your initial salary offer, but then you just get a lower raise after the first year, so everyone ends up in the same spot almost immediately anyway. The $10k was a rounding error in the total comp, and anyway they preferred to have steady employees who could be happy in a good situation for many years, rather than mercenaries who were more likely to chase vanity metrics and leave half-finished projects when they left in 18 months. Equity comp was generous and non-negotiable.
> What's the rationale for funding those niche sports?
You've been capitalism-pilled. Sometimes it's worth funding things that "aren't worth funding". Not everything needs to return an easily measurable 10% YoY. Investing in the richness of experience for your population or student body or community is a good thing, even if it doesn't always pay itself back in an obvious way. Well-rounded people are happier, more resilient, and yes, more productive.
Don't blow the whole budget on underwater basket-weaving, but investing a bit in enrichment and supporting niches is an important part of life.
I'm not reading the arguments closely enough to make a judgement, but the reference is to an imagined moral imperative to spread "civilization" and whatnot to "lesser" cultures and peoples. We covered it in high school where I grew up.
Focusing on "nations" specifically is a waste of effort. "Power structures" generically are enough. It doesn't matter whether it's technofascist fiefs, nation-states, the Illuminati, or an up-jumped HOA.
> According to the regulator for Ontario doctors, Jamal initially tried to place all the blame on her innocent research associate, almost ruining her career. She then tried to discredit her colleagues, claiming they had ulterior motives for questioning her results.
> When that didn’t work, they found Jamal tried to cover up her fraud: She illegally accessed patient records to destroy and change files, disposed of an old computer so investigators couldn’t examine it and even went into the Canadian Blood Services facility and changed freezer temperatures to damage blood and urine samples to mask her deception.
> And in March 2018, after admitting her misconduct before a disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Jamal was stripped of her medical license.
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-despite-commit...