The medical profession is not immune to societal trends, one of which is living in echo chambers where the only people you interact with are those who you agree with 100%.
I was thinking about this after listening to Chris Cuomo talk about his discussion with Tucker Carlson. These two people are from very different points on the political spectrum. Cuomo began by saying that the establishment hates it when people from different ‘tribes’ talk to each other. Essentially, he felt that divide and conquer was the approach and that many preferred to silence opponents than have debate.
In medicine we are supposed to be scientific and questioning. Yet in reality there is often remarkably little questioning of any treatment or approach which becomes ‘orthodoxy’. Without expressing a view one way or the other, transgender care is a good example. Those who do not fully support affirming care as the only treatment for gender dysphoria are often silenced or sacked.
In March the UK NHS, which was early into this field, announced, “we have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time”. Going forward they will only be prescribed in clinical trials. This followed recommendations by paediatrician Hillary Cass, who conducted a review of the Tavistock clinic. Scandinavian countries have also significantly changed their approach.
A week earlier, leaked documents cast questions over the operations of World Professional Association for Transgender Care (WPATH). I encourage readers to examine the WPATH files online.
In medicine we are supposed to be scientific and questioning. Yet in reality there is often remarkably little questioning of any treatment or approach which becomes ‘orthodoxy’
The response to the UK announcement here was essentially silence or “we are doing a great job”. Maybe we are. If so, it should welcome scrutiny.
To quote Charles Kettering: “The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress”.
Without being questioning, we would still use leeches and not wash hands before delivering babies. Yet as Semmelweis was castigated for questioning beliefs of the time, we find that it remains not that popular today and certainly wasn’t during the response to the COVID 19 virus. Ask Professor Martin Kulldorff, sacked from Harvard Medical School for questioning lockdowns.
Why is that? Why can’t we debate anymore? Why do we demonise those with differing opinions and label them as purveyors of ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate’.
Something for us to ponder.