←back to thread

My dad could still be alive, but he's not

(www.jenn.site)
367 points DustinEchoes | 3 comments | 13 Nov 25 02:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ugh123 ◴[13 Nov 25 02:41 UTC] No.45909860[source]▶
>my dad is dead, because his family members were too naive to know that the thing they were instructed to do by the state was a false thing.

We're told a lot of things by "officials" not because it's correct, but because it holds the least legal liability for official parties involved, especially anything involving healthcare. These officials also sometimes include doctors, who work to protect themselves and the system first, and then patients.

replies(5): >>45909909 #>>45909954 #>>45909988 #>>45910116 #>>45910233 #
energy123 ◴[13 Nov 25 02:59 UTC] No.45909988[source]▶
Incompetence and laziness among doctors is a big cause. As a professional you've probably worked with many colleagues you thought were bad. Well there are doctors like that too. Many of them. And unlike in tech, they don't get let go if they're bad. They stay around and keep "treating" patients.
replies(3): >>45910054 #>>45910068 #>>45910734 #
photon_lines ◴[13 Nov 25 03:10 UTC] No.45910068[source]▶
This is 100% true, especially in Canada. I've had multiple encounters with doctors who were not fit for their positions and should not have been working as doctors. One of them nearly killed my mom, and another one was suspended due to malpractice and performing research fraud, but was given her license back and is back to work at the moment. Yes she is fully licensed and back to working as a regular MD in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jamal
replies(1): >>45910150 #
bonsai_spool ◴[13 Nov 25 03:20 UTC] No.45910150[source]▶
> One of them nearly killed my mom, and another one was suspended due to malpractice and performing research fraud, but was given her license back

How does alleged research fraud affect someone’s ability to be a caregiver?

replies(4): >>45910190 #>>45910264 #>>45910525 #>>45910541 #
1. blobbers ◴[13 Nov 25 04:09 UTC] No.45910525[source]▶
It would appear fairly clear: she tried to claim a therapy would help someone when it clearly would not and when confronted with this fact, actively tried to hide it. How on earth would you trust such a person to be your caregiver?
replies(1): >>45910671 #
2. bonsai_spool ◴[13 Nov 25 04:35 UTC] No.45910671[source]▶
> It would appear fairly clear: she tried to claim a therapy would help someone when it clearly would not and when confronted with this fact, actively tried to hide it. How on earth would you trust such a person to be your caregiver?

Where did you derive any of this from what the OP said? He said there was an allegation of research conduct, and this is the statement to which I responded.

Almost all research uses artificial cell lines and animals—where did you get the idea that we were talking about 'a therapy would help someone'?

replies(1): >>45911107 #
3. blobbers ◴[13 Nov 25 05:36 UTC] No.45911107[source]▶
The original commenter on the subject posted about the doctor Sophie Jamal. She is the person who published a paper suggested a therapy of Nitroglycerin to treat osteoporosis, is she not?

If a therapy that doesn't help is adopted then those that suffer from lack of care as a result are harmed.