Political beliefs affect patients' trust in doctors, study finds(news.uoregon.edu)
news.uoregon.edu
Political beliefs affect patients' trust in doctors, study finds
https://news.uoregon.edu/political-beliefs-affect-patients-trust-doctors-study-finds
94 comments
"Blind contrarianism is just as dangerous as blind faith."
"Rejecting everything you're told is just as intellectually lazy as believing everything you're told."
Something I think about a lot.
"Rejecting everything you're told is just as intellectually lazy as believing everything you're told."
Something I think about a lot.
Yeah I consider myself generally skeptical about just about anything, but skepticism is of no use if you're not actually thinking / considering the facts.
There's a lot of default cynicism I see out on the internet and while it might be true that your doctor makes more money of they order that test ... it doesn't mean you shouldn't get that test.
There's a lot of default cynicism I see out on the internet and while it might be true that your doctor makes more money of they order that test ... it doesn't mean you shouldn't get that test.
A doctor has a higher probability of being right. Not trusting doctors is trusting yourself, unless you're a doctor you're more likely to be wrong
I did not say 'don't trust', I said 'don't trust blindly without taking 2nd or 3rd opinion'
trusting blindly is as bad, if not worse than not trusting at all- 'above all do no harm'
trusting blindly is as bad, if not worse than not trusting at all- 'above all do no harm'
What's the difference between trusting a doctor and trusting a doctor blindly?
Maybe an example would help me understand because I'm concerned the word "blindly" is being used as a way to make the concept of trusting a doctor seem inherently wrong
Maybe an example would help me understand because I'm concerned the word "blindly" is being used as a way to make the concept of trusting a doctor seem inherently wrong
Blindly, strong word- I agree.
By saying 'trusting blindly' I meant 'dismissing possibility of incorrect diagnosis and applying prescribed procedure withought weighting the risk'.
So, if GP gave diagnosis and informed about the risks and outlined other diagnosis that are less probable based on his experience, and the patient weighted the risk and decided to go with the procedure without taking 2nd opinion, that in my opinion would not be 'trusting blindly'
By saying 'trusting blindly' I meant 'dismissing possibility of incorrect diagnosis and applying prescribed procedure withought weighting the risk'.
So, if GP gave diagnosis and informed about the risks and outlined other diagnosis that are less probable based on his experience, and the patient weighted the risk and decided to go with the procedure without taking 2nd opinion, that in my opinion would not be 'trusting blindly'
If you get a 2nd opinion you're just trusting another doctor.
If they disagree then what?
If they disagree then what?
get as many as required, my health is worth more than my opinion on doctors or system as a whole.
But sometimes you know your body and what's going on with it better than your doctor as hard as they try to understand it.
Blinding trusting what a doctor says to do can absolutely lead to the wrong treatment and outcome.
At the very least you should get multiple opinions.
Blinding trusting what a doctor says to do can absolutely lead to the wrong treatment and outcome.
At the very least you should get multiple opinions.
Mandatory multiple opinions means that multiple doctors need to allocate the same amount of time for the patient as the original doctor. Then having two opinions is not enough, in case they differ you can't discern who is right. So you need three opinions for the tie breaker. So now each doctor has to see three times more patients, meaning admission wait times has now also increased three times. So the appointment in 1 week will happen in 3 weeks now, the non urgent appointment in 6 months is now 1.5 years away, and so on.
You can skip 2nd or 3rd opinion, nobody denies you the right to do that. Still, you should not deny others the right to have 2nd or third opinion, especially since you yourself see high probability of receiving different diagnosis.
It's not mandatory, but it is your health, so do what you like. I am just saying what I do and would do, and based on my past experience, I will continue to keep doing.
>At the very least you should get multiple opinions.
And then blindly trust those?
Blindly trusting means you are trusting something without verifying yourself (as in "seeing it for yourself, not being blind")
This doesn't apply if you can't do that yourself
And then blindly trust those?
Blindly trusting means you are trusting something without verifying yourself (as in "seeing it for yourself, not being blind")
This doesn't apply if you can't do that yourself
>Blinding trusting what a doctor says to do can absolutely lead to the wrong treatment and outcome
But it probably won't be. Why would you counter an argument about probability by stating one outcome?
But it probably won't be. Why would you counter an argument about probability by stating one outcome?
I am not personally willing to risk my health on a probably. Past experience with doctors and procedures that I have needed or not needed make me realize how important it has been to get at least a second opinion.
If you get a 2nd opinion and it differs how can you make a decision as to which doctor is right?
you get as many as required. it's your health, not your car where you can simply replace it. It's very difficult to recover from medical error.
It should be unsurprising that people don't want to entrust their health to people who don't share the same values as them regardless of what those values are.
There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer, people aren't idiots, they're not going to add yet another one if they can help it. Nobody wants to have to worry about a values disagreement with their doctor on top of all the other stuff.
There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer, people aren't idiots, they're not going to add yet another one if they can help it. Nobody wants to have to worry about a values disagreement with their doctor on top of all the other stuff.
Presumably being healthy is a value / hope everyone has in common with their doctor.
Considering the number of doctors who refuse to assist women with miscarriages or any kind of abortion even when the women’s life is in danger, I wouldn’t trust that presumption. Doctors routinely refuse care for religious beliefs or recommend needless procedures and medications¹ for profit, you can’t trust they care for your health just because of their profession.
¹ Sometimes they’re even worse than needless and are actively harmful, such as the overprescription of antibiotics.
¹ Sometimes they’re even worse than needless and are actively harmful, such as the overprescription of antibiotics.
> Considering the number of doctors who refuse to assist women with miscarriages or any kind of abortion even when the women’s life is in danger, I wouldn’t trust that presumption.
To note, recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy prioritizing flawed belief systems over healthcare.
https://www.propublica.org/series/life-of-the-mother
> When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, doctors warned that women would die, but lawmakers who passed state abortion bans didn’t listen. The worst consequences are now becoming clear.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111924 (citations from a comment I wrote previously in a dead thread, linked for brevity vs wall of text)
To note, recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy prioritizing flawed belief systems over healthcare.
https://www.propublica.org/series/life-of-the-mother
> When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, doctors warned that women would die, but lawmakers who passed state abortion bans didn’t listen. The worst consequences are now becoming clear.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111924 (citations from a comment I wrote previously in a dead thread, linked for brevity vs wall of text)
>recently, doctors are refusing this care due to their concern over legal liability in states with harmful policy
Really bugs me that the people who championed the apparatus that enables the existence and implementation of such policy never consider their role.
It's like ascribing your 9th inning loss to a mediocre batter who got lucky when your own pitcher was dumb enough to send one straight down the middle.
Really bugs me that the people who championed the apparatus that enables the existence and implementation of such policy never consider their role.
It's like ascribing your 9th inning loss to a mediocre batter who got lucky when your own pitcher was dumb enough to send one straight down the middle.
>Doctors routinely refuse care for religious beliefs or recommend needless procedures and medications¹ for profit
I've never experienced the first part and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine.
Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious, proven, and I suspect the decision to not do it is something other than day of "I don't like my doctor".
I've never experienced the first part and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine.
Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious, proven, and I suspect the decision to not do it is something other than day of "I don't like my doctor".
> I've never experienced the first part
Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control...
> and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine.
Which most people don’t. Regardless, I’ve had doctors I know personally describe to me how certain colleagues are bad physicians who nevertheless make a ton of money for the hospital/clinic because they order a ton of unnecessary procedures. Yes, even when going for routine checks.
> Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious
Which is true, but also has nothing to do with the conversation. No one in this thread has mentioned vaccines before you did just now. The article doesn’t mention it either. I’m not an anti vaxxer, nor have I assumed you were.
Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control...
> and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine.
Which most people don’t. Regardless, I’ve had doctors I know personally describe to me how certain colleagues are bad physicians who nevertheless make a ton of money for the hospital/clinic because they order a ton of unnecessary procedures. Yes, even when going for routine checks.
> Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious
Which is true, but also has nothing to do with the conversation. No one in this thread has mentioned vaccines before you did just now. The article doesn’t mention it either. I’m not an anti vaxxer, nor have I assumed you were.
> Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”.
No, but it's a relevant data point that allows you to counterbalance possible sampling bias.
If everyone tells you people are poisoning halloween candy all the time, but no one within your direct experience encounters it, you should investigate possible sampling bias. Perhaps you are in a privileged context that avoids poison halloween candy, so the sampling bias is in your local environment. Or perhaps such stories easily go viral, so the sampling bias is in people's tendency to share sensational stories. Either way, you have something to watch for.
Relying on multiple weakly-correlated information channels is a good way to hedge yourself against dysfunction in any one of those channels.
No, but it's a relevant data point that allows you to counterbalance possible sampling bias.
If everyone tells you people are poisoning halloween candy all the time, but no one within your direct experience encounters it, you should investigate possible sampling bias. Perhaps you are in a privileged context that avoids poison halloween candy, so the sampling bias is in your local environment. Or perhaps such stories easily go viral, so the sampling bias is in people's tendency to share sensational stories. Either way, you have something to watch for.
Relying on multiple weakly-correlated information channels is a good way to hedge yourself against dysfunction in any one of those channels.
How do we convince the doctors describing their colleagues to you to act in an ethical manner?
I'm thinking the ones they describe are a lost cause and should be removed from the profession.
I'm thinking the ones they describe are a lost cause and should be removed from the profession.
I agree they should be removed from the profession. What I’ve been told is that it isn’t easy to do. As in, they would have to do something egregious, someone would have to lodge a complaint, and it would have to be proven they were negligent. Hard to do when you’re “just” ordering unnecessary and expensive procedures or prescribing the wrong medication which while ineffective might not be outright dangerous.
Ironically, the anti-medical viewpoint is FILLED with naked capitalism. The people most distrustful in the motivations of modern medicine seem highly inclined to buy supplements their favorite anti-medical media is almost certainly hawking.
This isn't to say medicine is perfect, but you really should be questioning the motives of those calling it all a sham. Due to regulation, medicine is generally pretty well backed up.
This isn't to say medicine is perfect, but you really should be questioning the motives of those calling it all a sham. Due to regulation, medicine is generally pretty well backed up.
>It should be unsurprising that people don't want to entrust their health to people who don't share the same values as them regardless of what those values are.
It's surprising and stupid.
>There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer,
Like what?
It's surprising and stupid.
>There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer,
Like what?
[deleted]
> Like what?
Like drug companies spending millions wining and dining doctors for them to recommend their products.
Like drug companies spending millions wining and dining doctors for them to recommend their products.
Does this corelate with the wrong decision for the patient in terms of their condition?
I'm sure financially using brand drugs over a genetic, for example, could be more costly for the patient but that may not be danger medicially
I'm sure financially using brand drugs over a genetic, for example, could be more costly for the patient but that may not be danger medicially
> "It's surprising and stupid."
I think it probably is irrational, but I don't think there's any way to combat such biases. It's just how humans as social species are - we're less likely to trust someone who doesn't trust our views or opinions.
I think it probably is irrational, but I don't think there's any way to combat such biases. It's just how humans as social species are - we're less likely to trust someone who doesn't trust our views or opinions.
There are many instinctive desires that are illegal. Assault for example.
> Like what?
During COVID doctors had their licenses to practice revoked if they weren't on board with public health policies (set by people who were not doctors).
In just one example of many, this doctor [1] had his license revoked and the tribunal specifically stated that he was expected to (ab)use his patient's trust to get them to comply with government policies, even though he disagreed with them on health grounds.
Some people either didn't realize this, or agreed with the policy of forcing doctor's hands, and so have continued to trust. But I'd argue that if you knew about this policy, it was 100% irrational to trust what doctors told you on anything COVID related. The whole basis of trust is the assumption the doctor is doing what's best for you as an individual, but a doctor cannot do that if the advice they think is correct for your individual case is illegal to give you.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-trib...
During COVID doctors had their licenses to practice revoked if they weren't on board with public health policies (set by people who were not doctors).
In just one example of many, this doctor [1] had his license revoked and the tribunal specifically stated that he was expected to (ab)use his patient's trust to get them to comply with government policies, even though he disagreed with them on health grounds.
Some people either didn't realize this, or agreed with the policy of forcing doctor's hands, and so have continued to trust. But I'd argue that if you knew about this policy, it was 100% irrational to trust what doctors told you on anything COVID related. The whole basis of trust is the assumption the doctor is doing what's best for you as an individual, but a doctor cannot do that if the advice they think is correct for your individual case is illegal to give you.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-trib...
Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;
Interference with testing of an infant, who was not his patient, for COVID-19;
Online disclosure of college investigative materials;
Failure to cooperate with the college's investigation; and
Failure to comply with an interim order imposed by the college.
Interference with testing of an infant, who was not his patient, for COVID-19;
Online disclosure of college investigative materials;
Failure to cooperate with the college's investigation; and
Failure to comply with an interim order imposed by the college.
Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it. This case is unusual because the tribunal was so clear about their intent:
> "As a physician, the information you communicate is trusted by many."
People don't trust us but they trust you, so we're going to make you into our handpuppets.
> "Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;"
Don't tell anyone we're using you this way, otherwise they'd stop trusting you too.
> "We are dismayed by the deliberate steps you took to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your communications to colleagues, patients and your thousands of followers on social media regarding COVID-19 and public health response measures were careless, often offensive and at times, possibly harmful."
Offending the government is the primary thing listed here; they aren't even sure he caused harm! The other charges are similar: he disagreed with the government on COVID, he revealed publicly that the government was threatening him, he didn't cooperate with the people who were threatening him, he "deterred the public from complying" and so on. Then something about an infant i.e. someone too young for an invasive COVID test to have value (so he was probably right to interfere with it).
> "As a physician, the information you communicate is trusted by many."
People don't trust us but they trust you, so we're going to make you into our handpuppets.
> "Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;"
Don't tell anyone we're using you this way, otherwise they'd stop trusting you too.
> "We are dismayed by the deliberate steps you took to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your communications to colleagues, patients and your thousands of followers on social media regarding COVID-19 and public health response measures were careless, often offensive and at times, possibly harmful."
Offending the government is the primary thing listed here; they aren't even sure he caused harm! The other charges are similar: he disagreed with the government on COVID, he revealed publicly that the government was threatening him, he didn't cooperate with the people who were threatening him, he "deterred the public from complying" and so on. Then something about an infant i.e. someone too young for an invasive COVID test to have value (so he was probably right to interfere with it).
>Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it.
Where was that? Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something when conspiracies often use evidence that something is trying to be hidden to prove their point
Where was that? Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something when conspiracies often use evidence that something is trying to be hidden to prove their point
The tribunal states that one of his infractions was publishing a letter he received telling him to stop dissenting.
> Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something
It's not a conspiracy if there's no attempt to keep it secret, is it?
The fact that some conspiracies are sometimes detected due to mistakes or whistleblowers doesn't mean their attempts at secrecy were useless. Presumably there are conspiracies that are never detected, but even if they are, secrecy and intimidation tactics still have value to the conspirators. Look at this very thread: it's full of people baffled that anyone might not trust their doctor. But if doctors are being forced to toe the line and not reveal that they're being so forced, then you aren't trusting a doctor, you're trusting someone in the licensing authority or public health agencies - very different.
> Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something
It's not a conspiracy if there's no attempt to keep it secret, is it?
The fact that some conspiracies are sometimes detected due to mistakes or whistleblowers doesn't mean their attempts at secrecy were useless. Presumably there are conspiracies that are never detected, but even if they are, secrecy and intimidation tactics still have value to the conspirators. Look at this very thread: it's full of people baffled that anyone might not trust their doctor. But if doctors are being forced to toe the line and not reveal that they're being so forced, then you aren't trusting a doctor, you're trusting someone in the licensing authority or public health agencies - very different.
Was the issue the contents of the letter or publishing a private letter
Why? Our vet is a massive Trumper, but I still believe he's going to treat our pets with compassion.
I think the original argument was, if you were a massive dem, you'd be possibly facing some speed bumps. Hopefully not, but doctors are humans as well. And pets don't vote anyway so they should receive a much milder treatment (again, hopefully). I think the whole discussion is long time over the economy, and runs now only about ethics - and doctors must navigate this line daily, so the topic is more important than ever.
A supporter of the party of summarily executing housepets is going to have wildly different ideas about compassion than I do.
If you can support Kristi Noem shooting her dog and disappearing people to foreign torture prisons, you can't be trusted to treat my loved ones.
Trump has recently used the word "love" to describe how Nazis treated Jewish prisoners. This is a party that has embraced attacking empathy as sinful. I'd trust a MAGA vet to get livestock to market profitably, maybe, but never with anything or anyone I love.
If you can support Kristi Noem shooting her dog and disappearing people to foreign torture prisons, you can't be trusted to treat my loved ones.
Trump has recently used the word "love" to describe how Nazis treated Jewish prisoners. This is a party that has embraced attacking empathy as sinful. I'd trust a MAGA vet to get livestock to market profitably, maybe, but never with anything or anyone I love.
Most trans people that I know don't trust doctors and that's for a good reason. The average trans person tends to be more educated about our healthcare compared to the average doctor. Not to mention the gatekeeping and outright maliciousness.
I personally don't distrust doctors, I'm just depressed at the complete lack of support I've received from them. I've been on a waiting list to have a first appointment about being trans for like 2 years now, I gave up and started sourcing my own medication nearly a year ago now
Interesting how the people with the most distrust for authority are also the most in favor of authoritarianism.
Those people simply fail to make such connection. They are usually people who are heavily offended by the world injustice etc. and are looking to any anyone who can give them a simple solution. And because there no real simple solutions to most of the complex issues, they naturally turn to the authoritarian liars who do promise simple shit. Like fire everyone, take all money and gift them and so on.
Maybe because the distrusted authority are "the others" while the authoritarians are "our people".
I think this is the wrong framing. They're not trustful or distrustful of authority in some abstract sense. They don't think in those terms. They think in terms of discomfort and of fear. "Is what this person is asking me to do unpleasant for me?" or "is it scary to me, in that it involves something I don't understand or creates uncertainty I can't cognitive-dissonance my way out of?"
Doctors ask you to do things that are unpleasant, involve things you don't understand, and create uncertainty. Your doctor says "hey, your blood pressure is high, you need to eat less salt, but that may or may not solve your problem." If you believe them, you have to measurably damage your quality of life, you have to trust in a bunch of medicine that you don't fully understand, and you now have to worry about whether your health will ever improve (when there is a very real chance that it will not). Or you can go "actually doctors are all quacks and if I just eat Natural Whole Foods(TM) I'll be fine" and have an approach that asks you to do things that make you feel good, fits within an intuitive model of the world, and creates artificial certainty.
In isolation, this isn't new. What is new is that:
- The asks have been unusually unpleasant in recent memory. COVID lockdowns are a particular focal point for a reason: they were psychologically painful and involved a distant and low-probability threat in the minds of most people. (To be clear, I think they were clearly correct policy - but that didn't make them fun.)
- The world is a lot scarier and more uncertain than people are used to, so acknowledging the facts has a higher emotional cost.
- The truth is more muddled than it used to be for most people. They're bombarded with an enormous amount of misinformation. Even if you're good at filtering misinformation and avoid uptake of 90% of it, the 10% that gets through can erode trust. And institutions - while still on balance the best source of information available to a layperson - have been abusing that trust enough that some suspicion is warranted.
- Propaganda is channeled through social connections untraceable to organizations. You might not believe a youtube video if it tells you about chemtrails, but you might believe your friend, who heard it from a friend, who saw it in a youtube video. And algorithmic targeting means you can be served exactly the propaganda that strikes your biases and vulnerabilities.
------------
The authoritarianism you're talking about, on the other hand, says:
- You should not be asked to do anything new or process the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. In fact, the things you've already been asked to do were unfair and targeted oppression aimed at you.
- The world is scary, just like you feel it is, but in a narrow and controllable way. You have agency over your fear, and a champion who fights for you, and you won't (say) die of a random disease because of a bad roll of the dice.
- The truth is simple: I am telling you the truth, always, and our enemies are telling lies, always.
- You don't need to listen to authorities who are scary and untrustworthy. Just listen to your neighbor or your favorite TikTok creator, who you trust and feel safe around.
In that sense, it doesn't feel authoritarian, because it isn't authoritarian to them. It asks them nothing, and in some cases, less than nothing. It oppresses someone else, asks someone else to sacrifice, removes someone else whose presence may cause cultural discomfort or cognitive dissonance, and promises simple, certain, free solutions. This is why you see people affected by layoffs or tariffs or whatever going "wait, um, there must be some mistake, obviously this couldn't affect me" - that really is what they believe.
That's not to say that there are not very serious problems with the status quo. There are, and that's part of what's fueling these (malignant) solutions.
I made a comment about a month ago [1] that applies again here: the average person is usually good at identifying problems but terrible at identifying solutions. And when the average person has been able to identify problems for decades and institutions have failed to solve them, they're less likely to hold the line against misinformation and mob rule. That goes double when the average person's life has gotten significantly more uncomfortable and scary, reducing their appetite for self-sacrifice in a world that is extracting more and more of their well-being.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43265532
Doctors ask you to do things that are unpleasant, involve things you don't understand, and create uncertainty. Your doctor says "hey, your blood pressure is high, you need to eat less salt, but that may or may not solve your problem." If you believe them, you have to measurably damage your quality of life, you have to trust in a bunch of medicine that you don't fully understand, and you now have to worry about whether your health will ever improve (when there is a very real chance that it will not). Or you can go "actually doctors are all quacks and if I just eat Natural Whole Foods(TM) I'll be fine" and have an approach that asks you to do things that make you feel good, fits within an intuitive model of the world, and creates artificial certainty.
In isolation, this isn't new. What is new is that:
- The asks have been unusually unpleasant in recent memory. COVID lockdowns are a particular focal point for a reason: they were psychologically painful and involved a distant and low-probability threat in the minds of most people. (To be clear, I think they were clearly correct policy - but that didn't make them fun.)
- The world is a lot scarier and more uncertain than people are used to, so acknowledging the facts has a higher emotional cost.
- The truth is more muddled than it used to be for most people. They're bombarded with an enormous amount of misinformation. Even if you're good at filtering misinformation and avoid uptake of 90% of it, the 10% that gets through can erode trust. And institutions - while still on balance the best source of information available to a layperson - have been abusing that trust enough that some suspicion is warranted.
- Propaganda is channeled through social connections untraceable to organizations. You might not believe a youtube video if it tells you about chemtrails, but you might believe your friend, who heard it from a friend, who saw it in a youtube video. And algorithmic targeting means you can be served exactly the propaganda that strikes your biases and vulnerabilities.
------------
The authoritarianism you're talking about, on the other hand, says:
- You should not be asked to do anything new or process the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. In fact, the things you've already been asked to do were unfair and targeted oppression aimed at you.
- The world is scary, just like you feel it is, but in a narrow and controllable way. You have agency over your fear, and a champion who fights for you, and you won't (say) die of a random disease because of a bad roll of the dice.
- The truth is simple: I am telling you the truth, always, and our enemies are telling lies, always.
- You don't need to listen to authorities who are scary and untrustworthy. Just listen to your neighbor or your favorite TikTok creator, who you trust and feel safe around.
In that sense, it doesn't feel authoritarian, because it isn't authoritarian to them. It asks them nothing, and in some cases, less than nothing. It oppresses someone else, asks someone else to sacrifice, removes someone else whose presence may cause cultural discomfort or cognitive dissonance, and promises simple, certain, free solutions. This is why you see people affected by layoffs or tariffs or whatever going "wait, um, there must be some mistake, obviously this couldn't affect me" - that really is what they believe.
That's not to say that there are not very serious problems with the status quo. There are, and that's part of what's fueling these (malignant) solutions.
I made a comment about a month ago [1] that applies again here: the average person is usually good at identifying problems but terrible at identifying solutions. And when the average person has been able to identify problems for decades and institutions have failed to solve them, they're less likely to hold the line against misinformation and mob rule. That goes double when the average person's life has gotten significantly more uncomfortable and scary, reducing their appetite for self-sacrifice in a world that is extracting more and more of their well-being.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43265532
I noticed reading this and there is yet to be a study on if this affects patient outcomes, which is where the real meat is, IMO.
One of the experiments is described as: "In their first experiment, the researchers created two fictitious profiles of dermatologists and randomly varied different attributes, such as race, gender, school attended, online ratings and political affiliation. Asked which dermatologist they were more likely to visit, both Republican and Democratic respondents preferred a doctor who shared their political beliefs."
It makes sense to me that a conservative person who is anti-abortion, wary of early sexual education or birth control, concerned about their child being exposed to gender transition or whatever other politics would want to see a doctor who simply would never suggest those things. It also makes sense to me that a progressive trans/gay person or supportive parent of a transgender/gay child would seek out progressive doctors who wouldn't try to convince them to detransition/conversion therapy or something.
One of the experiments is described as: "In their first experiment, the researchers created two fictitious profiles of dermatologists and randomly varied different attributes, such as race, gender, school attended, online ratings and political affiliation. Asked which dermatologist they were more likely to visit, both Republican and Democratic respondents preferred a doctor who shared their political beliefs."
It makes sense to me that a conservative person who is anti-abortion, wary of early sexual education or birth control, concerned about their child being exposed to gender transition or whatever other politics would want to see a doctor who simply would never suggest those things. It also makes sense to me that a progressive trans/gay person or supportive parent of a transgender/gay child would seek out progressive doctors who wouldn't try to convince them to detransition/conversion therapy or something.
Do you have evidence of any doctors preventing people from detransitioning or something, before you "both sides" this issue further?
Isn't 'doctors political beliefs' just another axis(proxy) people can use to make a guess about the competency level of said doctor?
If you 1 - think X and also 2 - think that everyone who doesn't hold the same belief is "dumb"/evil. Isn't logical to think a doctor is less "capable" (whatever that means to you) if he/she doesn't hold the same beliefs that you do ?
My take is that the polarization/radicalization that is happening in the last 10 years made the second point pretty common (i.e. to think everyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb/evil) and this is just the consequence of this kind of thinking.
If you 1 - think X and also 2 - think that everyone who doesn't hold the same belief is "dumb"/evil. Isn't logical to think a doctor is less "capable" (whatever that means to you) if he/she doesn't hold the same beliefs that you do ?
My take is that the polarization/radicalization that is happening in the last 10 years made the second point pretty common (i.e. to think everyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb/evil) and this is just the consequence of this kind of thinking.
The article is not about doctors political beliefs. Its about patients political beliefs and how that relate to their trust of doctors.
Maybe the take away from this is that healthcare becoming politicized is a problem in and of itself. Maybe then, we should consider who is driving this, anti-vaxers, people pushing poorly regulated supplements as alternatives to tested medicines, etc., and listen to them less or not appoint them to positions of power.
At this level, there's nothing good/evil about medical science. It's as amoral as the sun rising in the day and setting at night. It doesn't matter what you feel about immigrants, tariffs or the price of eggs. As long as the FDA is able to do its job, treatments are tested. We know the effects and side effects of treatments.
At this level, there's nothing good/evil about medical science. It's as amoral as the sun rising in the day and setting at night. It doesn't matter what you feel about immigrants, tariffs or the price of eggs. As long as the FDA is able to do its job, treatments are tested. We know the effects and side effects of treatments.
It would fit the pattern of the current US administration / GOP where any given thought, opinion, lifestyle that isn't their own is bad...
Is that not the same for the Democrats?
As an outsider looking in, no.
The democrats seem as likely to choke down on speech, but it tends to be speech that represses others. The republicans choke down on speech that contradicts their vision of society or their personal moral compass. Although both contradict free speech absolutism, they are IMO fundamentally different.
The democrats seem as likely to choke down on speech, but it tends to be speech that represses others. The republicans choke down on speech that contradicts their vision of society or their personal moral compass. Although both contradict free speech absolutism, they are IMO fundamentally different.
If it were that easy there would be no issue.
If I were possessed of a religious faith that considered my name to be so holy that it must not be spoken, would a law against saying my name repress others, or would lack of that law repress me?
If I were possessed of a religious faith that considered my name to be so holy that it must not be spoken, would a law against saying my name repress others, or would lack of that law repress me?
I find democrats efforts misguided, but rarely are they "my views only, exclude all others". They don't typically involve library book challenges, what appear to be ctrl+f searches for specific terms that relate to people unlike them, don't involve "report on your coworkers" type demands, and so on.
And most of all they don't seem to identify any and all differing views as "enemies" and so on.
And most of all they don't seem to identify any and all differing views as "enemies" and so on.
> doctors political beliefs
This is about patients' political beliefs.
This is about patients' political beliefs.
How much of this in influenced by the base rate of partisanship among medical doctors? 50 years ago, both Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to hold a prestigious occupation, but now, along with the yawning educational gap, there is a huge gap in prestigious occupations favoring people with liberal political beliefs. If I hear about a doctor who advertises their service on "conservativeprofessionals dot com" I think I would be right to wonder if they were some kind of disbarred chiropractor hawking steroids and horse drugs.
I think there's been a number of studies showing that overall political identification among physicians and providers is pretty balanced in the US, but it varies a lot by specialty area, so that some areas tend to have providers that are fairly politically conservative, and other areas tend to have providers that are politically liberal (in the US sense).
Doctors as a population are "pretty balanced" I guess but they are an entire SD to the left of the general American population.
But my main point was wouldn't a doctor advertising their services specifically to a conservative audience be a huge red flag? Has anyone ever heard of doctors hanging out their shingle on "wokedoctors dot com"? Note, this wasn't one of the hypotheticals offered in the study.
But my main point was wouldn't a doctor advertising their services specifically to a conservative audience be a huge red flag? Has anyone ever heard of doctors hanging out their shingle on "wokedoctors dot com"? Note, this wasn't one of the hypotheticals offered in the study.
Lemme tell you about a client who confronted his therapist in 2019 about how using non-clinical political personalities as reference points was eroding the feeling of trust - and also that pathologizing public entities without clinical access projects weak professional ethics.
And six years later the same client said “I don’t care anymore, say whatever you like, and I will explain how you may be projecting your personal fears on me.”
And six years later the same client said “I don’t care anymore, say whatever you like, and I will explain how you may be projecting your personal fears on me.”
For me, it's past experiences with doctors. Trusted them, got a surgery that they said would be beneficial, they tortured me with inadequate anesthetics, had complications lasting years, and found out afterwards that the procedure was totally unnecessary and the ostensible harm it was meant to preempt was very unlikely and would have been a much less extreme procedure. Still have the scars. I look at American doctors living in big houses, hear other stories like mine, and connect the dots. They recommend procedures to make themselves money.
There are simply too many economic incentives encouraging doctors to not act in a patient's best interest that, as the parent comment points out, it would be irresponsible to not be skeptical of their advice.
There are two fundamental political systems and they exist in respect to how they attempt to assess truth. The first uses reason, the second uses power.
People who believe in reason based truth look for contradictions. Do doctors take the same treatments they offer? Do doctors vaccinate their own kids? What did these doctors learn to do in college? When no or few contradictions are found, they are willing to offer trust.
People who believe in power based truth look to their power structure. What does my priest or parent say? What does my news channel say? What do people who are loyal to the same people I'm loyal to say? When the messaging within their power structure, such as fox news, declares something they believe it without question, after all, they wouldn't be in their position of power without having earned it. Likewise there are peer social relationships likely to punish dissent.
It's hard for people who believe in reason to communicate with people who believe in power because power is immune to reason. They don't care about their contradictions. While you are pointing out their contradictions, but not doing anything about it, you are dis-empowering yourself. There is truth in action, and in many ways reasoning is not action. Acting in a contradictory way, but experiencing no obvious consequences for doing so is itself empowering.
People who believe in reason based truth look for contradictions. Do doctors take the same treatments they offer? Do doctors vaccinate their own kids? What did these doctors learn to do in college? When no or few contradictions are found, they are willing to offer trust.
People who believe in power based truth look to their power structure. What does my priest or parent say? What does my news channel say? What do people who are loyal to the same people I'm loyal to say? When the messaging within their power structure, such as fox news, declares something they believe it without question, after all, they wouldn't be in their position of power without having earned it. Likewise there are peer social relationships likely to punish dissent.
It's hard for people who believe in reason to communicate with people who believe in power because power is immune to reason. They don't care about their contradictions. While you are pointing out their contradictions, but not doing anything about it, you are dis-empowering yourself. There is truth in action, and in many ways reasoning is not action. Acting in a contradictory way, but experiencing no obvious consequences for doing so is itself empowering.
The findings in TFA are much more politically neutral than the knee jerk HN "republicans bad" commenters seen to believe. Which is something many of you should pause and reflect on.
braces for the downvotes
braces for the downvotes
One doesn't exclude the other. The levels of anti-science pushed by the right wingers are objectively insanely high, regardless of the resulting ideas of population subjected to said propaganda.
Reminds me of how belief in vaccines seems to have a pretty strong political component too. At least lately.
This is hardly surprising given the attack on knowledge by populists in recent years. If you aren't subscribing to the populist views of science, knowledge and experts, you aren't going to trust the people you need to trust (experts such as doctors, economists and scientists). Likewise if I entered a doctors' office and saw or heard signs they themselves subscribe to these beliefs (e.g. are anti vaccine like ) then it would be pretty natural to distrust this doctor. So the bottom line is that this works both ways, but one way is correct and the other isn't.
I don't go to the doctor a often as I should. I went recently and I could sense my doctor gear up for a sales pitch on catching up on my vaccines (it wasn't behind as much as it was time for a new TDAP. I stopped them and told them they didn't have to sell me on them I was cool with it.
It's sad doctors have to spend their time on things that are clear benefits to people (and the people around them) like that.
It's sad doctors have to spend their time on things that are clear benefits to people (and the people around them) like that.
I was living overseas (Australia) and went into the GP to request the 10 year booster for TDAP as I have been accustomed to thinking is necessary.
The doctor just laughed and said "You must have spent time in America." The only recommendation for TDAP for adults is during pregnancy. See https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/98...
Meanwhile, in the UK, the T and D of TDAP are given just once (part of Td/IPV), with the P given only to pregnant women. See https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/nhs-vaccinations-and-when-to...
Upon return to the U.S., my doctor strongly recommended getting the TDAP again since it had been well over 10 years, with 5 shots for kids and then again every 10 years. See https://www.cdc.gov/diphtheria/hcp/vaccine-recommendations/i...
I will admit that now I have no idea what the actual best schedule for these is.
The doctor just laughed and said "You must have spent time in America." The only recommendation for TDAP for adults is during pregnancy. See https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/98...
Meanwhile, in the UK, the T and D of TDAP are given just once (part of Td/IPV), with the P given only to pregnant women. See https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/nhs-vaccinations-and-when-to...
Upon return to the U.S., my doctor strongly recommended getting the TDAP again since it had been well over 10 years, with 5 shots for kids and then again every 10 years. See https://www.cdc.gov/diphtheria/hcp/vaccine-recommendations/i...
I will admit that now I have no idea what the actual best schedule for these is.
We've had whooping cough in the US make the rounds in some areas so that might play into it. Having said that some googling indicates Australia does seem to generally recommend it: https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccine-...
Unless you’ve got some other risk factor, it’s only recommended for adults once they hit age 65.
U.S. just tells everyone to get a TDAP (not just pertussis) every 10 years.
Obviously, one is right and one is wrong, who knows which one.
U.S. just tells everyone to get a TDAP (not just pertussis) every 10 years.
Obviously, one is right and one is wrong, who knows which one.
> It's sad doctors have to spend their time on things that are clear benefits to people (and the people around them) like that.
Honestly, I don't think it is. It's probably a big, big component of vaccine hesitancy is that doctors/media/government (collectively) dropped the ball on explaining the "clear benefits to people," so the narrative got away from them.
They tried to course correct with arguments from authority ("We, the medical profession say this is good, so comply!") and ridicule/shame ("Vaccines are good, if you have doubts you are stupid or malicious"), but that just made people dig in. What they should have done is show, "This is what measles looks like, and this is what it could happen to your kid if they get it. This vaccine will prevent that."
For like 50 years, they were coasting on people's 1st hand experience with diseases like measles to drive vaccine acceptance, but when that experience is 3rd or 4th hand, they can't coast anymore.
Honestly, I don't think it is. It's probably a big, big component of vaccine hesitancy is that doctors/media/government (collectively) dropped the ball on explaining the "clear benefits to people," so the narrative got away from them.
They tried to course correct with arguments from authority ("We, the medical profession say this is good, so comply!") and ridicule/shame ("Vaccines are good, if you have doubts you are stupid or malicious"), but that just made people dig in. What they should have done is show, "This is what measles looks like, and this is what it could happen to your kid if they get it. This vaccine will prevent that."
For like 50 years, they were coasting on people's 1st hand experience with diseases like measles to drive vaccine acceptance, but when that experience is 3rd or 4th hand, they can't coast anymore.
“The big book of British smiles”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5mH_ggZv0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5mH_ggZv0
Who are "they"? Doctors? Do you have quotes to back this up? Because if we're considering the cause of vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19, every component was dwarfed by the full force of conservatives media, politicians and social media influencers lying about the vaccines.
> Who are "they"?
"doctors/media/government (collectively)"
> Do you have quotes to back this up?
I was there, I don't have time to dig up quotes for you. But if quotes will satisfy you, they shouldn't be too hard to fine yourself.
> Because if we're considering the cause of vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19, every component was dwarfed by the full force of conservatives media, politicians and social media influencers lying about the vaccines.
My point is by that time the public health apparatus had already dropped the ball on vaccines.
Also, your precis reads as a convenient partisan narrative, with others taking all the blame. Nothing is really that simple. IMHO, it's far more helpful to think about how your side messed up, rather than dwelling on the other side.
"doctors/media/government (collectively)"
> Do you have quotes to back this up?
I was there, I don't have time to dig up quotes for you. But if quotes will satisfy you, they shouldn't be too hard to fine yourself.
> Because if we're considering the cause of vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19, every component was dwarfed by the full force of conservatives media, politicians and social media influencers lying about the vaccines.
My point is by that time the public health apparatus had already dropped the ball on vaccines.
Also, your precis reads as a convenient partisan narrative, with others taking all the blame. Nothing is really that simple. IMHO, it's far more helpful to think about how your side messed up, rather than dwelling on the other side.
[deleted]
In Brazil, people who support bolsonaro are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and not trust doctors, vaccine or science.
I also think it is reasonable for everyone to have a tendency to not trust a doctor who is a bolsonaro supporter.
There is a very emblematic case, although not very known, of a doctor who refused to treat the child a a Lula supporter: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/medica-se-recusa-a-ate...
I also think it is reasonable for everyone to have a tendency to not trust a doctor who is a bolsonaro supporter.
There is a very emblematic case, although not very known, of a doctor who refused to treat the child a a Lula supporter: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/medica-se-recusa-a-ate...
Isn't this basically about how stupid people are? Once you're stupid/ignorant/don't have critical thinking skills, all sorts of consequences follow.
Braxton1980(2)
Liberals' trust in authority figures has soared since 2016. It's not just doctors, but also the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon. Anything that seems critical of Trump, even in a symbolic way, is trusted.
I think incidences of injustices and abuse of trust from institutions actually strengthens movement liberal support of them. I think they see corrupt institutions as the most vulnerable to Trump attacks, and therefore the most in need of defense.
I think incidences of injustices and abuse of trust from institutions actually strengthens movement liberal support of them. I think they see corrupt institutions as the most vulnerable to Trump attacks, and therefore the most in need of defense.
Pretty reliable sanity check, don't you think?
Darwin Awards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards
I wonder if that is due to listening to our doctors and not taking 2nd or 3rd opinion. I was asking many doctors to diagnoze my illness, and although all of them said my body is ill, they were giving different, sometimes even contradicting directions. My health is more valuable than trust to doctor, or to the system- everyone can make mistake and trusting blindly is not good for our health. Same effect as rejecting all opinions.