Medical gadfly puts NEJM under the microscope
by Michael Cook | 29 Aug 2020 |
Sorry, we missed this one – another acerbic book by the British doctor and writer Theodore Dalrymple, False Positive: A Year of Error, Omission, and Political Correctness in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dalrymple is a stylish writer with scalpel-sharp wit. In this short book, he reviews the NEJM during 2017, with a chapter devoted to each weekly issue. The NEJM, along with The Lancet, he observes, is “the most important and influential general medical journal in the world”.
His aim is to alert readers to what he describes as the NEJM’s “sickly self-righteousness” and “to attune readers to the ambiguities of medical research that are so often taken to provide unequivocal answers even to questions that are inescapably ethical in nature.”
Dalrymple finds innumerable examples of conflicts of interest, political correctness, errors of reasoning, and euphemism which – so he claims – undermine the journal’s credibility.
If, he writes, the “most influential medical journal in the world is careless, dishonest and corrupt, it would be reasonable to conclude that most lesser clinical medical journals in circulation today are likewise careless, dishonest, and corrupt.”
Dalrymple has always been controversial – indeed, he appears to revel in controversy. But as Toni Saad notes in his review in The New Bioethics: “while many will disagree with individual opinions of Dalrymple’s, his project of challenging intellectual complacency in all its forms is admirable.”
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
Like the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, Republican President Donald Trump touched upon a number of bioethical issues when he accepted his nomination this week.
I found it surprising that Trump devoted so much time to broadcasting his anti-abortion, pro-life message. It's not surprising -- his Administration has worked against Planned Parenthood and backed nominees to the Supreme Court who appeared to be anti-abortion.
But Trump did so boldly and without equivocation when he could have just settled for some boilerplate, His team must have calculated that it is an election-winning issue, no matter how polarising it appears to be. Is this a sign that public opinion is changing on this key bioethical issue?
Michael Cook
Editor
I found it surprising that Trump devoted so much time to broadcasting his anti-abortion, pro-life message. It's not surprising -- his Administration has worked against Planned Parenthood and backed nominees to the Supreme Court who appeared to be anti-abortion.
But Trump did so boldly and without equivocation when he could have just settled for some boilerplate, His team must have calculated that it is an election-winning issue, no matter how polarising it appears to be. Is this a sign that public opinion is changing on this key bioethical issue?
Michael Cook
Editor
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Takes a strong stand against abortion and lockdownsby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Bert Keizer says that expanding the criteria for euthanasia eligibility is the path of progressby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Mother fights to use frozen sperm to create a grandchildby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Anti-lockdown protests, however, are not justifiableby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Staff claim that some hospitals had a “no admissions” policy– even for conditions such as heart attacksby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
A fascinating intersectional analysis of the UK’s shortageby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Theodore Dalrymple wields his scalpel in a new bookIN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Alexandra Minna Stern | Aug 29, 2020
More than 60,000 people were sterilized in 32 states during the 20th century based on the bogus “science” of eugenicsBioEdge
L1, Unit 7, 11 Lord Street · Botany, NSW 2019 · Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario