- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
Critics warn move could have devastating impact on lives and wellbeing of those affected
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Is there any high quality evidence this is the case?
This is not supported by RANZCP or the RACP. Both the peak bodies of experts in the Australian and New Zealand medical fields.
Define “high quality.” For example, running double-blind studies with a control group in a scenario involving medical care for potentially suicidal patients isn’t really feasible because that would be widely considered to be super unethical, mmkay?
I’m sure there are established methods for studying interventions in people who are mentally ill or suicidal.
I’m sure there are! I’m asking you what you consider to be a measure for “high quality” evidence
That’s a very strange argument you are trying to build, it does not matter what random individuals think online. The standards for high quality evidence are already well established in medicine. You can argue with those bodies if you disagree. Write a paper perhaps?
Things should be allowed by default, if someone wants to ban something the onus is on them to prove that the ban is necessary which by their own admission they have failed to do in this case.
Oh god no, what a bad take. This is why we have teflon in our bloods and microplastic in our balls.
You seem to grossly misunderstand medicine. The onus is literally the opposite to what you describe