> This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.

And yet I haven't heard how this affects this person's ability to be an endocrinologist. Most of any job is routine busywork—and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public, we may never have a politician (or hospital chief) for the rest of humanity.

I am not saying that OP should love their endocrinologist. I am saying that all of this is a non sequitur.

▲

BrenBarn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the simple answer is: a person who cannot be trusted cannot be trusted with your health.

▲

svnt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.

I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

▲

bonsai_spool 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

So much pathos—I was responding to an illogical set of statements.

People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar. - or maybe the evidence was insufficient?

> hippocratic oath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

I don't see a comment about research standards. Let's stick to rationality here, please.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for.

Exactly the opposite of what I am asking.

> about the origins of professional standards.

The suggestions of your comment have been falling flat, so I'm not going to take this ill-defined assignment. If there are logical statements you wish to provide, please do.

---

Again, the OP did not say anything about malpractice. Had the OP done so, I would have made no comment.

The incidental prior incidence of alleged research fraud has no a priori bearing on why OP did not like this person.

	▲	svnt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is not alleged research fraud. It is admitted fraud. The person is saying they sensed something wrong with her. Dishonest behavior is often discernible in advance if you know what to look for. > Jamal now takes full responsibility and “regrets having exposed patients to the risk of harm by enrolling them in studies which had no value.” There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.

▲

brendoelfrendo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public

Yes!

▲

switchbak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

▲

bonsai_spool 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post.

Here is an example for the HN crowd.

"I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management.

I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB"

---

> I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.

I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.

	▲	svnt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.