This is my first blog entry ever, anywhere. I had no idea how I was going to approach it. As I read the various blogs of my peers with their different perspectives and approaches, I kept asking myself, “What should a biomedical ethics (bioethics) blog be?”
During the past Presidential election cycle, bloggers from various degrees of the political spectrum immolating (I think the term “flaming” is no longer adequate for the current level of political discourse) those of even slightly differing viewpoints defined (fairly ot unfairly) what it means to “blog.” However, my training in medical writing leaves no doubt that opinion has absolutely no place in biomedical writing. I think we can all agree that any individual blog, the collective blogosphere, and even the internet in general are poor places to gain credible knowledge of evidence-based medicine. (However, there are online repositories and databases of evidence-based medical information, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed, http://www.medlineplus.gov/, and http://www.cochrane.org/.) By their nature, blogs have a point of view. They are for commentary and (more often) advocacy, not journalism.
In a bioethics blog, we are not primarily concerned about whether scientific medicine is effective or safe. That is for the scientists, the doctors, and (ultimately) the FDA to decide. In a bioethics blog, we are primarily concerned with the ethics associated with the application of scientific medicine. We have to ponder the difficult, even ugly, questions. A lot of these questions are in the news today:
No one questions the contention that stem-cell research may lead to medical advances. However, the ethical question is what happens when fetuses become valuable and thus become a commodity? Will there be incentives to harvest fetuses? What kind of behavior will that spur?
A related question (which is considered by some to be old and cliché but is more difficult and relevant than ever) is, “When does life begin?”
A wildly disproportionate percentage of health care expenditures in a person’s life is incurred at the very end of his or her life. It is a difficult question, but are those expenditures justifiable?
What is more important, providing “equitable” health care for all patients or preserving providers’ incentives to be innovative and efficient? (If you think that is an easy choice of the former over the latter, then think again.)
Who is to blame for the explosion of medicine-related lawsuits in America, “greedy, predatory lawyers” or “incompetent, indifferent doctors?”
Should the government place extra taxes on the manufacturers, sellers, and consumers of certain products (soda, fast food, tobacco, alcohol, etc.) or even ban them altogether? Where do self-responsibility and individual choice come in? Who decides what is bad for another? Where does it end? Could limits on TV watching eventually be mandated by law?
It will be fun exploring these issues. I tend to alienate everyone on every side of every issue, because I do not subscribe to any one orthodoxy. If at least one of you does not end up personally disliking me, then my blog will not have been very good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that there is nothing wrong with biomedical writers having an opinion. Opinions stimulate ideas and healthy discourse if they come from an intelligent, educated, and ethical source. There will always be differences of opinion, even in the face of scientific evidence, which is often interpreted based on the scientist's opinion, not just the facts. Scientific evidence is not all correctly or accurately interpreted, even by scientists. Facts are constantly manipulated to achieve an end. Our duty as biomedical writers is to be aware of our opinions when we are faced with information that contradicts our beliefs. Most of us will move into areas that are in alignment with out beliefs and it will sometimes be a challenge to keep in mind that we have innate prejudices while we are promoting the causes that are important to us. In writing these blogs, we are expressing our passions and beliefs while, at the same time, bringing up topics that might otherwise be overlooked. I think that people do read blogs for information purposes, not just discourse, and a really good blog can point someone in a direction to get more information from a mainstream scientific or medical source. Or an anecdotal blog could offer hope or comfort to someone who is struggling with an issue or illness. Complete objectivity is not always desirable. I think a really good biomedical writer will keep in mind the audience of the blog and write accordingly, in a responsible manner. Also, you never know who could be reading your blogs - perhaps a potential employer? So, keep it professional. That's my opinion.
Post a Comment