Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage
Huh. I didn't think my comment would attract so many responses. I would have thought that freedom of expression short of malpractice was the expected norm. Perhaps my intended message was muddle by using "regulatory orthodoxy" instead if "regulated orthodoxy"; the latter of which I think better conveys the notion of a group of regulators establishing what all members of a profession must agree is the truth, regardless of individual views as opposed to setting standards for professional practice.
In any case, to each their own on these issues, I suppose.
|
In say the case of vaccines is there a difference between setting the standards of the practice and agree to what is true? Like if you without proper scientific evidence shed doubt on the effectiveness of her immunity of a measles vaccine while representing yourself as a doctor it’s absolutely in the interests of public safety for that action to be censured.
Or in the law example above if indigenous relation has been deemed by the regulatory body that it’s important for people to have then ensuring the the practicing people meet the requirements.
The regulation of practice is the regulation of orthodoxy. It’s what the bodies do.