Thank you for highlighting the ludicrous call for SDM around vaccine decisions. SDM is unnecessary when there is overwhelming scientific evidence for benefit and underwhelming, cherry-picked, anecdotal evidence for harm. Unfortunately, by casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines, HHS continues its efforts to make America unhealthy again.
This tactic transcends the medical arena. We have seen this repeatedly when a fringe group wants to advance its position against an established practice, but can’t do so on the merits. This is when you will hear their refrain, ‘Teach the controversy! What are they afraid of?’
In response to your article, this morning I asked Claude ai whether to follow the newest vaccination guidelines released by HHS for my grandson's care (a hypothetical). The ai conclusion, after a lengthy analysis:
"This is genuinely a case where the political guidance and medical expert consensus have diverged, and you'll need to weigh both carefully with the child's doctor."
Why would I consider political guidance about my grandson's medical needs? I don't consider my physician's medical expertise when determining my voting positions.
Shared decision making, it seems to me, addresses grey areas of medical research, applications of high quality studies of one population to a specific patient's needs. It does not consider political correctness.
I often argue that life expectancy - the ability of a healthcare system to keep people alive - is the most valid metric of a healthcare system's efficacy. None of the other metrics matter, it seems to me, if you're dead. I'd argue the same about including both medical expert concensus and political guidance in shared decision making about medical care.
Thank you for highlighting the ludicrous call for SDM around vaccine decisions. SDM is unnecessary when there is overwhelming scientific evidence for benefit and underwhelming, cherry-picked, anecdotal evidence for harm. Unfortunately, by casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines, HHS continues its efforts to make America unhealthy again.
This tactic transcends the medical arena. We have seen this repeatedly when a fringe group wants to advance its position against an established practice, but can’t do so on the merits. This is when you will hear their refrain, ‘Teach the controversy! What are they afraid of?’
In response to your article, this morning I asked Claude ai whether to follow the newest vaccination guidelines released by HHS for my grandson's care (a hypothetical). The ai conclusion, after a lengthy analysis:
"This is genuinely a case where the political guidance and medical expert consensus have diverged, and you'll need to weigh both carefully with the child's doctor."
Why would I consider political guidance about my grandson's medical needs? I don't consider my physician's medical expertise when determining my voting positions.
Shared decision making, it seems to me, addresses grey areas of medical research, applications of high quality studies of one population to a specific patient's needs. It does not consider political correctness.
I often argue that life expectancy - the ability of a healthcare system to keep people alive - is the most valid metric of a healthcare system's efficacy. None of the other metrics matter, it seems to me, if you're dead. I'd argue the same about including both medical expert concensus and political guidance in shared decision making about medical care.