Good op-ed by the Div. of Medical Ethics chair at NYU's Grossman School of Med. But the one thing he neglects to mention is that the lack of appropriate policy & shunting of responsibility onto uninformed individuals mirrors that of governments &...
institutions throughout the pandemic. These Olympics have been the world in microcosm.
He says: "I can’t believe that...doctors, the [IOC], or any national Olympic organization would invoke the rationale that athletes get to decide whether to compete."
Really? Look around you.
(And note that NYU's healthcare system has done the same; pot/kettle.)
He says it's "absurd to leave the final decision to compete at the Olympics to any athlete. They will all say yes. Their focus is on winning, most are young and feel immortal, and they aren’t thinking much...
either about others or the long-term impact of risky competition on their health."
But has he met...people? Perceived invulnerability, lack of responsibility for others, & failure to appreciate future harms when making behavioral decisions have been hallmarks of the pandemic.
He says, "It’s up to the adults in the Olympic room — doctors, trainers, officials, coaches, and others — to keep the athletes as safe as they can. That is exactly what their Code of Ethics...commits them to do."
But note, the CDC & WHO also have codes of ethics. HC systems too.
He says "Leaving decisions about competition up to each athlete is abnegating the duty to protect all who are participating in the games."
Well, yes. Lots of abnegation of duty going on. Just look at the mask ban bills in his state. Just ask medically vulnerable communities.
He says "It is an ethical farce for any sports organization to shrug its shoulders and leave competition decisions to young athletes who have been training for years and will ignore anything that might prevent them from fulfilling their dreams."
Yup, that's about the size of it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 I know some folks want to believe that disregard for the safety of athletes (& others) in Paris is something new & specific to covid, but it's really not. In the US, at least, "pushing through the pain" has been considered a virtue for generations, probably for the same
1/6
reasons it is now (which are often economic). The article below describes t-shirts from the 1990s that boasted slogans like "pain is weakness leaving the body." Not new.
give us warnings we should heed? I have been, throughout my life, & I'm *naturally* "type A," which used to be called "coronary prone personality" or "workaholic" - the truth of which was not lost on me when I had a heart attack while writing an essay in 2022...yet I just kept on
First, she informs us that she'd done all the right things, until 2023. (She's a Good Person.) But rather than seeing those mitigations as a lifestyle change, she treated them like a diet that gives you a free pass to eat a whole cheesecake after a week of being "virtuous."
2/
"I thought we had all been liberated from pandemic prison," she says, demonstrating how the "just for a little while" thinking pitched by the CDC early on (vs. "for as long as the situation warrants") set her up view masking, testing & vaxxing as a "prison" from which she...
3/
This was obviously a policy failure that we watched unfold in real time. ("Wait! Stop! Come back!" says Willie Wonka.) But it also demonstrates how people selectively trust authority figures when those leaders are...
saying what we want to hear. (This pattern of behavior has also been on clear display during the pandemic: people were suspicious of leaders whom they perceived as restricting freedoms, due to psychological reactance, but once those experts said to unmask & go to the mall,
2/14
the same folks who had been disbelieving suddenly found faith in authorities' messenges again. Ask people why they aren’t masking, & many will give you some variation on "the CDC said I don't need to.")
Fundamentally, this tendency is an example of confirmation bias, but
🧵 Just because something is published doesn't mean it's good science. Below, I'll talk more about how you can evaluate research articles you may come across on social media or that might be cited in the press.
1st, when reading a media article that cites/links to a research pub., look at what the research piece itself says. Journalists may get things wrong or present a biased/incomplete picture. They may imply there's a causal relationship b/t variables when that's not the case.
2/
Second, evaluate the content of the journal article. Is a hypothesis clearly stated? Do the study authors test it in a way that makes sense? What are their conclusions? (You will find those in the paper's "discussion" and "conclusions" sections.)
3/
🧵This one is an example of the availability heuristic, folks. That's a cognitive shortcut people use to estimate the prevalence of an event (like a health threat) by how easily they can think of examples (either from the media or from personal experience). As I pointed out...
to this person, all sorts of factors can affect how easily examples of covid mortality came to his mind. One was that this man's demographics (region, race, age, etc) may have made his own acquaintances less likely to have severe covid outcomes than was the population norm.
2/9
Another factor that can affect the availability of relevant info. is whether he would have known of such covid deaths; we don't always hear about deaths of acquaintances, let alone how they died, & in cases where there is stigma surrounding cause of death (as w/ HIV & covid)
3/9
Psychologists have known for yrs that even chemical castration has its limits in preventing ongoing sex crimes. Both it & surgical removal of testicles/ovaries have some effect on libido, but they don't necessarily eliminate it. For ex., women who've had hysterectomy with
2/16
oophorectomy (removal of ovaries) can still enjoy sex. Access to unprescribed sex hormones has also increased over the years; if a person is intent on getting drugs to restore full libido, they can find them.
Furthermore, libido is not the same as attraction. Castration