Thank you for saying this outright. I was appalled by Scott’s lack of epistemic rigor and how irresponsible he was at using his widely-read platform and trust as a physician to fool people into thinking cutting out a major organ has very little risk. Maybe he really did just fool himself, but I don’t think that is an excuse when your whole deal is being the guy with good epistemics who looks at medical research. A comment he made later about guilting 40,000 randomly selected Americans into donating indicates clearly that he has an Agenda. He does not have your best interests at heart at all and thinks this is obligatory and not superogatory. If people understand that there are large, not necessarily quantified risks here, and still want to donate, then go right ahead. I think you are right that this is more about purifying themselves through self-sacrifice than it is about actually improving the world, but hey- a lot of people seem to report that donation has long-term improved their mental well-being. What I object to is minimizing the risks and guilting people who second-guess the BS data. People really need to go into this with their eyes open and make this choice for themselves. I don’t think Scott’s article is written in good faith.
And what effect would receiving this letter have on any of your patients Mr. Scott? Do you think they will be better off? Or should we convince suicidal people to stick around because they have so many useful organs? Hey, don’t feel like you’re a burden on your parents—they might need your kidney one day!
Thank you for saying this outright. I was appalled by Scott’s lack of epistemic rigor and how irresponsible he was at using his widely-read platform and trust as a physician to fool people into thinking cutting out a major organ has very little risk. Maybe he really did just fool himself, but I don’t think that is an excuse when your whole deal is being the guy with good epistemics who looks at medical research. A comment he made later about guilting 40,000 randomly selected Americans into donating indicates clearly that he has an Agenda. He does not have your best interests at heart at all and thinks this is obligatory and not superogatory. If people understand that there are large, not necessarily quantified risks here, and still want to donate, then go right ahead. I think you are right that this is more about purifying themselves through self-sacrifice than it is about actually improving the world, but hey- a lot of people seem to report that donation has long-term improved their mental well-being. What I object to is minimizing the risks and guilting people who second-guess the BS data. People really need to go into this with their eyes open and make this choice for themselves. I don’t think Scott’s article is written in good faith.
And what effect would receiving this letter have on any of your patients Mr. Scott? Do you think they will be better off? Or should we convince suicidal people to stick around because they have so many useful organs? Hey, don’t feel like you’re a burden on your parents—they might need your kidney one day!