Sun, Mar-31-02, 11:40
|
Senior Member
Posts: 2,193
|
|
Plan: mostly paleo
Stats: //
BF:also don't care
Progress: 100%
Location: West Coast, USA
|
|
interesting you should ask today...
...as yesterday, mercola reprinted a British MA journal article, which in part, says,
"In the 1960s the results of a large randomized controlled study by the University Group Diabetes Program showed that tolbutamide, virtually the only blood sugar lowering agent available at the time in pill form, was associated with a significant increase in mortality in patients who developed myocardial infarction.
The obvious response from the medical profession should have been gratitude: here was an important way to improve the safety of clinical practice. But in fact the response was doubt, outrage, even legal proceedings against the investigators; the controversy went on for years.
Why?
An important clue surfaced at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association soon after the study was published. During the discussion a practitioner stood up and said he simply could not, and would not, accept the findings, because admitting to his patients that he had been using an unsafe treatment would shame him in their eyes. Other examples of such reactions to improvement efforts are not hard to find.
Indeed, it is arguable that shame is the universal dark side of improvement.
After all, improvement means that, however good your performance has been, it is not as good as it could be. As such, the experience of shame helps to explain why improvement, which ought to be a "no brainer", is generally such a slow and difficult process.
...shame is so devastating because it goes right to the core of a person's identity, making them feel exposed, inferior, degraded; it leads to avoidance, to silence."
In other words, typical doctor-run-away-ego stuff.
|