Page 15

Update item information
Title I don't know ... yet
Subject Medicine--Philosophy
Description The 44th Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator Peterson, Chase N.
Publisher Frederick William Reynolds Association
Date 1981-02-11
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format image/jpeg
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/reynolds,1200
Source R723 .P44
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "I don't know ... yet," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6sb43q8
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-08-04
ID 320459
Reference URL https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6sb43q8

Page Metadata

Title Page 15
Description or reduce the incidence of coronary artery disease. It was a good idea, it was tested, and the results are now, at best, inconclusive. The simple point is that most new answers and ideas are wrong. Discarded answers highlight our need to be courageous enough to do nothing on occasion and be understood for why we were doing nothing. Given the basic homeostasis of the body, doing nothing allows an enormous amount of beneficial activity to proceed. In other words, we should be willing to trust the core of our biology in the absence of clearer contra-indications. Having said as much, how do w7e protect ourselves from the hazards that are associated with new procedures and drugs within traditional medicine? Most danger is removed by the testing protocols required of all new-proposals before they are released for clinical use. Secondly, we are well-advised never to propose or accept a procedure or pill unless the hazard of non-use clearly outweights the hazard of use. Finally, we are obliged to continually test and retest our hypothesis. The herbalist and the lay midwife meet none of these criteria. Ideally, an investigator continues to re-test his own hypothesis. But it is enough to publish the precise details of one's own treatment recommendation so they can be checked by others. Given the pride of man, it is not surprising that most refutation occurs at the hands of those others than the initiators. Dr. Willis Potts deserves credit in the annals of medicine for having initially proposed dilitation of the pulmonary valve for correction of congenital pulmonary stenosis. He then had the intellectual courage to come back years later at an open medical meeting and announce that his long term follow-up of this now accepted procedure had demonstrated that it was ineffective if not counter-productive.28 So we ask not whether rosehips or home delivery or burdock root or sumac tea are natural or not, we simply ask, do they work? It serves no purpose to ridicule the untrained midwife and the herbalist as people. Undoubtedly, the sincerity of such people is as great as any M.D. or R.N. We ask simply, has their therapeutic value been established? Have they been proved harmless? And is their use a displacement of better care which might otherwise be available. Medicine has flourished on the axiom that "ideas are a dime a dozen, but where are the supporting data?" In passing, we might note that the health care radical right and the so-called "survivalists" have many characteristics of the politically radical left. They share an exaggerated concern for personal liberties at the expense of the whole of society, amplified by a preoccupation with weapons and anarchistic civil disobedience. And they share a suspicion of all institutions not of their own design or
Format image/jpeg
Identifier 021-RNLT-PetersonCN_Page 15.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: I don't know ... yet by Chase N. Peterson.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320455
Reference URL https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6sb43q8/320455