DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

crimethink to the nth degree

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 31 2004 14:06
john wrote:
Otherwise, your left arguing that doctors are irrelevant or detrimental to health - when obviously they are not in the present

Detrimental, yes. Irrelevant, no.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Mar 31 2004 14:17

Lazlo wrote

Quote:

What's wrong with dealling with the causes of ill health? That's what I want to talk about. Most infant mortality is caused by diarrhea and other illnesses associated with poor sanitation and nutrition. most advances in public heath have happened through people getting stronger, not having access to more doctors. I'm saying that good food and enough rest are more important than having lots of doctors.

[/quote

We all understand that diet and environment are important factors in determining health. No-one here would disagree with that. The rest of your post reads like unfounded conjecture with a toal lack of logical argument. The people I have encountered who show this hostility to medicine show exactly the same hostility to science. I cannot help but see it as a response to a lack of understanding.

Lazlo, you included the following in your post:

Quote:

"....Death from these conditions is almost unheard of for infants in more developed countries... ."

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Health2/World_Health1.htm

Which would seem to imply that countries without a developed medical and sanitation system are plagued by higher, and not lower as you claimed, infant deaths.

The last reference you included had the following line in it:

Quote:

Even after procedures and medications have been shown (a) not only not to work, but (b) to cause injury and death at a statistically significant level, they continue to gain in popularity and use.

So, here the author uses evidence-based analysis to assess the usefulness of medical practices, and yet here:

Quote:

We've been told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled studies. Concomitantly, we've been told that alternative or complementary health care has no science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence. These two ideas have led to the widely accepted "truths" that anyone offering an alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only don't get well with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.

the same author (a phd no less) decries the exact same approach when applied to so-called "alternative therapies". Now, as i'm sure you know, the prevailing medical orthodoxy is oriented around evidence-based practices. I work for the NHS Audit body, and checking whether treatments actually work is exactly what we do, so I know what i'm talking about here.

John says

Quote:

also - one of the problems of relying on proof is that you are implicitly claiming that we need to look to the present to understand the future. If we think that it is important to build a new type of future we need also to have the courage of our convictions and not necessarily rely on proof, but on argument and opinion.

Arghh!! Utter, utter crap. If I have bowel cancer, and need a treatment, and we don't use evidence-based treatments, I could be convinced by your quack telling me that bile-chanting (nicked that from The Day Today if anyone cares) will work, instead of chemotherapy. Subsequently, I will die. Good job I didn't require any oppressive "proof", eh? I'm sorry, but i'm a scientist, and I find these sorts of statements the most bollocky bollocks liberal crap i've ever read. Sorry.

Anonymous
Mar 31 2004 14:31
pingtiao wrote:
Arghh!! Utter, utter crap. If I have bowel cancer, and need a treatment, and we don't use evidence-based treatments, I could be convinced by your quack telling me that bile-chanting (nicked that from The Day Today if anyone cares) will work, instead of chemotherapy. Subsequently, I will die. Good job I didn't require any oppressive "proof", eh? I'm sorry, but i'm a scientist, and I find these sorts of statements the most bollocky bollocks liberal crap i've ever read. Sorry.

there's a major difference between the functioning of the bowels and the functioning of a health care system.

One of the them is about the physical properties of humans - which generally don't change that much from one century to the next.

The other is about the social relations formed between humans - which are in a constant state of flux.

Whilst evidence may be useful for deciding how to intervene in the workings of the bowels; it is necessarily reactionary when used to guide the type of social relations that we form.

Thus, as I said - doctors are essential in the present - but if our social relations change so that we no longer live in a hierarchical society divided by specialisation, property-ownership, nationality, and authoritarian states it may be the case that doctors are no longer essential - however it is impossible to prove this (because it hasn't happened yet) - we need to rely on our faith in the possibility of it.

Whilst empirical evidence may be useful for things that stay the same - i.e. human bowels - it cannot be used as the final arbiter of truth for those things that we want to change - i.e. society

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Mar 31 2004 14:39

You have an almost messianic faith in your own words John.

A little humility that you don't know everything might be useful.

"After the revolution, we might not even need Doctors!"

Bloody hell, and this is anarchism?

red n black star

Anonymous
Mar 31 2004 14:43
john wrote:
it may be the case that doctors are no longer essential

I'm saying that I (nor you) know what truth is.

I don't see how this can be messianic

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 31 2004 15:16
pingtiao wrote:
The rest of your post reads like unfounded conjecture with a toal lack of logical argument. [...] The people I have encountered who show this hostility to medicine show exactly the same hostility to science. I cannot help but see it as a response to a lack of understanding. [...] I'm sorry, but i'm a scientist, and I find these sorts of statements the most bollocky bollocks liberal crap i've ever read. Sorry.

This is the core of my argument, how is it 'illogical'? --

"Access to medical facilities are importnat -- [but] many of those facilities are simply a stash of drugs and other medicine. I'm also saying that having lots of doctors is also a major problem. it is under the present system, and it could be inder a system without commodity relations."

'Liberalism' includes a strong commitment to elightenment rationalisty, I'm afraid you'll have to find a new insult if you want it to sting grin

Scientific elites, like all other elites, are a big part of the systems of separations and control that've been built up over the past few thousand years. like other professions (media, art, etc.) it doesn't have a totally negative role, but i'd argue that it's negative aspects are an integral part of it's organisation, not an add-on due to the pressures of the commodity system.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 31 2004 20:15
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
I understand that some of the drugs GP's give out are unneccesary, but personally i blame the pharmaceutical corporation and the governement bureacracy. Just because there are flaws in current medical practice doesn't mean we have to get all reactionary and primmo about it.

Not only are there things like low infant mortality and giving birth, plus food health inspection, all of which require advanced biological knowledge that it takes a long time to learn, and therefore the majority of people like you and me simply do not have the time or the brains for at present.

In a society with our population density, without specialised doctors people would start to die.

We've got different analyses of the situation. I think that the medical profession is an elite class that has a major role in controlling our lives, while you think it's just the government and the corporations.

So we disagree -- but i think you should be more careful about who you call an idiot tongue

How do you think people gave birth before the advent of doctors? When the medical profession took over midwifery in the 19th century, infant mortality went up massively. I'm arguing that people plus supporting community can take care of their bodies. The environmental aspects of lii health are aslo more important than who's weilding a scalpel.

Of course poeople gave birth, but a lot of women died during childbirth.

Infant mortality went up due to the influx of new diseases and population density boom in cities during the industrial revolution, to claim it had anything to do with who controlled the midwifery is a ridiculous manipulation of figures i'm afraid.

Maybe i shouldn't call you an idiot, but to imply that trained doctors are some sort of hierarchy taht must be abolished is stupid. the bureacracy pays them more, doesn't train enough doctors and divides work among assistants and nurses, but an NHS doctor works damn hard and when i go for medication i'd appreciate it.

Of course a lack of trained doctors isn't the only reason for disease, what do you think we are, stupid, of course you need sanitation and an improvement in living conditions otherwise health work is overwhelming.

But you still need more doctors.

If i had the brains for it i'd try and be one.

I'm happy with health syndicates, and i do think your arguemenmt is a bit reactionary really and highly illogical but its your opinion.

I don't think many sane people will agree with getting rid of trained medical personell who work hardf to keep the population healthy.

john

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 31 2004 20:18
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:

'Liberalism' includes a strong commitment to elightenment rationalisty, I'm afraid you'll have to find a new insult if you want it to sting grin

.

primmo? reactionary? petit bourgeios individualist?

na liberal doies just fine

wink

john

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 1 2004 18:58
cantdocartwheels wrote:
But you still need more doctors. If i had the brains for it i'd try and be one.

If they've made you feel stupid then the medical profession is already condemned out your own mouth Mr. T Most people get to be doctors because they're middle/upper class, and during their elite training their attitude towards our pleb bodies isn't improved. eek

I agree I need to provide better evidence. Another time, I think. Seeya wink

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Apr 2 2004 00:22
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
But you still need more doctors. If i had the brains for it i'd try and be one.

If they've made you feel stupid then the medical profession is already condemned out your own mouth Mr. T Most people get to be doctors because they're middle/upper class, and during their elite training their attitude towards our pleb bodies isn't improved. eek

I agree I need to provide better evidence. Another time, I think. Seeya :wink:

na i got an E in a level biology

i don't think i'd make a great doctor lol

john

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 2 2004 10:41
Quote:

If they've made you feel stupid then the medical profession is already condemned out your own mouth

Although this was tongue in BA cheek, it indicates something underlying your posts that I find disturbing.

Everyone is not born with the same abilities. Some are more suited to intellectual labour, and some to manual labour. There is nothing wrong in saying this. There are a tiny minority of people who are capable of working on the level of Steven Hawking or Roger Penrose, even if you take out all institutional biases.

As anarchists, the society we envisage is one where everyone is able to realise their full potential, with all barriers in their way removed. However, there will always be social functions which cannot be done on a rotational basis (like research, music, or medicine). Recognising this fact doesn't limit the scope of revolutionary politics, it just grounds it in reality.

It is important to make sure no hierarchical privilege accrues to those in these positions, and that they stay fully accountable to the rest of us, but to pretend that post-revolutionary society will be one in which no one feels "stupid" in comparison to anyone else is ridiculous.

gloops
Offline
Joined: 5-04-04
Apr 28 2004 17:05

BORING !! ive never a bigger load of bollocks , when are you people actually going to DO something , what happened to the revolution ? god you'd think Watership Down had never been written !

gloops
Offline
Joined: 5-04-04
Apr 28 2004 17:07

i mean *seen* such a bigger load of bollocks , heh

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Apr 29 2004 08:52

sure ideas without action is wasted effort, but action without ideas is pointless, futile and self-destructive, in my opinion.

strangefrog
Offline
Joined: 23-04-04
May 2 2004 16:40
gloops wrote:
when are you people actually going to DO something , what happened to the revolution ?

What do you think the revolution will look like?

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
May 2 2004 17:34
strangefrog wrote:
What do you think the revolution will look like?

There'll be lots of evil doctors being shovelled into mass graves. Beyond that I'm not sure.

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
May 2 2004 17:55
Quote:
Thus, as I said - doctors are essential in the present - but if our social relations change so that we no longer live in a hierarchical society divided by specialisation, property-ownership, nationality, and authoritarian states it may be the case that doctors are no longer essential - however it is impossible to prove this (because it hasn't happened yet) - we need to rely on our faith in the possibility of it.

Why?

Seriously, why have faith in something that you not only cannot provide evidence in the possibility for, but cannot demonstrate why it is in the least useful.

(actually, the whole concept of faith is wrong, full stop, but thats a different argument).

There is no possibility of doctors becoming obsolete in the forseeable future. First, human society does not develop at equal rates, so even in the unlikely event that doctors WERE to become obsolete in one part of the world, they would still be needed in another. Second, because medical technology has too much to offer us. If you want to say we are reliant on it and that's dangerous, fine, you'll have to explain why its worse than being reliant on things like oxygen (or oxygen tanks, for some).

You are arguing that doctors are essentially oppressive in themselves, and to support this you use essentially the same arguments that class anarchists would use, about the bigoted structure of healthcare. However, you haven't demonstrated how this is oppressive in itself, and not just a result of the class society we live in. And, furthermore, you haven't demonstrated why your arguments are in the least useful to a revolutionary struggle, or even to understanding human society, its essentially pie in the sky theorising, arguments which aren't really falsifiable, supported by evidence which contradicts itself.

Without doctors, how do we carry out things like abortions and birth control?

GD

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 3 2004 12:56
Ceannairc wrote:
sure ideas without action is wasted effort, but action without ideas is pointless, futile and self-destructive, in my opinion.

i disagree, class struggle is constant

Many revolutionary actions don't have some wordy intellectuals behind them.

peace

john

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 3 2004 12:58
strangefrog wrote:
gloops wrote:
when are you people actually going to DO something , what happened to the revolution ?

What do you think the revolution will look like?

Me recycling 250,000 useless crimethinc leaflets to be turned into medical records.

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
May 4 2004 01:42
cantdocartwheels wrote:

i disagree, class struggle is constant

Many revolutionary actions don't have some wordy intellectuals behind them.

peace

john

Who says ideas need to come from wordy intellectuals?

edited to add: btw, class struggle is an 'idea' in itself.

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
May 4 2004 04:24
gloops wrote:
when are you people actually going to DO something

What is this 'something' which you so obviously do? confused

nopasaran
Offline
Joined: 30-04-04
May 5 2004 01:53

What useless rambling... Crimethinc is a bastard child and laughed at here in the States by most active anarchists and revolutionary-minded folks. Honestly, if you could only imagine how detested the original Crimethinc collective has become between cities and areas that wish to work in the addressing of class issues, oppression, exploitation, creating community, and the development of ideas... It is like a poor excuse for rich, white suburban kids to dress the uber-crust punk roll, stop all sense of personal hygeine or bathing (not that anyone should bathe everyday, but once a month is not all that much to ask, now is it?), jump into dumpsters (I certainly do use this tactic for supplementing my food and resources, at the same time I recognize it is not a sustainable alternative and is parasitic of the very beast we oppose, some crimethinc'ers do not seem to understand that bit) give shit to people who 'actively' work on issues they find important and attempt to create 'oganization.'

The crimethinc collecive was doing a little tour around the States a year back, a lot of folks were pretty turned on to check them out and see what they were outside of their million pamphlets, but were sad to discover they sat around on the couches of the locals, did not share in the task of dumpstering for food, and just generally mooched off of everyone who housed them (parasites, eh.....? angry ).

Anyways, like crimethinc and most of their publications, the author of the original post seems to be off in la la land...

What a positive post I have made! No urge to type out an overly expansive or point by point break down of my disagreements or 'counter-arguments,' but what bullocks and crock this strand contains in it! Back to working, writing, and otherwise surviving,

Love and Solidarity,

Tony!