He’s left a trail of evidence that points to a strong tendency to keep the light of truth at a low setting. There were apparently undisclosed vested interests. In that initial paper, I wouldn’t say necessarily that the results per se were demonstrably biased, but the conclusions–and those were what made the headlines–were.

I agree.

I’m afraid that if he doesn’t lose his license that he’ll use that as justification that all of his findings were right, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Joe

It is not unheard of for scientists to report results that are preliminary or ultimately shown to be refuted as more data is collected…that’s the nature of the game. However if one knew about the uncertainties or methodological confounds and still reported or misrepresented results as if the negative or contradictory results did not exist, and especially if it was done out of motives of personal enrichment, that is a different thing. Other people in other fields have been called out on the mat for that. It’s how it should work if the system has any integrity at all.

I agree that some of the things on the surface seem to be more tacky than criminal but then I am not familiar with the particular ethical code of the medical profession.

At this point it is in the committee’s hands to make the determinations.

I suspect unless some kind of criminal or additional civil charge is brought that A. Wakefield will still have professional opportunities as a speaker or consultant.

Is it right for a doctor to be an opportunist, and to pursue making money? Absolutely not, but unfortunately I know a sizeable minority of doctors who approach medicine in that fashion, and none of the ones I know practice medicine in a fashion that would cause them to lose their license.

Is it wrong for a doctor to profit from a medically related patent or invention? I don’t think so. But if one does, there needs to be full disclosure to all patients where a conflict of interest might exist.

Was the paying of money for blood at the birthday party unethical? Very tacky, yes, but if carried out correctly (proper informed consent obtained from parents) it wouldn’t necessarily be unethical.

So the bottom line for me is that I don’t know enough one way or the other to say whether Wakefield should lose his medical license.

From what I know, he is a shabby excuse for a man, and not someone I would ever go to as a physician, or recommend. I think he deserves to be prosecuted for malpractice if he did procedures without medical justification or consent. But I also don’t think that any doctor that is unconventional should lose his license. So I’m not sure whether Wakefield’s particular offenses add up to enough to lose his license. But I’m glad that a committee is looking at it.

Whether or not they pull his license, he’s certainly through as a legitimate physician. And everyone knows that you can still be big in the land of “alternative” medicine without a medical license, so in the end it won’t make much difference.

Joe

F*ck me! I’m in the wrong morals game here!!!!!

Even assuming a lapse of judgement or uncertainties in the beginning, there seems to have been several junctures to cogitate, “What if I’m wrong?” or “Maybe I should rethink this.”, or “What is the data saying?”. Not having done so, the alternative is to ride the whole thing out to its conclusion.