The voice of dissent is an important part of any argument to further truth. There is a reason that a PhD thesis is ‘defended’ as most innovating research is a challenge to the prevailing knowledge about a topic. Even more so in the medical sciences, we must demand a seat at the table for the dissident and encourage their voice to be heard.
Consensus and experts in science have value but without the presence of dissent or questioning, the length for which an incorrect consensus persists will extend in perpetuity. In the medical sciences, where this consensus equates to actual interventions and treatments to individuals, this leads to real harm of real people. Eventually it threatens to undermine the trust our profession has been given to care for the sick and empower the well.
The foundation of medical practice in Judeo-Christian and natural rights founded governments is informed consent. This requirement stems from medicine and its ‘practice’ involving real people with real consequences and the interventions and treatments always having both benefits and risks.
In many ways this is the appeaance of ‘dissent’ in medicine at the patient doctor level. In our society, where there is risk there must be choice. In the last two years, this foundational principle has been violated. Informed consent has been replaced with mandates an dissent has been replaced censorship. The result is tyranny.