Doctors for the what now?

I onced blogged about the inane self-conceit of organisations that have the appelation of "Doctors for..." in the title. It was called "Strippers for industrialisation, and other types of stupid" and still garners alot of misdirected google traffic. (Suckers).

So far, along with my favourite lumps of ca-ca to kick over at Doctors for the Environment (nope, still won't link them), I have found Doctors for Native Forests (they have the ENTIRE text of Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax" on their site), Doctors for Global Health (which makes sense for a change), Clown Doctors for Kids (acceptable), Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (OK), Doctors for Human Rights (meh) and Doctors for Life (Eew. I'm not even going there...)

But wait, whats this? Enter: Doctors for a Sustainable Population. Somewhere in the back of my head I started hearing that music that always played when Darth Vader entered the room. Then I noticed that they used to be called "Medical Association for Planetary Survival" (Why would you change that?)

I'll also give you a dollar and a big sloppy kiss if you can guess who they list as their "associated organisations". Oh, alright, I'll tell you. Its Sustainable Population Australia and, yep, pucker up, Doctors for the Environment Australia.

Doctors for a Sustainable Population are, interestingly, not too worked up about climate change, but are pretty freaked by peak oil. Unfortunately, they think they are just the guys to solve the problem, only because they are doctors, they think what they need to do is implement:

sustainable population targets by family planning and population reduction in the most socially acceptable way.

First, define which is the most socially acceptable way to enforce a reduction in population? I would be interested to hear it. And why is this a doctor's job, anyway? They say:

DSP believes that doctors, a relatively large group trained in science, are the most likely to realise the danger to the future to us and our descendants, and to be effective in explaining this to society.

Wow, this type of thing could never get out of hand, could it?

Also, referring to doctors as trained in science is kind of cute, because I can tell you this for free: The degree I'm studying does NOT give any training in the key basis of the methodology that is science. We are being trained as technicians. Its vocational training of a fairly ad hoc nature. Scientific methodology is assumed knowledge because once upon a time it had already been acquired by this stage. These days, though, you can even get through a PhD without ever having to comes to terms with the P for Philosophy. As a second-generation scientist, I was somewhat appalled to discover that most of my peers actually confuse science with a belief system, and wouldn't notice an Aristotelian logical fallacy if it put on a fruity hat and did the macarena.

Why do these types of people immediately jump to the conclusion that we have to MAKE people have less children? Clearly they have never had a 10 pound incontinence-making device exit a sensitive area of their anatomy. Most of the evidence from the developed world would indicate that if you give women access to birth-control and the choice between buying shoes and having so many children their uteri fall out, they tend to go with 1.8 offspring* and the sexy, faux-leather strappy numbers that show off some toe-cleavage.**

* Yes, thats right. Australia's total fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976, hence immigration. Even developed Catholic countries like Spain have very low fertility rates. Spain's is lower than Australia's at around 1.3. Italy's is around the same as Spain's, probably because of all those fabulous shoes.
** I actually loathe shoe-shopping. The whole retail industry seems to be full of terrible, ill fitting shoes, and the only ones I like either never have my size, or are only available in white (white!) or cost in excess of $300 (which should be illegal). I was merely trying to make a point. Insert favoured retail item of your choice. e.g. an education or a new set of Makita power drills.

And to your left, an epic fail...

The AMA (Australian Medical Association) reacted to the recent Climategate scandal (and the impending demise of a treasured funding cash cow) with the balanced approach it is well known for and released a statement entitled:

The evidence is in - climate change is a serious threat to human health

Yep, no agenda there. Dr. Pesce, the AMA president then goes on to explain (whilst apparently clinging to Kevin Rudd's ankles and pleading as the PM boards the plane to Copenhagen) that:

“While the Copenhagen talks will be about carbon emissions and targets and helping developing countries, equal emphasis must be directed to equipping the health systems of the world to cope with the extra health burden created by climate change. Plans to deal with that burden should be put in place immediately, and Copenhagen is the perfect place to implement the strategies. "

This is nothing new, because the AMA has had a position statement on climate change since 2004 (updated 2008) that along with all the usual alarmist screamies also prominently displays their "get-out-of-jail-free" clause:

...because climate change involves potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment and to human health, it is essential to adopt mitigation strategies that reflect a precautionary approach even where uncertainties may exist in relation to scientific evidence.

Ahh, the good 'ole precautionary principle. This is where it's OK to act in response to an uncertain future event, as long as you think the risk of not acting is greater than that of acting. This worked out pretty good for John Snow, the father of modern epidemiology, when he traced a cholera epidemic to a water pump on Broad Street and famously removed the pump handle to quell the outbreak even though the causative organism had not been identified. (It was thought that cholera was caused by "miasms" of bad air generated from grave yards and swamps, Dr. Snow thought otherwise, although he was pilloried for many years for going against the accepted scientific consensus. You see, John Snow was a skeptic.) Making a bunch of people schlepp a few blocks to another water pump for a week is one thing, crippling national economies for the entire foreseeable future is entirely another.

Generally, when applying the precautionary principle it was always customary to perform some sort of risk-benefit analysis. This is why we don't use amniocentesis for population screening of pregnancy. The number of miscarriages caused by population wide amnio would approach the number of abnormal pregnancies picked up, so precautionary principle be damned, its not worth it. Its also why CT scans, with their attendent higher dose of radiation, are used only when the risk of not doing the scan outweighs the cumulative lifetime risk of radiation induced cancer (although in certain unscrupulous parts of the world *cough* USA *cough* this isn't strictly adhered to as often as it should be). Apparently though, climate change somehow negates this important caveat, which the AMA ably demonstrates in it's position statement when it lists as health impacts of extreme climate events the following:

• dietary changes due to cost and availability of food,
• possible impact of chemical exposures (resulting from spills from damaged pipes,
  industrial storage, etc.).
• impact of changes to infrastructure and essential services
• lapsed chronic disease management
• stress from loss of income and assets.

Which is wierd, because I would have thought that all of these events are far more likely to occur as a result of financial factors resulting from implementation of their beloved precautionary principle. Unless "extreme climate events" is referring to a poverty tsunami, I'm definitely thinking I could come up with some much more feasible and immediate reasons why these impacts on health could occur. ETS, anyone? Global Financial Crisis 2.0? Bad policy decisions? Massive slush funds being siphoned off to developing nations? I'm not sure, let me think about it.

I've never really liked the AMA anyway. A quick scroll through the references included in their climate change position statement reveal they even reference my favourite nut-jobs over at Doctor's for the Environment, which highlights some of the backroom circle jerks that go on in the alarmist milieu (and no, I won't link it, 'cause I hates them).

They also ditched the Hippocratic Oath and make you swear to the Declaration of Geneva, which is mostly OK, but I'm a bit worried by the bits where you promise:

• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
• My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;

Do I have to? Really? What if their due is a (hypothetical) dose of Sennocot in their tea for that time they made you fetch them coffee all day and then asked you to disempact a pensioner's bowel, when you were clearly rostered on to another, more exciting rotation?

I was sort of fond of the Hippocratic Oath, even though it made you promise to share your wordly goods with your teachers, I kind of liked the bit where you promised not to have sex with slaves. Couldn't we combine the best bits of the two?


NB: A note on spelling: Whilst I will vigorously defend my right to use the antiquated Queen's Own English spelling of aetiology, oesophagus, centre and colour to name a few, I like spelling skeptic with a K instead of a C. Just because.

Strippers for Industrialisation and other types of stupid

Since my recent post on "sustainable vegetarians", I came across a related and poorly concealed opinion piece from Australian group Doctor's For The Environment. This is a bunch of folk who are going to keep me busy for awhile.

• First off, the name. I take one look at it and I have the overwhelming urge to start a group called "Medics for Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll" or something. Its kind of a redundant non-sequiter in Zen koan form. Makes about as much sense as "Fishermen for Breathing". ("Hey, I ike breathing. Do you like breathing? We'd better listen to these guys...")
• Secondly, they publish recommendations that doctors tell their patients to stop eating animals because of the "health dangers of red meat", as a way of curbing carbon emissions.

"As doctors we are in an influential position to educate our patients into healthy lifestyles and to implement preventative medicine in our clinics. To our advice on smoking, alcohol, exercise and drugs, we must surely add advice on meat. This is an issue that will have a significant impact on the health of the individual and at the same time the on health of the planet by reducing greenhouse emissions."

I tend to doze off a little in medical ethics and jurisprudence class, but I'm sure this violates primum non nocere, (first, do no harm) if not a hundred other medical ethical and legal guidelines.