Posted by Enrique Geiger (63.210.209.188) on September 21, 2000 at 10:01:44:
In Reply to: I'd like to know posted by annemarie on September 20, 2000 at 17:24:22:
The program was too short to thoroughly explore the subject.
However, the AMA representative's position was their usual, elitist and obfuscating: the public can't possibly understand the data, and the database is flawed (Everything is flawed when it comes to disclose to the public, so how come it is OK for the AMA to use, and why do the flaws vanish when it comes to disclose to the AMA?). In other words, it seems that the AMA's position is transparently disingenious.
My friend and boss, Arthur Levin, director of the Center for Medical Consumers (www.medicalconsumers.org) responded that the AMA should stop insulting the intelligence of the public (I'm paraphrasing), and that it should let the public decide if the data is useful. He also pointed that bills that were modeled after relevant legislation that the AMA espoused and promoted, was being opposed by the AMA in NY State (perhaps seemingly conflicting, but better explained as the AMA trying to close a Pandora's Box).
ABC programmers brought corroborated evidence and testimony, to the effect that many lives would have been saved if the data was available, and there was no evidence that lives would be saved by keeping the data secret.
That was my take.
If you want to inspect the broadcast more thoroughly, you may want to request a transcript from ABC's website.