Comment on doctors
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 21 hours agoNah, the moral hazard is from the doctors side. What can a doctor get away with without risking them losing their job or putting themselves in a dangerous position.
Comment on doctors
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 21 hours agoNah, the moral hazard is from the doctors side. What can a doctor get away with without risking them losing their job or putting themselves in a dangerous position.
hissingmeerkat@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
Sorry, “moral hazard” is a term-of-art (something that doesn’t mean what it says on its face but is used in some particular way in some fields or professions). In this case by “moral hazard” I meant the idea that if you reduce the harm of some course of action there’s a chance that people will engage in it more because it’s less harmful now. It usually is applied to risky-yet-beneficial behaviours like injury from sports or from outdoor pursuits. It’s ridiculous in that context (I don’t think we should make things worse just so they don’t get better) and doubly or triply ridiculous when the risky behaviour isn’t beneficial or also isn’t effectively voluntary.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
Ah yeah, that wasnt what I was trying to imply. I think honestly the main reason that I didnt agree fully was because you were using a lot of terminology in ways that i wasnt sure i understood, and id like to familiarize myself with more of the topic before i formed a distinct opinion of the less clear aspects of issue. Obviously i want everyone to get the help they need though, and I don’t think we were ever seriously in disagreement about that. I appreciate the clarification btw, im not familiar with that usage.