Psychiatrist Alex Sharah, who compared lesbians to paedophiles, disqualified: "Psychiatrist Alexander Anthony Sharah, 80, has been disqualified from registering as a medical practitioner after inappropriate treatment of patients, having also compared lesbians to paedophiles, because both "don't know that they are doing something wrong so we still have to love them".
In a decision handed down on Wednesday, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal rebuked Mr Sharah – a former candidate for the Christian Democratic Party – for encouraging his patients to explore religion to ease their mental health problems.
The decision said: "More than one of the patients referred to the displays of religious objects and material in his waiting room and consulting room, something which, in our view, is clearly inappropriate.
"[Mr Sharah] was indifferent, we consider, to whether patients might find unwelcome and confronting references to the power of prayer, religious beliefs and gestures that had religious symbolism, such as clasping hands and presenting crucifixes."
Mr Sharah is also a "figurehead" in the Men's Justice Movement, which believes the Family Court favours women over men after marriage breakdowns."
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/psychiatrist-alex-sharah-who-compared-lesbians-to-paedophiles-disqualified-20150923-gjt969.html
(moderator: was he not disqualified because he failed in treating his patients? rubbing 'holy water' on someone's forehead is not an accepted treatment, at least I was not able to find any clinical trials in any of the peer reviewed journals. This one example proves the power medical professionals have. There is little doubt that the 80 (!) year old psychiatrist has been doing this kind of 'treatment' most of his working life. Is this the first time he is challenged (and disqualified for 2 years...)?
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Anti-depressant paroxetine linked to youth suicide and no more effective than a placebo, researchers find - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Anti-depressant paroxetine linked to youth suicide and no more effective than a placebo, researchers find - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Approved anti-depressant deemed unsafe
Approved anti-depressant deemed unsafe:
Studies suggest that patients, clinicians, and society often hold unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of tests and treatments. Two articles in this issue add to that literature. In New Zealand, Hudson et al3 surveyed 977 primary care patients and found that many overestimated the benefits of cancer screening and chemopreventive medications. The minimum benefit from screening that respondents deemed acceptable was less than their known benefit. The survey had a modest sample size and low response rate (36%), and its findings might not be fully applicable to other countries, but US studies have reported a similar problem. For example, a variety of studies document Americans' appetite for procedures of dubious effectiveness and their overestimation of benefits.4,5
Physicians are not immune to false beliefs about clinical efficacy or complication rates.8Correcting such misperceptions has always been part of the impetus for the evidence-based medicine movement and its promulgation of systematic evidence reviews, practice guidelines, and other tools that present the facts on benefits, safety, and scientific uncertainties. Even these tools, however, can reflect the misconceptions of those who produce them. The specialists who serve on expert panels derive much of their clinical case knowledge from the patients with advanced disease who fill their clinics. Having seen the worst of the worst, they are less sympathetic to expressions of concern about the potential harms of interventions or imperfections in efficacy studies.9Whereas epidemiologists consider the population denominator to put the numerator in perspective, the world of specialists is confined to the numerator, giving them a skewed basis for judging the population prevalence of diseases or benefit-risk ratios. Were this not enough, the preeminent scientists who often serve on guideline panels bring additional biases, such as being the authors of key studies under review or having financial ties to industry.10
http://www.annfammed.org/content/10/6/491.full
Studies suggest that patients, clinicians, and society often hold unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of tests and treatments. Two articles in this issue add to that literature. In New Zealand, Hudson et al3 surveyed 977 primary care patients and found that many overestimated the benefits of cancer screening and chemopreventive medications. The minimum benefit from screening that respondents deemed acceptable was less than their known benefit. The survey had a modest sample size and low response rate (36%), and its findings might not be fully applicable to other countries, but US studies have reported a similar problem. For example, a variety of studies document Americans' appetite for procedures of dubious effectiveness and their overestimation of benefits.4,5
Physicians are not immune to false beliefs about clinical efficacy or complication rates.8Correcting such misperceptions has always been part of the impetus for the evidence-based medicine movement and its promulgation of systematic evidence reviews, practice guidelines, and other tools that present the facts on benefits, safety, and scientific uncertainties. Even these tools, however, can reflect the misconceptions of those who produce them. The specialists who serve on expert panels derive much of their clinical case knowledge from the patients with advanced disease who fill their clinics. Having seen the worst of the worst, they are less sympathetic to expressions of concern about the potential harms of interventions or imperfections in efficacy studies.9Whereas epidemiologists consider the population denominator to put the numerator in perspective, the world of specialists is confined to the numerator, giving them a skewed basis for judging the population prevalence of diseases or benefit-risk ratios. Were this not enough, the preeminent scientists who often serve on guideline panels bring additional biases, such as being the authors of key studies under review or having financial ties to industry.10
http://www.annfammed.org/content/10/6/491.full
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)