In 2022 lawmakers in the U.S. state of California passed legislation which empowered the state medical board to discipline doctors in the state who “disseminate misinformation or disinformation” that contradicts the “contemporary scientific consensus” or is “contrary to the standard of care.” Proponents of the law argue that doctors should be punished for spreading misinformation and that there is clear consensus on certain issues such as that apples contain sugar, measles is caused by a virus, and Down syndrome is caused by a chromosomal abnormality. Opponents argue that the law limits freedom of speech and scientific “consensus” often changes within mere months.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Province
Response rates from 1.1k Zuid-Holland voters.
51% Yes |
49% No |
47% Yes |
28% No |
4% Yes, this will decrease the amount of misinformation patients receive |
11% No, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus |
1% Yes, and the doctors should also lose their medical license |
9% No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient |
2% No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.1k Zuid-Holland voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 1.1k Zuid-Holland voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Zuid-Holland voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9H3LC4B1yr1Y
there should be an automatic triggering of a peer review with board oversight for doctors found to be providing health advice that is not in scientific consensus. if the results are not in favor of the doctor - if the doctor continues to promote the advice - they should be penalized. if the results are in favor of the doctor and a reversal/shift is caused, they should be rewarded greatly
@9GVSX331yr1Y
The change of knowledge in the medical sector is rapidly changing. How can the guidelines for doctors always be rght when history shows that there expertise has also been misleading?
