Through the years this blog has been received very well, and about 95 percent of the comments we receive are 100% positive. Although, as I was going through journalism school years ago, I learned that negative comments are not only going to come, they are good. We journalists-bloggers expect negative comments, and we are taught to like them. If nothing else, they are proof that people of all opinions are reading your works.
I find it interesting that close to 98% of people who criticize, or write about how wrong we are, do so under the mask of anonymity. Ironically enough, I had one reader recently complain about a post I wrote, and he said he didn't believe I was a real RT if I thought that (pinch myself! OUCH! Yes, I'm real) because my opinions were different than his or hers. The name of the person was anonymous.
Funny thing, about 98% of the negative comments of this blog are written by anonymous. I leave this option open to my readers because I want to protect you. I don't want your bosses to see what you write here, because I expect that your comments will be honest.
And, as I've noted before, the first amendment freedom of speech protects your right to criticize your government, but not your job. If your boss found out you were criticizing your job, they could fire you on the spot. So I allow you to leave anonymous comments.
I think if you honest criticism about what is written on this blog, I'm fine with leaving it anonymously. But if you're going to malign the image of the authors by tossing vitriol (such as, "You are an idiot!") then you should have the nerve to use your real name. Otherwise your comments come and go without much credibility, like dust in the wind.
Recently, anonymous left a comment on Mr. Will Lesson's post "In the medical industry, feelings supersede evidence. The comment was this:
"Wow. Poorly written and makes our profession seem unprofessional."Sorry, but the purpose of this blog is not to be professional, and it's definitely not to be politically correct. In fact, if you read our about section, you will see that our goal on this sight is to "portray an accurate, non-politically correct view of this profession."
The fact that the medical profession is based on science but is run as an art has been noted by many historians. In fact, it's the only profession based on a science that does not accept much of the science meant to improve upon it.
Case in point is the hypoxic drive theory. This theory was created in the 1960s based on a study of only only four COPD patients, and became the gold standard in treating COPD patients. You can read about the history of the hypoxic drive hoax here. The truth is, however, the over 40 studies disproved this theory, but this science is all but ignored because, as Mr. Lesson's says, feelings supersede science.
The goal of RT Cave is to boot in the butt those who make our profession harder than it should be through theories, such as the hypoxic drive theory, that are based on feelings or "it sounds good" rather than facts. We want to boot the people who believe in these false theories right in the briefs.
The problem with this is that the first amendment does not protect our right to tell the truth about our jobs. We certainly wouldn't go to a well respected doctor and say "that breathing treatment you ordered is a useless waste of time." But you can say that here.
There is a lot right about our profession. For instance, I love being a respiratory therapist. I love my job. However, if we'd get rid of the senseless theories my job would be a lot better, apathy and burnout would diminish, and this blog would no longer be needed.
But, until that happens, this blog will exist. We will continue, excuse my potty mouth, to kick stupidity in the heinie. If you disagree with us, that's wonderful. Your opinion is well respected and needed in the arena of ideas. But if you choose to attack our authors personally, feel free to back up your idiocy with your name, and some facts to back up your claim (facts, I say, not feelings).
The general idea among debaters (click here to read the rules of debating) is if you attack the other person personally, you do so on the grounds that you don't support his or her opinion, but you have no evidence to prove it wrong. The ignorant, malicious debater would simply, at this time, start attacking the speaker of such ideas with vitriol.
So I hope everyone of our readers has a great new year, and that you all continue to hang around here. Even if you disagree with us, we want to here what you have to say. We will continue to reserve for you to use the pen name anonymous. However, the rule here is, if you choose to attack us on a personal level, have some guts and use your real name.
Thanks.
Rick Frea
No comments:
Post a Comment