Dear Editor,
Dr Shane Alexis, president of the Medical Association (MAJ), in his letter of May 18 on the issue of Professor Brendan Bain's professionalism, reflected in my considered opinion a low standard on his part for medical 'professionalism'.
One, in his association's authority, Dr Alexis stated that Professor Bain as an expert witness in giving testimony to the court (Belizean) did so in a personal capacity as an "expert himself". Yet, surprisingly, Dr Alexis goes on to say: "We (MAJ) sincerely hope that our responsibility, under the law, to the court is not under any form of attack."
That 'connection' between Professor Bain's conceded individual right to an association's responsibility in a court of law being affected is logically problematic and semantically a non sequitur.
Two, the letter of Dr Alexis projects the tone of a legal prosecutor rather than a scientist. Not to mention any link logically to the president of the MAJ. He says quite rightly "our training and expertise are in science and scientific research". But he is not quite right in saying that the "veracity of a scientific conclusion should only be challenged on the basis of science". His statement raises a definitional problem regarding science -- which there is -- for there is laboratory concept and the logical research finding concept.
If, for example, research shows that same-sex practioners or homosexuals are the primary group of persons in the Caribbean responsible for the spread of AIDS or HIV, that conclusion would be arrived at from systematic research, but not necessarily scientific -- certainly not based on laboratory-kind medical science.
Third, Dr Alexis notes with high praise the outstanding work of Professor Bain in the leadership of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training efforts and so seems to link what a scientist thinks of the 'objects' of his endeavor with the passion of his efforts. But surely it would be true to say that Professor Bain in carrying out his highly praised work attended gay activists with professionalism and excellence.
Finally, in the legal reality so much boils down to what Professor Bain may have said while giving expert testimony. What in Professor Bain's untainted reputation to date would suggest that the Medical Association should be responding so excitedly to anything more than propaganda memos from likely the very gay activists Professor Bain has helped so faithfully?
Billy Hall
billsophia@hotmail.com
MAJ can take off its legal hat
-->
Dr Shane Alexis, president of the Medical Association (MAJ), in his letter of May 18 on the issue of Professor Brendan Bain's professionalism, reflected in my considered opinion a low standard on his part for medical 'professionalism'.
One, in his association's authority, Dr Alexis stated that Professor Bain as an expert witness in giving testimony to the court (Belizean) did so in a personal capacity as an "expert himself". Yet, surprisingly, Dr Alexis goes on to say: "We (MAJ) sincerely hope that our responsibility, under the law, to the court is not under any form of attack."
That 'connection' between Professor Bain's conceded individual right to an association's responsibility in a court of law being affected is logically problematic and semantically a non sequitur.
Two, the letter of Dr Alexis projects the tone of a legal prosecutor rather than a scientist. Not to mention any link logically to the president of the MAJ. He says quite rightly "our training and expertise are in science and scientific research". But he is not quite right in saying that the "veracity of a scientific conclusion should only be challenged on the basis of science". His statement raises a definitional problem regarding science -- which there is -- for there is laboratory concept and the logical research finding concept.
If, for example, research shows that same-sex practioners or homosexuals are the primary group of persons in the Caribbean responsible for the spread of AIDS or HIV, that conclusion would be arrived at from systematic research, but not necessarily scientific -- certainly not based on laboratory-kind medical science.
Third, Dr Alexis notes with high praise the outstanding work of Professor Bain in the leadership of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training efforts and so seems to link what a scientist thinks of the 'objects' of his endeavor with the passion of his efforts. But surely it would be true to say that Professor Bain in carrying out his highly praised work attended gay activists with professionalism and excellence.
Finally, in the legal reality so much boils down to what Professor Bain may have said while giving expert testimony. What in Professor Bain's untainted reputation to date would suggest that the Medical Association should be responding so excitedly to anything more than propaganda memos from likely the very gay activists Professor Bain has helped so faithfully?
Billy Hall
billsophia@hotmail.com
MAJ can take off its legal hat
-->