The trial of the trial, the study of the study, discussion of the debate, life and death
In France, by omitting the long-term planning that allowed a macro vision, we have witnessed the emergence of a new form of process decision-making : “the essayite ” or “the étudite ” to validate decisions.
The Rocard report on pensions has for almost 40 years (half the life expectancy of the French). Since, there has been a study in study, consultation, in consultation with few laws that are changing marginally the situation, but does not regulate the substantive issue. The incremental evolution being preferred to the great revolutions, in order to avoid the social movements of magnitude. However, these small changes give rise to a dispute, where a subset will feel disadvantaged. One day this will be the lawyers and accountants, the next day the doctors, and after the CGT to challenge the loss of a certain advantage gained, we are told, of high struggle against the employers. In fact, these advantages are gained, not against the employers, but against all those who are not affected by this cohort of individuals : the cohorting of influence being a method to make his voice heard, feel strengthened and legitimised in the quest for his Grail. The time of the protest, the people get older, take their profits earned in high-fight and leave the bill to their children as once six feet beneath the earth, it is no longer their problem.
The current crisis sheds light on a new dimension, that of medical tests that lead to another test and still another, all contested, as the methodology does not meet the rules of art. Unfortunately, during this time, the difference of the disputes on the benefits gained, people die. In addition, it goes into “prime time” on television. A test and then another test, to slay those who are trying to save lives. A medical specialist recently told me to go to the funeral of a loved one, that you do not want to care ” as the High Authority of Health has decreed that… “; so that there is little time, the debate was on the end of life where we took the advice of loved ones when the state of the person did not ask him directly for his opinion. Science, in itself imperfect, is questionable, but the medicine would she have gone mad ? Will he have to go to the bedside of the medicine so the passions unleashed the crowds. The medicine would become a criminal, denying the principle of the Hippocratic oath: a doctor rather than try to cure, it shall comply with the current standard ? Of course, in the respect of the health of all.
The debate on the science and medicine has invaded the television. This is no longer science fiction that we used, but is this scientific fact? Debate in debate, the French learn or re-learn that science has of all time been the subject of quarrels of churches. Today, we do not kill a scientific treatise of a quack by his peers, however, the lynchings of the media, which we see with violence, are of a nature to leave us hanging at the television screen. The temporality of science is not compatible with that of the media and of the ongoing debates alienate and disturb a part of the population, up to believe the conspiracy theory of the big pharmas. It is not surprising that the social networks crackle, and citizens gather to understand by themselves. The debate on the hydroxychloroquine of these last days sows a wind of panic, everyone trying to justify a position. You can always make it say what one wants to the figures, the devil is in the detail, in the methodology. The time is not so long ago that some people thought the earth is flat or oval in shape without the possibility to study the big data and yet the empirical science is well advanced; including the discovery of rabies vaccine by Pasteur against all odds. There is little time yet hydroxychloroquine which has helped cure millions of people. Like all molecules, it can be dangerous. Moreover, each molecule has a dangerous condition : the water itself is dangerous to the state of vapour, or ice.
Study by study, trial by trial, was it simply forgotten to trust and rely on the people who are educated, who decide in conscience. The elites must take their role and not just go to test in test in order to justify a decision, debate in debate to justify their position. Decide, is to take a risk, decide under stress even more. But, trust isn’t it also important?
The doctors, in their oath, are trying to do the best for their patients, to save lives and it is binary, because the life you have or not. However, the test is not binary, we can always find a reason to not act (to delay the retirement age, to treat those patients), but, since the dawn of time and this has made progress, it is risk-taking and responsibility.
The time is not far when Albert Einstein said :
Author(s): Xavier Azalbert for FranceSoir