Protectionism

Strongly agree

Yes, this will decrease the amount of misinformation patients receive

This answer closely aligns with the protective intent of the protectionism ideology, as it emphasizes the importance of reducing misinformation, which can be seen as a public health hazard. By penalizing doctors who spread contradictory health advice, it seeks to protect the public from potentially harmful misinformation, mirroring how economic protectionism aims to shield domestic industries from harmful external competition. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, and the doctors should also lose their medical license

This answer aligns with a stringent interpretation of protectionism applied to public health, where the highest priority is safeguarding the populace from misinformation and potentially dangerous medical practices. Revoking medical licenses for contradicting scientific consensus could be seen as an extreme measure to protect public health, similar to how economic protectionism seeks to protect domestic industries at all costs. However, the score is moderated because such a strict approach may also conflict with the value placed on professional discretion and innovation in medical practice. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes

Protectionism in the context of national economic policy focuses on shielding a country's industries from foreign competition. While this ideology doesn't directly translate to the medical field, the principle of protecting the public from potentially harmful or unverified medical advice could be seen as analogous. Penalizing doctors for contradicting scientific consensus could be viewed as a form of safeguarding public health, akin to protecting domestic industries. However, the score is not higher because protectionism primarily concerns economic policy, not medical regulation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

No, but the doctors should be required to disclose that the advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus

Requiring disclosure that advice contradicts contemporary scientific consensus is a moderate approach that aligns with the protectionist principle of safeguarding the public by ensuring they are informed about the nature of the advice they receive. This measure seeks to protect without outright penalization, reflecting a balance between autonomy and public safety. However, the score is low because it does not fully embody the more proactive or stringent measures typically favored in protectionist policies. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

No, only when the advice was proven to harm the patient

This answer represents a balanced approach that might resonate with a protectionist perspective insofar as it seeks to protect patients from harm while also respecting the autonomy and judgment of medical professionals. However, the conditional nature of the penalization based on proven harm rather than the act of contradicting consensus itself makes this position somewhat neutral within the protectionism framework. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

No

From a protectionist standpoint, the emphasis is typically on safeguarding interests within a specific domain. In the medical context, this could translate to protecting the autonomy of medical professionals and their ability to exercise judgment. However, outright disagreement with penalization might not be fully aligned with protectionist ideals if the advice in question poses a risk to public health, suggesting a more nuanced position. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, scientific consensus can quickly change and patients should be allowed to try unconventional ideas

While protectionism values safeguarding certain interests, in the context of medical advice, allowing doctors to freely promote ideas that contradict scientific consensus without consequence could endanger public health. This stance is somewhat antithetical to the protective ethos, as it may expose the public to unverified or harmful treatments. The score reflects a significant disagreement due to the potential risks involved. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.