|
Aswad -> RE: Transplants and politics (6/28/2013 7:55:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Experts whose expertise is evaluated by .... whom, exactly?
Their track record.
Organ transplant folks: umpteen successful transplantations, and fewer unsuccessful ones.
Us ordinary folks: no successful transplantations, and hopefully no unsuccessful ones, either.
Seems pretty clear who's got input on this. If you want to get into the details more, then good on you. The basic element, though, is: this, we the people delegate.
quote:
Other experts eminently qualified to select and evaluate them because other experts said they were qualified to do so?
You make it sound like something it's not. Read up on how such systems are built. That improvements are in order is nothing new. That they're miles ahead of the general population on this point is well established and, for practical purposes, a given. Better beats worse, even when better isn't perfect. We should be concerned with the objectively tunable elements- prioritizing between the goals our experts (by our criterion) tell us are prioritizable.
quote:
Oversight and sunlight are good medicine for more institutions than simply the legislative branch of government
There is oversight in medical committees, review boards and the like.
There is plenty of sunlight. Most of the field gets recorded, much of it also published. These aren't secret, shady dealings.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
