In reply to:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr
·
737d
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr
·
737d
The statement is a question that seems to challenge the assertion made by the original poster about the safety of therapies and the violation of the Nuremberg Code. It appears to be a critical response to the claim that there can be 'safe' therapies without informed consent, suggesting skepticism about the infallibility of expert agreement on safety.
- The statement does not seem to intend harm but rather to provoke thought and challenge a claim, which is a form of constructive dialogue. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The question encourages reflection and could lead to a deeper understanding of the issue, showing a level of empathy for those potentially affected by such policies. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in dialogue by questioning the premise of the original post, which is a form of constructive criticism. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.