|
Veterinary Practice News Editorial Blog:
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Is There Room for the Truth In the Comp Med Debate?
By Marilyn Iturri
Editor of VeterinaryPracticeNews.com and Veterinary Practice News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t we all just get along?
I grew up in a loud Basque family, where arguing was weekend sport. My dad and his brothers could argue the fine points of everything and anything. The more hoarse they were afterward, the bigger their badges of honor.
When they ran out of facts to dispute, they started calling each other names. At that point It could get unpleasant, but that didn’t make anyone stick to the merits of their arguments.
It was maddening.
Much to my surprise, I’ve run into something quite similar in regard to one of our Veterinary Practice News columnists.
Narda Robinson, DVM, DO, writes about complementary and alternative veterinary medicine for us every month. She looks for the science behind touted treatments and reports assiduously on them.
Sometimes her findings take issue with popular beliefs, and sometimes they support the modality she is researching.
Interestingly, it’s rare that anyone takes issue with the substance of the reports she cites. Perhaps truth is on her side in that regard.
As anyone dealing with controversial topics, Dr. Robinson has her fans and her detractors.
When she finds little merit in the literature for some modality, we hear from proponents of the modality decrying her work and from opponents praising her work. When she finds merit, we hear from the ranks who hold that all CAVM is voodoo. She can’t seem to win.
When practitioners take issue, we are happy to print opposing comment and challenges. Our August issue featured such an example: Dr. Nancy Scanlan of Thousand Oaks, Calif., wrote to challenge some points in Dr. Robinson’s June column, “Top 10 Holistic Traps,” asking reasoned questions and providing information of her own.
Dr. Robinson replied in depth, offering references (as always) for her answers.
Even her reply brought both congratulations and complaints.
Debate is valid and fair, and veterinary medicine will not be hurt by good, honest discussions. But a letter I received well after the initial hubbub of that column upset me.
It was largely an ad hominem attack on Dr. Robinson, accusing her (among other things) of not doing her homework.
Good lord, if there’s one thing she can be faulted for, it would NOT be failing to do her homework. Her columns are routinely submitted with citations of 16, 20 and even more footnotes – so many that we don’t always have room to print them all. That’s why we post them on our website.
But this correspondent went on at length, challenging her motives, her education and her integrity. That’s what I found upsetting; it was not a reasoned or reasonable letter. It was a purely personal attack.
The irony is that in writing it, the author was guilty of precisely what he accused her of – basing writings on purely personal, unreasoned opinions bearing little semblance to reality.
Two appropriate adages come to mind: Reasonable minds can differ. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
We at Veterinary Practice News welcome differing points of view. Bring them on! But let’s remain civil; personal attacks serve only to lower the level of discourse.
I couldn’t do anything about them when I was a kid in my parents’ home. But as editor of a veterinary business-to-business magazine, I can and will see that the discourse remains civil.
« All Editorial Blogs
 Give us your opinion on
Is There Room for the Truth In the Comp Med Debate?
Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.
|