As everyone who has taken care of patients knows, what I would do and what I must do to avoid catastrophe get different responses. No intubation, amputation, insulin for me becomes go ahead doc in the moment of gotta do it right now. The other thing that happens with medical innovations is that they go from just a few with high risk to proven benefit that people find hard to turn down. Antidepressants were widely rejected by much of the public until about 1990 when Prozac established widespread efficacy and safety. As your friends and neighbors got cheerier and told you about it, the acceptance of a depression diagnosis and treatment accelerated. My guess is that gene therapy, now high risk for desperate conditions, will find their way to more common less threatening conditions. With that comes public acceptance. Data to random responders on theoreticals cannot capture that medical reality.
FWIW, I think GLP-1s are moving very quickly in that direction.
Especially when they become available in pill form. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 30-40% of Americans are taking one on a regular basis in 10 years.
One pill a day and lose 15% of my body weight? Hard to say no to that.
The GLP-1s had a different trajectory. As an endo, I prescribed them widely for diabetes when they came out. Wt loss was looked at as a beneficial side effect, but they were only offered for glucose lowering. As new drugs, their safety was uncertain, justified if diabetic, maybe not if healthy. Before it could be accepted for wt loss, the manufacturers to their credit, went through the full FDA approval process. And the alternative for many would be bariatric surgery, which, while effective, has had its share of misadventures since the Payne Shunt of the 1970s. Even the modern gastric bypass is often declined by people who could benefit. Back to the Graphs, the data reflect a concept of virtue, heal but don't change people fundamentally. Closer to the religious divides on GnRH inhibitors for transgender adolescents than for treating life shortening medical situations at hand.
I think another interesting graph would be using the same groups would be a straight forward question 'Do you believe gene editing is Moral, Immoral, or I don't know. The answers shown in the charts displayed lead us to make some assumptions about that, but I'm a more of an in your face guy.
At an actuarial convention decades ago an actuary discussed statistics this way:
"Statistics are like bikinis," he said, "What they reveal is very interesting but what they hide is vital."
Not the kind of story one tells in our more sensitive culture today, but one that is very confessional about how stats work.
I wonder how the question would have changed (especially for Evangelicals) if the question was about keeping a fetus viable in the womb instead of a baby.
I would be most interested in where you place Lutherans in your data. As an LCMS longtime member, most Confessional Lutherans do not consider themselves Protestant. Many cling to the Evangelical label (check "old Lutheran churches and many are named "Evangelical ......'', and yet we are not Evangelical as used in the current context. Anyway, have you placed us there?? Many confessional Lutheran consider the Lutheran faith as the original one true catholic faith; I'm assuming you have not place us there! So where are we! Please let us know!
As everyone who has taken care of patients knows, what I would do and what I must do to avoid catastrophe get different responses. No intubation, amputation, insulin for me becomes go ahead doc in the moment of gotta do it right now. The other thing that happens with medical innovations is that they go from just a few with high risk to proven benefit that people find hard to turn down. Antidepressants were widely rejected by much of the public until about 1990 when Prozac established widespread efficacy and safety. As your friends and neighbors got cheerier and told you about it, the acceptance of a depression diagnosis and treatment accelerated. My guess is that gene therapy, now high risk for desperate conditions, will find their way to more common less threatening conditions. With that comes public acceptance. Data to random responders on theoreticals cannot capture that medical reality.
FWIW, I think GLP-1s are moving very quickly in that direction.
Especially when they become available in pill form. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 30-40% of Americans are taking one on a regular basis in 10 years.
One pill a day and lose 15% of my body weight? Hard to say no to that.
The GLP-1s had a different trajectory. As an endo, I prescribed them widely for diabetes when they came out. Wt loss was looked at as a beneficial side effect, but they were only offered for glucose lowering. As new drugs, their safety was uncertain, justified if diabetic, maybe not if healthy. Before it could be accepted for wt loss, the manufacturers to their credit, went through the full FDA approval process. And the alternative for many would be bariatric surgery, which, while effective, has had its share of misadventures since the Payne Shunt of the 1970s. Even the modern gastric bypass is often declined by people who could benefit. Back to the Graphs, the data reflect a concept of virtue, heal but don't change people fundamentally. Closer to the religious divides on GnRH inhibitors for transgender adolescents than for treating life shortening medical situations at hand.
I think another interesting graph would be using the same groups would be a straight forward question 'Do you believe gene editing is Moral, Immoral, or I don't know. The answers shown in the charts displayed lead us to make some assumptions about that, but I'm a more of an in your face guy.
At an actuarial convention decades ago an actuary discussed statistics this way:
"Statistics are like bikinis," he said, "What they reveal is very interesting but what they hide is vital."
Not the kind of story one tells in our more sensitive culture today, but one that is very confessional about how stats work.
I wonder how the question would have changed (especially for Evangelicals) if the question was about keeping a fetus viable in the womb instead of a baby.
Yeah - that's certainly a way more problematic scenario from a 'pro-life' perspective.
I would be most interested in where you place Lutherans in your data. As an LCMS longtime member, most Confessional Lutherans do not consider themselves Protestant. Many cling to the Evangelical label (check "old Lutheran churches and many are named "Evangelical ......'', and yet we are not Evangelical as used in the current context. Anyway, have you placed us there?? Many confessional Lutheran consider the Lutheran faith as the original one true catholic faith; I'm assuming you have not place us there! So where are we! Please let us know!
LCMS is classified as evangelical. ELCA is classified as mainline.
Pretty sure men are just more likely to engage in risky behavior and/or be open to new experiences depending how you wanna frame things.