24

In this video Jordan Peterson says the following:

Do you know that it is now illegal for physicians to list starvation as the cause of death for a Venezuelan child in a hospital. That's how they're dealing with the fact of starvation. You just make it illegal to have that diagnosed as your cause of death. That'll solve the problem.

I know Venezuela is in an economic crisis at the moment, and starvation is a serious problem. It's reported all over the place. What I couldn't find was exactly an answer to whether the government made it illegal for physicians to list starvation as a cause of death for a child.

I find a Reddit question asking the same thing, where there is a link to a New York times article which includes I think two relevant parts:

The Venezuelan government has tried to cover up the extent of the crisis by enforcing a near-total blackout of health statistics, and by creating a culture in which doctors are often afraid to register cases and deaths that may be associated with the government’s failures.

and

Doctors are censored in hospitals, too, often warned not to include malnutrition in children’s medical records.

“In some public hospitals, the clinical diagnosis of malnutrition has been prohibited,” Dr. Huníades Urbina said.

But doctors interviewed by The Times at nine of the 21 public hospitals said that they had kept at least some count. They encountered nearly 2,800 cases of child malnutrition in the last year alone, with starving children regularly brought to emergency rooms. Nearly 400 of the children died, the doctors said.

The reporting from this article suggests that physicians may be discouraged, or maybe feel threatened to officially list such a cause of death, however I don't think it answers the question of whether it was made illegal.

In an Irish Times article I found the following of relevance when talking about two infants:

But in the case of Kenyerber and Kleiver, a rare situation occurred for Venezuela: Severe malnutrition was listed as a cause of death on their death certificates.
Dec 19, 2017

Is what Jordan Peterson said correct? Is it possible to find out given the Venezuelan government's secrecy about this topic. It seems from the information I've read that in at least two cases severe malnutrition was listed as a cause of death for children, and the rest of the information says that in certain hospitals physicians are either censored from reporting the true cause of death, or are in fear of doing so. But I feel this is different from saying that the government made it illegal, which is what I take Jordan Peterson to be saying.

Zebrafish
  • 3,773
  • 5
  • 18
  • 27
  • 7
    So, at first glance, it looks like basically everyone is sourcing from the NY Times piece, which is apparently original reportage. They're asserting that there's a coverup, and they doctors are being leaned on to not acknowledge malnutrition as cause of death. So... if there's no actual law, but the doctors are complying for fear of the power of the State, then what exactly do you call that? – Ben Barden Jan 04 '19 at 21:43
  • 4
    If there *was* a law, the Times would have said so. As such, there probably isn't one *technically*. On the other hand, if you're basing your video off of what you read in a paper that's based on the reporting in the Times (or whatever), then that's really not a large degree of signal degradation. It's not even bias. The thing that he's claiming isn't really any worse than the thing that the NYT reported - it's just a bit misdescribed. – Ben Barden Jan 04 '19 at 21:47
  • 1
    Not making a full answer because I have no sources beyond what's in the NYT, and thus do not have sufficient certainty. – Ben Barden Jan 04 '19 at 21:47
  • @BenBarden I don't know if that info about censoring, fear and intimidation only came from the NYT? I only saw it from that article I think, so it's possible. I think the government making such thing officially illegal is probably not a smart way of doing a cover-up. But it's interesting as the NYT article says doctors are "warned not to include malnutrition in children’s medical records", but the Irish Times article said the cause of death for those two children was listed as severe malnutrition. – Zebrafish Jan 05 '19 at 01:37
  • Right. There are some who are bucking the system - reporting it as such in spite of the warnings. – Ben Barden Jan 07 '19 at 14:20
  • I can only find the NYT reference about malnutrition too. Plenty of media coverage of the starvation though, so "cover up"?? Through experience, I've learnt to assume Peterson is lying or misrepresenting whatever claim he makes. This fits with his biases (and easy to point at the boogyman rather than the complex issues involved), so without a solid reference, I'm betting this is another misrepresentation. – Tim Scanlon Jan 09 '19 at 13:04
  • 4
    @TimScanlon Even if there were no official law, I hardly find it scandalously misrepresentative of the situation. It seems the facts are there was/is a cover-up. Whether doctors are extrajudicially coerced or censored or whether there exists a law I don't think it changes much in reality. Saying "illegal" may not have been an appropriate word, but given the reality of state coercion (if that's true), I don't consider it too far off. What's made you assume he lies? Have you found other things he's said which aren't true? I'm not saying I haven't found any. I'm just asking you. – Zebrafish Jan 09 '19 at 13:21
  • @Zebrafish, assume he lies? I said through experience, by which I meant every time I've fact-checked him I've found him to be AT BEST misleading. His DNA claim is just one example. But here we get to classic Peterson, he is vague enough and verbose enough that it is hard to pin down exactly what he is saying or means, so he can slip through uncontested. You've just done it yourself. He's said something that is at least misrepresentative, but you've assumed he didn't use the appropriate word. Convenient, yet again. That's either deliberate deception or he's not as smart as people believe. – Tim Scanlon Jan 12 '19 at 15:05
  • @TimScanlon Supposing the reports of government intimidation and the fear environment are true, even saying "It's not allowed" instead of "illegal" can be seen as false because when the mafia comes to collect protection money you can still refuse them. Even saying "doctors don't report malnutrition as a cause of death from fear" can be said to be false because a minority of doctors might ignore the warnings and report it anyway. No, I haven't allowed him to slip through uncontested, I hold him accountable for his misleading choice of words. – Zebrafish Jan 13 '19 at 02:45
  • @Zebrafish, dude, you've posted two responses to me defending his misrepresentations, that is hardly holding him accountable. As I've already said, Peterson isn't reliable as he is so misrepresentative and misleading, so my first comment still stands. I can't help but feel this conversation is a waste of time. – Tim Scanlon Jan 16 '19 at 01:57
  • 2
    @TimScanlon There's a reason that fact-checking answers often look like the following: "Technically true, but...". The reason for this is NOT to make a partisan defence, but because the context and details matter. The claim is it's illegal for physicians to report starvation as a cause of death. The evidence we have is that of covert and extrajudicial intimidation and coercion exerted by the government on physicians not to list starvation as a cause of death. It's as simple as that. Anyone can judge for themself how misrepresentative or misleading this in fact is. – Zebrafish Jan 16 '19 at 04:21
  • @Zebrafish, way to miss the point once again. – Tim Scanlon Jan 16 '19 at 10:23
  • 2
    Define “illegal” If the government won’t let you do something then it’s illegal even if it’s not a written law. In primitive society with no written language, does that mean nothing is illegal? Of course not. Something can be illegal without it being formally written into law. Common Law are all unwritten laws that are enforced in the US. – bhause Nov 12 '21 at 18:41
  • @bhause That's a bit simplistic. Common Law is written down. They're just records of judicial decisions instead of statutes. Common Law is simply an acknowledgement that legislatures can't craft laws for every real world situation on the first try. I think there is a meaningful distinction to be made in this question between suppression via legislation and suppression via other, extra-legal means. – Harabeck Nov 15 '21 at 16:34

0 Answers0