So what you are saying is that you don't want members to point out the negatives of a treatment?
No, that is
not what at all what the moderator is saying. The moderator is saying that you are expressing your opinions of the negatives of treatment in a belittling, critical way.
Many people here express and invite opposing points of view but find a way to do it with respect and care. As I pointed out in the Forum Rules post, there are specific parameters about this that all users agree to.
Informed consent of patients dictates that they know both the risks and potential benefits of a treatment.
But does not require them to listen to abusive language, nor to acquire that informed consent from you; it is not your job to inform them, and are you are not the authority they are required to turn to.
I
f I were consenting to an expensive, experimental treatment I would want to know the true odds so that I wouldn't get my hopes up if it went badly.
Then you may seek out information regarding those odds without contentious behaviour here.
I do hope that everyone is successful but likewise, every treatment isn't going to work so people need to be realistic when dealing with treatment failures so they don't become distraught.
It is not your place to decide what is realistic for others. You may gently suggest options but please refrain from deriding options that you do not agree with.
It is unethical for a moderator to censor a member for simply offering a differing point of view that is not misleading.
The moderator is absolutely
not censoring you for "simply offering a differing point of view that is not misleading". This is an outright misquote of the moderator's instruction. It is essential that you understand that it is the
manner in which you state your differing point of view, and the manner in which you respond to the differing views of others that you are being warned about.
In many threads on this forum, people discuss their opposing points of view in the spirit of informed discourse, lighthearted banter, or investigative curiosity. The moderator is asking you
quite plainly to
modify your tone, not your content, unless the content is expressly derogatory towards a person or protocol. Perhaps your intent is not to be rude and disrespectful, but take these repeated requests, from several different corners, as an indication that they are absolutely coming off that way.
I apologize for the one sarcastic comment which was accurate but bluntly written. I wasn't aware of how intollerant the rules are regarding this.
There are multiple examples in your posts of sarcasm, belittling, and disrepect of other peoples' protocols--not just the one--though we appreciate your acknowledgement and apology. The rules are clear; please read them again.
The nature of rules is to define specific parameters to which a group of people agree. The forum rules, to which you have implicitly agreed by participation here, are specific about the temper of the language and intent of the posts. If you are unable to modify your style, or do not wish to, you may chose to post in a platform that supports that type of aggression. Everyone here is open to hearing alternate points of view, but
not at all open to being abused in the process. It is clear you are unaware of the abusive tone of your posts, so you have been offered the choice of toning it down or finding somewhere else to express yourself in that manner.