How to evaluate the value of a doctor

Posted June 09th, 2025

Some passages of the statement (link to the document at the bottom) of the Board of Directors of the Medici of the Charter of Siena after the statements damaging to the authority of Dr. Giuseppe Barbaro by Roberto Burioni.

 

The repetition of unpleasant public interventions by some doctors, moreover made famous and undeservedly incensed by the mainstream channels precisely for this function of "ridiculing" the opinions of other doctors who draw their information from scientifically demonstrable data, has led us to try to clarify the general terms of the problem under consideration. The last case is that in which Prof. Burioni tries to diminish, as usual without substantiating his opinion therefore in itself "anti-scientific," as stated by Prof. Giuseppe Barbaro in the program of Heather Parisi.

 

A doctor, to be truly such, must possess three qualities: 1) know, 2) know how to do, 3) know how to be (a doctor).

 

We knowm edicine is (and will always remain) an "empirical science" that, based on evidence, uses the experimental method, that is, the continuous control and critical re-evaluation of the fact that the hypotheses are consistent with the observations in the field ... not falling within the "exact sciences," the progress of medical knowledge is nourished and grows with debate and comparison, of evidence and refutations, arguments and counter-arguments: in a word it is nourished and grows through "doubt." To affirm "absolute and certain truths," especially in medicine, is to deny science and use one's role as a doctor to mislead citizens.

 

Knowing how to do it?

In recent decades, the economic and political interests behind the "non-neutrality" of scientific research have made the results published, even by journals so far considered reliable, to be taken cum grano salis and not accepted uncritically and fideistically, especially when the research shows exactly the opposite of what our direct experience lives. In any case, this world of so-called official science, uses meters of measurement for professionals such as the so-called "H-Index" that tends to measure the recognized quality, officially to the various authors of publications in scientific journals, so we will make the evaluations on this basis.

 

Knowing how to be (a doctor)

The Hippocratic Oath, on the point of a possible conflict of opinions between colleagues, prescribes: "to inspire the solution of any divergence of opinions to mutual respect." The Code of Ethics, in Article 58, prescribes: "The doctor bases the relationship with colleagues on the principles of solidarity and collaboration and mutual respect for technical, functional and economic skills, as well as related autonomy and responsibilities. The doctor deals with any conflicts with colleagues with mutual respect."

 

After having made this necessary examination, finally wanting to compare the two professionals according to the rules dictated by the international "scientific" community, we find the following: Giuseppe Barbaro - H-Index 58, with 10486 citations (of his publications); Roberto Burioni - H-Index 38, with 5085 citations.

If we take this method of measurement as valid, it is noted that Prof. Barbaro is almost twice as high as that of Prof. Burioni.

 

But we put Ethics first and see it as the main element on which to base judgment.

 

The attribution of the ethical value of Dr. Barbaro's behaviors is easily deductible compared to what he daily does in favor of social well-being, mirrored without ulterior motives and conflicts of interest but rather risking sanctions in a system where white is named black and vice versa. On the work of Professor Burioni and especially on his position with regard to the demonstration of the absence of personal conflicts of interest, the person concerned is asked for a public statement.