Your use of the term “soapboxing” to describe what was reasonable argument until your appearance and the bizarre thought-terminating cliché that is your fear of the word “systemic” don’t inspire confidence in me that you are here in good faith. I notice your account is also relatively new.
Nonetheless, consider this after rereading the GP’s comment. If a doctor told two patients that they could avoid getting cancer by not exposing themselves to carcinogens, knowing that one somehow unknowingly lives on a Superfund site, but deciding to purposefully neglect to mention the risk this entails, would you say the doctor was presenting one patient an incorrect understanding of the issue at hand?
Likewise, if a car manufacturer found a problem with one of their models and decided to notify the US about this by saying “you can avoid harm from the problem by not driving cars,” I would say that thinking that this is not “somehow unfair,” as the GP writes, would be a misconception, as I wrote.
The sort of juvenile discussion you are attempting to bring to this conversation is not really appropriate for HN.
Although I agree that we are framing this thread in the context of the original article, this medical professional is presenting their (experienced) opinion, and GP is not discussing it and instead chooses to require some token criticism of the article. This doesn't seem charitable to someone presenting their professional opinion.
I would agree that it is clearly EEE, but would argue that it is also a bait and switch. My intention was to rephrase the gp's comment, which I felt was unfairly positive toward this general practice.
Well that wasn't the point, but sure they can be ignorant just like anyone else. Reading your comment below I actually really appreciate your point on trusting your doctor, but it's ok to still be informed or to be skeptical of their recommendations.
I'm in medical school right now and we talk a lot about the differences between a paternalistic doctor-centered approach vs patient-centered approach, the latter focused on doctors and patients making decisions together and ensuring patients have an understanding of their diseases and risk. And while it requires specialized knowledge just like a mechanic, it's your body we're talking about, not your car. And it depends on the certainty of the doctor's suggestion. Screening is a more complex decision than, say, taking insulin for diabetes. And there are times when public skepticism really does become a public health threat (i.e. anti-vaccination folk).
"On your doctor take, you do know that the other author of this post is a licensed and practicing Physician, right?" --
Your observation is indeed much more interesting than the whole article, since it shows a reasonable (and not a caricature with zero value) heuristic. You are saying that I (who may or may not be a physician, but for argument's sake let's say I am not) should not have an opinion that is different, when discussing the behavior of doctors, from the opinion expressed by a licensed and practicing physician. Valuable heuristic?
As for the article itself, my problem with is was not on the problems that reasonable heuristic can generate, but with the useless caricatures.
A doctor who does not visit any patient and simply gives aways a couple of aspirins, is criminally negligent. A doctor who does not call for an MRI for any common symptoms (think headache) that may have been caused, among many other possible causes (dehydration, stress, tension etc.), also by something much more serious (brain cancer) is using a reasonable heuristic, which sometimes may go wrong because for very aggressive cancers, a couple of weeks of delay in starting treatment or having surgery can make the difference between life and death.
A personal case. I went to a doctor with a dermatitis and the doctor recommended, guess what?, a topical steroid cream, which is recommended by dermatologist like a barber recommends a haircut. The heuristic is, dermatitis of unclear origins --> let's try a steroid cream. After I did a bit of research on my own (5 minutes, maybe less), I found out that for my conditions the steroid cream should be absolutely avoided since it makes the condition worse.
The question is and I let you choose the answer: (1) was the doctor using a reasonable heuristic?; (2) was the doctor incompetent and/or an idiot; (3) was the doctor negligent (there is some overlap with (2))?
Should I wait for the opinion of a "licensed and practicing Physician" or I can have my opinion?
I apologize for not finding a way to frame that more neutrally. I did not reply to your comment because I think you are free to do as you see fit for yourself. Me providing the link to someone else was not intended to be some passive-aggressive dismissal of your choice.
The Cleveland Clinic is a fairly big name, respected clinic. I think of it as a reliable source. I was just trying to sum up a lengthy piece briefly, which is always fraught with potential problems.
I do a lot of making my own health decisions of that sort. I'm routinely attacked for saying anything at all about my thinking about my own health. I wish it were easier to have meaningful discourse of that sort in a responsible fashion without people acting like "You are evil incarnate and practicing medicine without a license for leaving comments on the internet." I have no idea how we get there from here.
"How every food you eat is specifically processed" To a large extent yes - foodie.
Better example: web development. I don't care, I don't care to read about it. I also offer little judgment on that matter. I respect the opinion of those who seem to have an informed decisions on the topic, but I don't belittle those who don't trust the opinions of these, largely self appointed, experts.
As to medicine, the medical field has a long and rich history of abuse of patient rights (from forcibly stopping breast feeding, forced sterilizations, forced infection with syphilis, not treating said victims, ect) and hubris (refusing to wash their hands is my favorite).
While I believe in vaccines, I don't fault any one for not trusting medical authorities. Dr.s are, typically, (because they are trained this way) very patronizing people that historically have not respected their patients agency.
1) I am not saying it is proof or a valid argument. I am saying we should not assume the poster is lying just because they’re uncomfortable providing details about something that is likely personal or legal in nature.
2) That there are HN commenters who don’t follow the guidelines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
3) I did not “conveniently” leave out that sentence, which implies malice on my part. I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The strongest plausible interpretation of the GP’s comment is that they are telling the truth but can’t or are uncomfortable sharing details due to legal or personal matters, especially given that it was posted with a throwaway account, which the guidelines also specify is OK for sensitive information, implying that the GP was posting… sensitive information. As before: please try to assume good faith.
There’s a theme of people avoiding responsibility or consequences by using a product. Best I can tell, GP feels that this illegitimate, and this poster feels it is legitimate to use a device or product to avoid health effects.
I don’t take GP’s comment that way. I take it as a suggestion for how to avoid issues. I try not to be quick to judge when someone is offering helpful information.
What I cited was 100% first hand experience, thanks for the condescension. I've experienced both systems.
I wouldn't wish either you or your partner to be told to pound sand upon experiencing an health related issue. To know that something can be treated, but to be told GTFO. I wished to have a discussion about the matter, but you are obviously not ready for this to happen.
Arguing the facts is totally good. And you may very well be right (I don't know anything about the subject). But attacking the commenter's position because he/she is not a doctor (like you are not a doctor), struck me as poor form.
Thanks. I was trying to be as diplomatic as possible because I didn't have all of the information on hand to get into a medical debate. It's outside my lane.
"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one step further.
No, public discourse in a technical matter is out of the question. Equating the opinion of 2 random doctors to the thousands of epidemiologists worldwide is not helping democracy in any shape or form. It actually destroys it.
We need to stop this insanity. Ignorant people's opinion is not worth the opinion of an expert.
To be fair though, the author does not hide any conflict of interest - it is stated in the footer - and the argument is made with evidence, not simply "I've been a doctor for 25 years, listen to me!".
This is coming dangerously close to dismissing all arguments from experts because their expertise has made them "biased" or presents a "conflict".
This sort of PSA feels very… inhumane - for lack of a softer word. Professional advise and all is great, but humans talking to other humans about the experiences, problems, and solutions is rarely a bad thing. And if the reader isn’t capable of thinking critically, then that’s a problem this sort of PSA won’t solve. Are you assuming the GP is extremely impressionable to the point they implement the advise of internet comments without any critical thinking whatsoever?
Sorry for the rant, but this is exactly the sort of almost-helpful comment that leads people to roll their eyes at appealing to the experts.
Nonetheless, consider this after rereading the GP’s comment. If a doctor told two patients that they could avoid getting cancer by not exposing themselves to carcinogens, knowing that one somehow unknowingly lives on a Superfund site, but deciding to purposefully neglect to mention the risk this entails, would you say the doctor was presenting one patient an incorrect understanding of the issue at hand?
Likewise, if a car manufacturer found a problem with one of their models and decided to notify the US about this by saying “you can avoid harm from the problem by not driving cars,” I would say that thinking that this is not “somehow unfair,” as the GP writes, would be a misconception, as I wrote.
The sort of juvenile discussion you are attempting to bring to this conversation is not really appropriate for HN.
reply