jamius.com

Despite my name, I am not a doctor

I will agree that there are bad doctors out there that are just prompted by greed. This especially applies to surgeons, IMHO. But I would say that there are more good doctors than bad doctors, though maybe that varies a lot from region to region. I think that the greediest people in medicine are the pharmaceutical companies**. They push their product which may or may not do what they claim, and in some cases the treatment may be worse than the disease. Think of a brand name drug, Advil, Tylenola, Aspirin. By law, generic brands (ibuprofen, acetaminophen, acetasalisilic acid) have to be exactly as effective as the same brand name. Now, when the general public is inundated with commercials for brand name drugs, they are going to think they work better than generic ones. If it is just something like ibuprofen, not a big deal. But for prescription drugs, the price difference can be pretty big. Even if a doctor suggests prescribing the generic drug, saying how it is just as effective, the patient may be convinced by advertisements that they need the brand name one. Hence why you will see a commercial saying "ask your doctor about...".


Another thing that I think is wrong with medicine is how litigious it is. I know personally of cases where doctors would not normally perform an operation or a treatment since it is unnecessary, but may offer it out of a fear that they will be sued if it is found out they didn't do every single thing they could do, even if it wouldn't have made a difference. But I will concede this is true for the reverse, where a patient does not want something, but is pressured into it by the doctor.

I guess the point of my hypothetical review board would be to make sure their reasoning is legitimate and they understand the risks. But like I said, who is to say what is legitimate? It's just that people sometimes get confused in hospitals and only want to get out, so they might sign out AMA without fully understanding.

** Of course the REAL greediest people are the insurance companies, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I can't really fault drug companies from trying to sell their product. That is something that happens with a lot more things than just drugs. Most things at the grocery store have alternatives that are basically the same thing. It isn't unusual. If people want the name brand and want to pay for the advertising, more power to them.

Mistakes by doctors isn't unusual at all, but the problem is in the litigation. Even good doctors can make mistakes and cause significant damage. I do think people are too quick to sue over honest mistakes and because doctors have to protect against that possibility, prices go up. All of us basically foot the bill for the lawsuits.

In general though, the point here is that everyone should be able to choose what is best for them, just like Jaimie and his running. If there is some study that says 99% of people will have foot or knee problems from running, that is fine. But if Jaimie doesn't have issues and he enjoys it and it makes him healty, both physically and mentally, more power to him. It is nobodies business to tell him he should not be doing that.

sjvsworldtour wrote:In general though, the point here is that everyone should be able to choose what is best for them, just like Jaimie and his running. If there is some study that says 99% of people will have foot or knee problems from running, that is fine. But if Jaimie doesn't have issues and he enjoys it and it makes him healty, both physically and mentally, more power to him. It is nobodies business to tell him he should not be doing that.

This. I agree 100%.

But, to make a complete circle in this argument, what do you do if someone WANTS to do something (like running) but it's 90% sure that they will get hurt doing it? It's the same as refusing treatment due to beliefs or other reasons? Can a doctor sit by and let them do it?

I agree as well. If it's your own body, you should be able to do what you want. But the person should understand what they are doing and take responsibility for their actions. If an obese person goes to the doctors and the doctor tells them that they are at a 90% risk for a heart attack and tells them to lower their cholesterol and eat healthier, I have no problem with them refusing. Maybe they won't get a heart attack. As long as it doesn't effect me. Just so long as they take responsibility.

So I guess a science opposer in the sense that I mean, would be a person who doesn't believe the doctor, even if he showed them several studies on obesity and heart disease. And even that by itself doesn't really bother me. But if they keep going back the the doctor with heart disease, or high blood pressure, or elevated sodium, or pre diabetes or whatever, and still keep refusing the doctor's advise, then it makes me angry because they are taking up the doctor's time and are seeking his aid without acknowledging his advise. Of course that's a huge problem with society. Responsibility. If people took responsibility for their own actions, we would have a lot less lawsuits.

And as far as I know, a doctor can't do anything if you are deemed competent and not hurting anybody. But then I suppose it depends on what is considered competent. If a Jehova Witness dies because they refuse a blood transfusion (which they have a 99% chance of dying without), most people will probably agree that is a competent belief. But if someone has a cultural belief that drinking liquid mercury cures hiccups, or that they should inject tiger blood into their veins, and die (with a 99%), people might not see that as competent.

Oh, and I don't blame pharmaceutical companies. Their businesses after all. Just saying they are greedy, but that's sort of the point of a business.

And more power to Jamie if he wants to run. He seems strong as an ox and knows what he's doing. Plus, if something bad did happen, he seems like he'd take sole responsibility.

Oh, and when I made this thread I was mainly considering situations of the parent forcing their opinion on the child or others, thereby affecting someone else. I did some research and as it turns out, most states have laws protecting parents from child abuse in religious cases. However, in many states this only applies to non-life threatening issues.

But it seems most of these things are on a case by case basis. It also seems most of them apply to faith healing vs medicine. I know I’ve sorta said it already, but I don’t see a difference between A) Letting your kid die of cancer because you withhold treatment and B) Accidently killing your kid because you try and treat the cancer yourself by injecting him with unsterilized holy water and C) Accidently killing your kid because you try and treat the cancer yourself by making him drink mercury and D) Accidently killing your kid because you try and treat the cancer yourself by doing amateur home surgery on him. Assume for every situation you claim it was part of your religious belief.

Right now, it seems laws only focus on situation A), but what about B,C, and D. Are they considered the same? If not why not, how are they different? If so, then can’t every child abuse case just be protected as a religious belief? I suppose that’s why it’s a case by case decision, but I’m interested in what you think would be the main variables that would affect the decision.

I don’t mean this as a religious discussion; I want to focus on the law aspect.

Parents have the rights to raise their kids as they see fit, whether we might agree or not. Part of freedom means allowing others to do things you do not approve of.

sjvsworldtour wrote:Parents have the rights to raise their kids as they see fit, whether we might agree or not. Part of freedom means allowing others to do things you do not approve of.

This is what I was talking about, although I didn't see anyone else address it. It sucks if a child is harmed, but the alternative is far scarier.

Exactly. It is much scarier to have the government decide what is best for everyone.

sjvsworldtour wrote:Exactly. It is much scarier to have the government decide what is best for everyone.

I guess I see your point. Although in extreme cases this is exactly what happens. Think child abuse, negligence, even a lady who let her daughter get too overweight (did I bring this up already?).

The point is, where do we draw the line? It's hard because a lot of these issues aren't black and white, they are very much grey. Some people may say that spanking your kid is child abuse. Other's don't see it that way. I'm so off topic.

So yeah, science opposers.... while annoying (to me), there's nothing we can do about them because it's a free country. And, if there was never any opposition to anything, we'd never further our research in anything. I have a feeling that 50% of research is done just to say "Shut the heck up we proved you wrong".

Letting a kid getting too overweight assumes that there is an ideal weight. Some people are just naturally heavier than others. This doesn't necessarily mean in bad health. There are a lot of people in this world that die trying to get healthy by getting to the weight society thinks is ideal. Ironically, society doesn't stigmatize the underweight.