Ben Goldacre - The Doctor Will Sue You Now

[Cartollomew]

I'm reticent to believe in acupuncture, but having had a friend fix some neck problems I'd had and also stop me sweating in under 10 seconds (just to prove he could), I have to say there's a certain validity to it. As with anything else, there's quacks and there's 'true believers' in all the fields (including western medicine... I've been offered Panadeine Forte and muscle relaxants by a doctor because I had a cold) and they cause more harm than good, but genuine practitioners are usually on at least vaguely solid ground.

The difficulty with acupuncture is that there's no such thing as a "genuine practitioner". While your friend may have done wonderful things to you, that's not a study on the topic, and so far it's difficult to even perform double blind tests for a field of practice where none of the practicitioners can agree on the technique.

If your friend can stop people sweating with any consistency, btw, I'd suggest he claim his million dollars.

Regardless - you might be justified in recommending people visit your friend for their neck pain, but you wouldn't be justified in recommending they get acupuncture from their nearest practitioner. The same goes for chiropractic treatment and nutritionists (although, seriously, I'm yet to hear of even 1 nutritionist without some serious screws loose).

As for being offered drugs irresponsibly for colds etc - doctors are people and can miss things, or behave unethically like anyone else. Particularly running a general practice, where you're starved for time and having to find the balance of giving each patient a thorough check and not falling too far behind time.

Fortunately, you were sensible enough (I'm sure) not to take codeine and muscle relaxants in a scenario where it'd be overkill. Certainly there are people who aren't that discerning, but that's more a matter of education than an issue of medicine itself.

In any line of work, dealing with people is the fuzzier and more difficult area. I shudder to think what it's like for doctors. Sure, there are lazy and stupid ones, but that's a problem with people, not science.

Even herbal medicine, whilst a joke and a major problem in 3rd-world countries, generally has the benefit (in first-world countries) of not having the side-effects that many of our 'medicines' do (see: anti-depressants, ADD medication, etc).

This is, curiously, the only reason homeopathy ever really caught on. When the practice was created out of whole cloth, accepted medicine at the time consisted of treatments that were often more lethal than the conditions they were meant to cure.
Since, at its best, homeopathy does exactly nothing, people undergoing homeopathic treatments were better off than those undergoing "normal" treatment.

Further, there's nothing inherently wrong with ADD meds or anti-depressants. Misuse of anything is damaging. That's not a good enough reason (imo) to argue for a lack of treatment, rather than "getting it right".

I'm in the unique position of distrusting both medical AND alternative treatment for virtually anything.

This may or may not have to do with suffering from bipolar disorder and told by my doctor to "take a month of work", which did nothing but cause my bosses to hate me, send me into a death spiral of negativity from being shut-in, and gain 20 pounds.

Fuckers.

That sucks, but again - there's nothing particularly wrong with medicine or science from this.
Alternative medicine is almost wholly unchecked and closed to serious study or criticism.

[Philondra]

No, the problem isn't with medicine. The problem is that all forms of medicine are dispensed by human beings, not machines, and as such are prone to human error in the same way that ... every other profession is.

The problem is that it only takes getting screwed over once cause someone's trust in the whole system to falter (see: politicians, lawyers).

Incidentally, my first dog (golden retriever) also died to medical professional error. Accidental death caused while under medical care is never good, but this was particularly heart-wrenching. I'll save the forums from this sad, sad tale.

[Vampirial]

Very interesting read cart thanks for posting.

I can see the pros and cons of both forms of medicine but would opt more for Mews view where the article is more about misleading the uneducated.

But on another note slightly touched on in the article I find the religious view to aids just as tedious. They want to shove their view on other cultures then deny them medicines or help or tell them its their own fault. I don't neccessarily advocate promiscuity but if someone is going to do it they deserve basic human rights. I also remember a while ago some people were up in arms about our government trying to have legislation changed (reguarding human right funds for africans)to allow the women to opt for abortions rather than having treatment to not infect their baby (something involving how funds were spent i don't really remember stuff too well so sorry if its misleading). How do you look at it? Is a mother terminally ill better to terminate the pregnancy or leave her baby an orphan in the near future? It wouldn't be an easy choice for any person to make but I think people should always have the choice open. Note: I'm actually against abortion i could never have one myself except under extenuating circumstances - Ido however think other people have that same right to choose that i do.

All in all its a very sad state of affairs.

[Mitra]

i could never have one myself except under extenuating circumstances

I'm gonna go ahead and assume by that you mean if you don't have an abortion you'd both die and other no other circumstance.

[Vampirial]

i could never have one myself except under extenuating circumstances

I'm gonna go ahead and assume by that you mean if you don't have an abortion you'd both die and other no other circumstance.

ummm no maybe I got the wording wrong, but rape, disability (for the baby-but depending on severity if its only missing an arm or 2 it can still lead a healthy life) or death are circumstances for me.

[Mitra]

God,.... I never considered the consequeces of pregnency after rape- just, wow, awful situation


and disability... well my personal view on that is that it's a quality of life issue that would be the justification for the abortion...
which in my mind means you'd have to support euthanasia, and disability and quality of life are such infinately grey areas that specualtion on how you would act is near worthless till you've been in that situation.

[Vampirial]

Yea disability is a really hard issue because there is so many ethical issues to consider. The major things I class as disability where I'd abbort would be something where the baby is unlikely to survive once born. There is a few genetic diseases like this very rare but very sad for those that don't realise and the baby dies hours after birth. Also if my baby was going to be mentally impaired, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with those people and I can understand that they can be wonderful and happy but I myself just couldn't spend the rest of my life caring for someone who is that dependant on me IF I had the choice. Almost anything else I could live with, like such things as dwarfism (I think its called anaplasia) I'd understand the child would be in a lot of pain and require surgery at multiple stages through growth but it would still be able to live a life. I class liveing a life by able to grow, able to sustain itself and able to love and have its own family one day. I know some of my thoughts may be really sickening to some people but it isn't my intent to cause anyone else any harm and I respect those that can do what I myself could not but I think my scientific education has led me more along the paths of darwinism and survival of the fittest. Getetic anomalies happen in all aspects of life I believe its just seen more in humans because in the animal kingdom you would literally be left to die. It is a very ethical subject one I quite enjoyed at uni when doing genetics because it varies for each person as to what clarifies an impairment/disability or limits a quality of life. For example some people in the world believe blind and deaf people shouldn't reproduce so as to eventually errradicate the genes in humanity (not necessarily that easy).

Also on euthanasia it is something I support. Having gone through what I have with my mum, I know that if she could see how she is today 10 years ago she wouldn't of wanted to live the way she is. When the NT was eligible for voluntary euthanasia my mum was on the list if the cancer proceeded bad. She has had cancer multiple times during her life each time excepted to not exceed so many years but overall she is a survivor and has hung in there. Now my mum requires full time care, at times you can see her former mentaility but she also has fits like that of a 2 year old. She lies a lot and makes up all this stuff just to get attention (understandable given that she is practically house bound and likely very very bored). At the same time she can still be loving and at times the person whom I remember when I was younger so i can understand the ethical questions raised in the issue, but I know if I were to go through the same thing I wouldn't want my children to see me like that or hatter to have to care for me and put up with tantrums and abuse the way my mums partner does.

Overall I really do love the ethical questions that science raises was one of my favourite topics while studying.