| Do you think it's dangerous to make the internet your first port of call for medical advice, before even your doctor? |
|
|
|
Asked 1 year ago
by SpangeNW  United Kingdom |
|
About
Muppet.
(Might I point out that Respectful Insolence is NOT my blog, I just like it).
|
12 Points
|
I have a condition which doctors often don't 'believe' in despite the fact that The American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the National Institutes of Health are among those who have accepted it as legitimate physical illnesses and major cause of disability. You bet I check the Internet first. As a matter of fact, it is how the diagnosis was made--I figured it out, then searched for a doctor that had background in treating the condition.
I totally agree with your position in that respect, I have known a couple of people with fibromyalgia who have had difficulties getting treatment. One friend found a treatment suggestion online that has improved her quality of life immensely.
But if I may say, you strike me as an intelligent, critical and well informed person who would think carefully about information you found. I suppose in being somewhat skeptical of online health advice I am thinking of people who maybe are less informed or critical. Or maybe people who are blinded by fear, finding a lump for instance can be pretty terrifying. I wonder if in cases like that, the proliferation of unqualified and unproven advice could prove a danger to people in certain situations. Even information from reputable medical websites such as our NHS one could be misunderstood by people without medical expertise.
As is information from their doctors. I hear people all the time tell me what their doctor said--and I KNOW he or she did not, because it is inaccurate, or wrong, or superstition, or just plain nonsense (for instance, lactose intolerance is NOT an allergy--not even close, nor is celiac disease; sex of a fetus is NOT determined by testosterone {androgen is the culprit}; and other stories that are hard to lend credence.) Their essential lack of knowledge on biology, medicine, health, science, related fields makes it utterly impossible for them to truly understand and/or judge what a reputable source tells them: this making it no different if the source is unreputable.
People without intelligence can make uninformed stupid decisions in many areas, why single out medical?
Well I was thinking about online medical advice generally and I saw that question about lung cancer yesterday and that got me to thinking about a particularly ridiculous article on an alternative medicine website that says all cancer is a fungus and can be treated with bicarbonate of soda I think it said - you inject it right in apparently (he doesn't tell you he killed someone doing it). Or I remember reading about this miracle cure-all that basically consisted of straining cooking oil through your teeth every morning for 30 minutes. Well, I know that these and other nutso theories abound and it makes me wonder about people who read that and don't even think to question it and then basically risk death by accepting it because a "doctor" said it. Other end of the scale, people read more reputable things and misunderstand completely and again could put themselves at risk or to unnecessary worry. As Dauguy points out above, if someone is either unintelligent or uninformed, the distinction between reputable and not goes out the window, but in both cases people could get really ill because they put their faith in teh intertubes.
Which is my longwinded way of saying, just because it was on my mind anyway and the consequences could be seriously dire.
I have been doing medicolegal research for successful plaintiffs attorneys since 1985 and have tried to train many people over the years to assist me (even two people with masters degrees, which I thought would mean they were "smart" [which I believed meant being able to discern truth from fiction in the medical literature and be able to intuitively perceive how the literature applies to the case]). I find the task quite easy but it surprised me how hard it is to teach to someone else.
I have been of the opinion for ages that medical research (like most research) is just a matter of being able to apply common sense when weighing the merit of the possibilities. And the only secret, I mean the ONLY secret is you start with authoritative references and then you cross-check the information in one authoritative reference with the next, and the next, and the next. After you have found essentially the same info in at least three different authoritative references you can be quite sure you are in the ballpark and can trust the information is as trustworthy as you could get from any doctor.
Heck yes I can make the Internet my first port of call, as can anyone who can read, comprehend what they read, and double check what they find in other authoritative sources. The best place to begin double checking is at Pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and another very good place is at the National Guideline Clearinghouse http://www.guideline.gov/. These are just two of many good Internet sites and they are definitely in my top ten best sites for medical info online.
If you are lucky enough to have a medical library nearby you can double check your findings in the reference books listed in Doody's (listing of the most authoritative medical reference books), a fee service formerly offered for free by Brandon/Hill, but an updated list of Doody's can be found online with a little well-delimited Google searching, like here for instance: http://www.ovid.com/site/pdf/collateral_2008/LWWDoodys_Essential2.pdf.
In short, I agree the Internet can be a dangerous place for people that just assume if it's on the Internet it must be true, but it's just as true that if it's in a grocery store it doesn't mean it's food ...it could be a stove cleaning product or rat bait. People have to apply a little common sense in the real world too.
I think people give the Internet a hard way to go and that is so wrong. There's just as much, or more danger lurking in the aisles of your favorite discount superstore. It takes a tad of common sense to survive. A person who thinks they can use baking soda to cure cancer is probably headed for just as much trouble when they enter their local Wal-Mart. Ya gotta have at least a little clue to survive anywhere, but the more clues you have the better. It is not dangerous to make the Internet your first port of call if you can discern truth from fiction, but if you can't then, yes, the Internet is dangerous but so is leaving your house. Cross the street at the corner when the light turns green and look both ways before you step off the curb. :-)
P.S. If you want to avoid the most dangerous of all the "miracle cures" being introduced on the web, check them out at Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/.
You are saying that intelligent people (just what is the definition of that?)don't make stupid decisions, just unintelligent people do(what is the definition of unintelligent people)??
Unintelligent people cannot discern truth from fiction. See my last reply to Spange where I go into a little more detail. :-)
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyAnd the Internet is affordable. A doctor's appointment, if you have no insurance but are lucky enough to live near a low-cost clinic, will only run $100-$150 (take-home pay at minimum wage: less than $300 per week)
It sure is if you're having a heart attack!
Take two aspirin and call 911. :-)