Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreasedUpDeafGayGuy" data-source="post: 3056472" data-attributes="member: 96421">Wry and Ember I would suggest the notion that you either blindly follow what a doctor tells you or take some responsibility and do research for yourself is a false dichotomy. I wouldn't blindly follow what a doctor told me and every doctor I've ever been to has presented me with choices in the way to proceed with treatments however my point is that it is silly to ignore the expertise of a doctor or think that a few hours spent on the internet can replace years of medical training. There is a reason doctors are well paid consider that there university degree typically lasts over 4 years followed by a number of years as trainees. The notion that people should do research into their own condition is great and yes the internet is a very valuable research for such things but it's no replacement and is not anywhere near on a par with medical training. For one the internet does not come with a filter and most people are not particularly used to scrupulously checking their sources- you can see this all over the place on MAP. So if several websites say that chemotherapy for instance does no good and is just poisoning the body so how could that help in very technical terms- it doesn't make them right."...ultimately yes it is up to the patient if they accept a treatment..."I agree. I just don't think patients are as well qualified as doctors to make diagnosis.Who knows more about their condition? In terms of how it feels the patient... in terms of knowing what symptoms mean and how conditions act and develop... doctors. If your of the opinion that a person can better diagnosis their own condition than a doctor why should anyone go see a doctor? Why not just sit at home, use the internet to match their symptoms to a condition then decide on their own treatment? Wry if you read my last post again you will note that I point out that often 'complimentary' is simply used as rhetoric. You will find many posts on MAP if you look were people talk about 'complimentary' treatments but then spend most of their post arguing about how Western medical treatments are based purely on whats profitable and are often unnecessary except for in cases of severe trauma. Saying that complimentary medicine can never be harmful seems to somewhat ignore the issue of hospitals lending legitmacy to treatments with no evidence and which the practitioners of have often been found to discourage people from seeking real treatment for serious illnesses (such as cancer). I would wonder as well if we should not care whether an alternative therapy works or not whether hospitals should also be sending patients to shamans, faith healers or the like? If not, why not? These are also unproven cures with claims of efficacy?</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Loading…