6 ms·

There are essentially 2 kinds people, the ones that want to decide what to do with their lives/bodies. And the other kind are the ones that want the govt/author

There are essentially 2 kinds people, the ones that want to decide what to do with their lives/bodies. And the other kind are the ones that want the govt/authorities to 'protect' them from their own stupidity. The latter also wants the same rule enforced for all people. The vast majority of people are of the latter kind.

D13Fd 7y ago
I think this is overly simplistic. There are a lot of gradations in between. For example, many people would like to have more control but would also like the government to let them know what is safe, based on careful studies and analysis, rather than having to adopt medicine as a hobby.
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  >I think this is overly simplistic. There are a lot of gradations in between. You think I'm not aware of the gradations?
jdmichal 7y ago
Even if I'm in the first group, I still need to know things like correct dosage, drug interactions, purity, etc in order to safely self-administer. I'm not quite sure where you would draw the line between "being educated" and "being protected from own stupidity"... Because to correctly self-administer you definitely need to be educated.
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  >Even if I'm in the first group, I still need to know things like correct dosage, drug interactions, purity, etc in order to safely self-administer. Nothing prevents one from asking for help, does it?
  - jdmichal 7y ago
    That argument is just turtles all the way down. How did those people get educated? How was correct dosage and drug interactions determined in the first place? How was purity enforced? At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. There's groups that advocate feeding bleach solutions to cure autism. [0] Should I ask those people? How about the ones that believe vaccines cause autism? We already know we get an opioid crises and overdoses when people self-administer those... [0] Seriously, I wish I was joking. Search for "autism mms".
    - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
      jdmichal, what you are mentioning is a fundamental problem of deciding as to who is correct? Am I getting that right? Well there is no clear answer as to who has the right answer. Most people tend to rely on the first licensed MD that will give them advise. Someone like me will may go in for a second and third opinion, and sometimes based solely on my existing knowledge and opinion of an MD at all. As with with all hard decisions, the answer is: 'it depends' >At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, Mostly, yes. But there are nuances. >or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. What makes you think that FDA is the only source of truth? It could be my blood letting friendly barber for me. Well, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point?
      - jdmichal 7y ago
        I think the fundamental problem is that, when you say "my blood-letting barber", you're exaggerating. Others could say the exact same thing, and be deadly serious. My argument is exactly this variance. When scientific method starts being replaced by web of trust, people get hurt. And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion. It's because they trusted the wrong person with the wrong information. This happens now, as my last comment made pretty clear. But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Just to be clear: Other than this point surrounding education, I generally agree that prescription law is too restrictive in the US. I wish we had a layout closer to doctors diagnose and pharmacists prescribe, instead of doctors doing both. Pharmacists are supposed to be the expert in the drugs, but other than drug interaction screening and equivalent / generic replacement, that job has been stripped from them.

D13Fd 7y ago

I think this is overly simplistic. There are a lot of gradations in between. For example, many people would like to have more control but would also like the government to let them know what is safe, based on careful studies and analysis, rather than having to adopt medicine as a hobby.

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
>I think this is overly simplistic. There are a lot of gradations in between. You think I'm not aware of the gradations?

jdmichal 7y ago

Even if I'm in the first group, I still need to know things like correct dosage, drug interactions, purity, etc in order to safely self-administer. I'm not quite sure where you would draw the line between "being educated" and "being protected from own stupidity"... Because to correctly self-administer you definitely need to be educated.

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
>Even if I'm in the first group, I still need to know things like correct dosage, drug interactions, purity, etc in order to safely self-administer. Nothing prevents one from asking for help, does it?
- jdmichal 7y ago
  That argument is just turtles all the way down. How did those people get educated? How was correct dosage and drug interactions determined in the first place? How was purity enforced? At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. There's groups that advocate feeding bleach solutions to cure autism. [0] Should I ask those people? How about the ones that believe vaccines cause autism? We already know we get an opioid crises and overdoses when people self-administer those... [0] Seriously, I wish I was joking. Search for "autism mms".
  - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
    jdmichal, what you are mentioning is a fundamental problem of deciding as to who is correct? Am I getting that right? Well there is no clear answer as to who has the right answer. Most people tend to rely on the first licensed MD that will give them advise. Someone like me will may go in for a second and third opinion, and sometimes based solely on my existing knowledge and opinion of an MD at all. As with with all hard decisions, the answer is: 'it depends' >At some point, you're either trusting unverified word of mouth, Mostly, yes. But there are nuances. >or you're verifying with the same type of data that the FDA is responsible for collecting and verifying. What makes you think that FDA is the only source of truth? It could be my blood letting friendly barber for me. Well, I'm exaggerating, but you do get the point?
    - jdmichal 7y ago
      I think the fundamental problem is that, when you say "my blood-letting barber", you're exaggerating. Others could say the exact same thing, and be deadly serious. My argument is exactly this variance. When scientific method starts being replaced by web of trust, people get hurt. And it's not because they're being stupid, like your original assertion. It's because they trusted the wrong person with the wrong information. This happens now, as my last comment made pretty clear. But at least in the FDA we have a relatively good source of information which was gathered using scientific methods to educate ourselves with. Just to be clear: Other than this point surrounding education, I generally agree that prescription law is too restrictive in the US. I wish we had a layout closer to doctors diagnose and pharmacists prescribe, instead of doctors doing both. Pharmacists are supposed to be the expert in the drugs, but other than drug interaction screening and equivalent / generic replacement, that job has been stripped from them.