15 ms·

The problem is that when handed numbers by a professional with years of training in an emotionally vulnerable state many people err on the side of being conserv

The problem is that when handed numbers by a professional with years of training in an emotionally vulnerable state many people err on the side of being conservative on the issue at hand to avoid feeling like they may be judged. This is further encouraged by modern western medicine being highly compartmentalised - to oversimplify, the cancer doctor has succeeded if you don't get cancer, but will probably never even find out if you get severe depression as a side effect of a side effect and certainly won't have to deal with it. Specialists also have their own professional and personal bias when they deliver their options, which is not apparent when presenting as a patient. Is a scenario where the patient and the doctor are both acting based on short term benefit, rather than a holistic view, good for either party? There is a role for large scale public health policy in my opinion, as morally complicated as it is.

jjk166 5y ago
I would not call general statistical data which takes no accounting of the details of the actual circumstances "holistic" The fact is there are tons of people for whom the side effects are a non-issue, and many for whom they would be far worse than the disease, and the statistics give no indication as to who is in which category. The role of public health is to provide information so that doctors and patients can make better informed decisions. But the idea that decisions should be made by some third party that "knows better" is predicated entirely on the false belief that such an entity exists.
- tweetle_beetle 5y ago
  I'm not sure how looking at large scale trends and scenarios experienced by thousands/millions is anything but holistic, especially when talking about individual patients with individual specialists dealing with individual . > Holism (from Greek ὅλος holos "all, whole, entire") is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. Of course it would be best if there was a universal language which everyone was proficient in, every patient had unlimited healthcare resources, had a strong understanding of medicine and every doctor was an excellent communicator, was under no personal/professional pressure to deliver specific outcomes, always took all the time a patient needed to understand every aspect of their case and care in the present and into the future and personally consulted with every possible specialist that may be involved with the potential outcomes. Putting aside the strawman, there are significant compromises with the highly personalised approach you suggest (some of which I tried to outline, but have not been responded to), just as there are with national level approaches (which are self evident). I feel that there are applications for both.

jjk166 5y ago

I would not call general statistical data which takes no accounting of the details of the actual circumstances "holistic" The fact is there are tons of people for whom the side effects are a non-issue, and many for whom they would be far worse than the disease, and the statistics give no indication as to who is in which category. The role of public health is to provide information so that doctors and patients can make better informed decisions. But the idea that decisions should be made by some third party that "knows better" is predicated entirely on the false belief that such an entity exists.

tweetle_beetle 5y ago
I'm not sure how looking at large scale trends and scenarios experienced by thousands/millions is anything but holistic, especially when talking about individual patients with individual specialists dealing with individual . > Holism (from Greek ὅλος holos "all, whole, entire") is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. Of course it would be best if there was a universal language which everyone was proficient in, every patient had unlimited healthcare resources, had a strong understanding of medicine and every doctor was an excellent communicator, was under no personal/professional pressure to deliver specific outcomes, always took all the time a patient needed to understand every aspect of their case and care in the present and into the future and personally consulted with every possible specialist that may be involved with the potential outcomes. Putting aside the strawman, there are significant compromises with the highly personalised approach you suggest (some of which I tried to outline, but have not been responded to), just as there are with national level approaches (which are self evident). I feel that there are applications for both.