9 ms·

Unpopular opinion(?): online medical information should be inaccessible to the common person. It should be journal papers full of jargon, behind paywalls, and o

by psim1 4y ago

Unpopular opinion(?): online medical information should be inaccessible to the common person. It should be journal papers full of jargon, behind paywalls, and otherwise restricted. Laymen can't handle medical information. They use it to self-diagnose, or worse, diagnose others. They use it to question doctors because the doctor's advice doesn't match their Google-fu. Ridiculous sites like WebMD make it worse. WebMD will tell you that you have cancer no matter what you search. I sympathize with those in the health care system who are too busy, and those who are waiting for care. But giving the public a bunch of misinformation with which to shoot their feet seems like the wrong approach. (Anecdotal: I live with a Google warrior who distrusts all doctors because they think their understanding of medicine is superior.)

thomasfedb 4y ago
As a doctor I have a brief moment of sympathy with this idea - I've seen far too many patients badly mislead by "Dr Google" - but ultimately I think it is important to provide clear, helpful, and well-targeted health information online for the layperson. Of course there's no incentive for WebMD to do this, they just want clicks on ads. But in Australia our governments publish a fair bit of helpful health information online, and I do often print some of it out for my patients when they go home. Sometimes it's not enough in itself, but it's great for a "you've got X, here's some info about it" situation. UpToDate is the medical-grade, actually helpful, for professionals only, quite expensive "Wikipedia for Medicine", I use it every day, among a few other resources. But it's not something you can just open up and use - it's very much designed to be used by people with the right background knowledge - you need to know how to find what you want, and you need to know how to use what you find.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
Just watch what happens on every HN article which is about anything possibly medical. One day you have one conclusion, the next day you have the completely opposite conclusion, and the only thing that's common is that the comment section of _both articles_ is filled with people who will readily claim "this worked for me".

by psim1 4y ago

thomasfedb 4y ago

As a doctor I have a brief moment of sympathy with this idea - I've seen far too many patients badly mislead by "Dr Google" - but ultimately I think it is important to provide clear, helpful, and well-targeted health information online for the layperson. Of course there's no incentive for WebMD to do this, they just want clicks on ads. But in Australia our governments publish a fair bit of helpful health information online, and I do often print some of it out for my patients when they go home. Sometimes it's not enough in itself, but it's great for a "you've got X, here's some info about it" situation. UpToDate is the medical-grade, actually helpful, for professionals only, quite expensive "Wikipedia for Medicine", I use it every day, among a few other resources. But it's not something you can just open up and use - it's very much designed to be used by people with the right background knowledge - you need to know how to find what you want, and you need to know how to use what you find.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

Just watch what happens on every HN article which is about anything possibly medical. One day you have one conclusion, the next day you have the completely opposite conclusion, and the only thing that's common is that the comment section of _both articles_ is filled with people who will readily claim "this worked for me".