4 ms·

If it accurately aggregates information on a topic, it should instead be a great tool to steer a decision, don't you think? Regarding the opposition between a

by sirobg 3y ago

If it accurately aggregates information on a topic, it should instead be a great tool to steer a decision, don't you think? Regarding the opposition between a potentially suicidal child and a baked potato, in fact wiki introduction says that antidepressants could make suicidal behavior even worst: > There is an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior when taken by children, adolescents, and young adults Also, if a baked potato is the outcome you get from antidepressants, it means that you think doctors behave a bit like the parents in your example, and prefer a potato than a problematic patient in their hands? I might be naive, but I hope the majority of doctors want to do good and help patients, and do not just use the simplest way _for them_ to get rid of a problematic patient.

ambyra 3y ago
It is naive (in the USA, at least); doctors apply standards of care, even if they personally would not recommend them in a certain set of circumstances, to avoid lawsuits and generate income for the hospital. “My daughter killed herself bc she wasn’t prescribed medication/other intervention” (she could have killed herself regardless). A patient may sue a doctor who didn’t perform an unnecessary intervention, just because there is money on the table, and hospitals reward doctors who “perform”. To avoid unnecessary interventions, you need the advice of a family friend who is also a doctor specializing in that particular field :)
- sirobg 3y ago
  You are most probably right. I was being too European/French centric. I think here, suing a medical professional is less common. At least generalists, because they don't perform surgeries so their misjudgments/mistakes are probably less impactful and thus less obvious. It's a bit sad and scary that this is a reality in the healthcare field, but I think you got a point. The positive side of the story is that if you have a reason to trust the doctor you have in front of you (because he's a friend for example, as you said), you should get a good advice. On the other hand, if the subject is controversial, like antidepressants seem to be, I suppose you would need several advices from several trusted sources, and in the end you might not even have a clear path forward.

by sirobg 3y ago

ambyra 3y ago

It is naive (in the USA, at least); doctors apply standards of care, even if they personally would not recommend them in a certain set of circumstances, to avoid lawsuits and generate income for the hospital. “My daughter killed herself bc she wasn’t prescribed medication/other intervention” (she could have killed herself regardless). A patient may sue a doctor who didn’t perform an unnecessary intervention, just because there is money on the table, and hospitals reward doctors who “perform”. To avoid unnecessary interventions, you need the advice of a family friend who is also a doctor specializing in that particular field :)

sirobg 3y ago
You are most probably right. I was being too European/French centric. I think here, suing a medical professional is less common. At least generalists, because they don't perform surgeries so their misjudgments/mistakes are probably less impactful and thus less obvious. It's a bit sad and scary that this is a reality in the healthcare field, but I think you got a point. The positive side of the story is that if you have a reason to trust the doctor you have in front of you (because he's a friend for example, as you said), you should get a good advice. On the other hand, if the subject is controversial, like antidepressants seem to be, I suppose you would need several advices from several trusted sources, and in the end you might not even have a clear path forward.