3 ms·

Statistically speaking, people have reasons to distrust the competence of doctors. From the article here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804

Statistically speaking, people have reasons to distrust the competence of doctors. From the article here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579023113596120826.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732342380457902..., for instance: "Both studies also found that about 25% of the time antibiotics were being prescribed for conditions in which they have no use, such as viral infections." Anybody who's studied even high school level microbiology (or spent a minute on the Wikipedia article on antibiotics) knows that antibiotics only work on bacteria, not viruses. I imagine it's hard for people to trust doctors when they make basic mistakes like that. Even the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-...) has stated that: "Up to half of antibiotic use in humans and much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe". So if doctors can't even be trusted to not prescribe antibiotics as treatment for viral infections, why would people trust them regarding other more complex matters?

tokenadult 13y ago
The issue you bring up is the topic of the recent Science-Based Medicine post, "The Overuse of Antibiotics for Viral Infections in Children" (2 August 2013), http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-overuse-of-antibiotics-for-viral-infections-in-children/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-overuse-of-antibioti... and that is far from the first time that the site has brought up that issue. Some doctors are rolling up their sleeves and taking personal time after work to inform other doctors about this issue and other issues for improving patient care.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Well then maybe if there was some kind of register of the doctors that did in fact practice science based medicine, public trust would be improved, although I imagine there's probably some legal or political obstacle standing in the way of that.
3am 13y ago
Doctors are overwhelmingly not the reason that this happens. Some are being risk averse (heading off unlikely 2ary bacterial infections to prevent lawsuites) and some are taking the path of least resistance with patients (who will doctor shop until they get some medicine). This is just my firsthand experience with doctors and anecdotes. _Every single doctor_ is aware know the (lack of) efficacy of antibiotics against viral infections. I'm am completely comfortable with the blanket assertion, and I'm pretty sure you are wrong if you think otherwise.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Well if they're all aware of that yet some still prescribe antibiotics for viral infections due to pressure from patients, isn't that an ethical issue? If for some reason bloodletting came into fashion again among the populace, would doctors be acting ethically if they caved into patients' demands to give them that therapy? Doctors won't prescribe useless treatments like homeopathics to patients, so why can't they say no to patients asking for antibiotics when antibiotics would be ineffective?
  - 3am 13y ago
    Yes it is an ethical issue, for the doctors and the patients. I just feel like you're giving a free pass to patients that lack expertise demanding particular treatments from experts. I think they are more culpable than the doctors.
    - logicchains 13y ago
      Well if patients are the problem then the whole thing's a moot point; patients are just getting what they deserve for refusing not only to trust doctors but also to do even a tiny bit of research for themselves. The problem is that such things can harm the whole population, even those who make sensible health decisions, due to how antibiotics overuse encourages the development of antibiotics-resistant superbugs. If doctors can't stop this, then who can?
  - tanzam75 13y ago

tokenadult 13y ago

The issue you bring up is the topic of the recent Science-Based Medicine post, "The Overuse of Antibiotics for Viral Infections in Children" (2 August 2013), http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-overuse-of-antibiotics-for-viral-infections-in-children/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-overuse-of-antibioti... and that is far from the first time that the site has brought up that issue. Some doctors are rolling up their sleeves and taking personal time after work to inform other doctors about this issue and other issues for improving patient care.

logicchains 13y ago
Well then maybe if there was some kind of register of the doctors that did in fact practice science based medicine, public trust would be improved, although I imagine there's probably some legal or political obstacle standing in the way of that.

3am 13y ago

Doctors are overwhelmingly not the reason that this happens. Some are being risk averse (heading off unlikely 2ary bacterial infections to prevent lawsuites) and some are taking the path of least resistance with patients (who will doctor shop until they get some medicine). This is just my firsthand experience with doctors and anecdotes. _Every single doctor_ is aware know the (lack of) efficacy of antibiotics against viral infections. I'm am completely comfortable with the blanket assertion, and I'm pretty sure you are wrong if you think otherwise.

logicchains 13y ago
Well if they're all aware of that yet some still prescribe antibiotics for viral infections due to pressure from patients, isn't that an ethical issue? If for some reason bloodletting came into fashion again among the populace, would doctors be acting ethically if they caved into patients' demands to give them that therapy? Doctors won't prescribe useless treatments like homeopathics to patients, so why can't they say no to patients asking for antibiotics when antibiotics would be ineffective?
- 3am 13y ago
  Yes it is an ethical issue, for the doctors and the patients. I just feel like you're giving a free pass to patients that lack expertise demanding particular treatments from experts. I think they are more culpable than the doctors.
  - logicchains 13y ago
    Well if patients are the problem then the whole thing's a moot point; patients are just getting what they deserve for refusing not only to trust doctors but also to do even a tiny bit of research for themselves. The problem is that such things can harm the whole population, even those who make sensible health decisions, due to how antibiotics overuse encourages the development of antibiotics-resistant superbugs. If doctors can't stop this, then who can?
- tanzam75 13y ago