3 ms·

Doctors are overwhelmingly not the reason that this happens. Some are being risk averse (heading off unlikely 2ary bacterial infections to prevent lawsuites) an

by 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
  Many doctors have given placebos to patients. Actual placebo pills, with no active ingredient. The problem with prescribing antibiotics for a viral infection is not that it is useless -- it is no less effective than a placebo. The problem is that it contributes to drug resistance, while a placebo doesn't.

by 3am 13y ago

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
Many doctors have given placebos to patients. Actual placebo pills, with no active ingredient. The problem with prescribing antibiotics for a viral infection is not that it is useless -- it is no less effective than a placebo. The problem is that it contributes to drug resistance, while a placebo doesn't.