3 ms·

The idea is that they are as good as placebos (which are proven to be useful in some cases) so they are actually somewhat useful. While I think that "real" pla

by seszett 13y ago

The idea is that they are as good as placebos (which are proven to be useful in some cases) so they are actually somewhat useful. While I think that "real" placebos would be better for this than de facto placebos with bullshit pseudoscience attached to them, it's still not completely stupid to reimburse them if they do provide the same level of relief as active medicine through placebo effect. Of course they're not effective at killing bacteria, but there are some domains in which placebos have their place. Edit - to be clear, the reason given for reimbursing them is explicitely that they are good as placebos, they are not claimed by the French social security to be useful as active medicine.

Sniperfish 13y ago
Would that not logically justify reimbursement for anything taken for its placebo effects - which would be literally anything as research[1] showed placebo effect occurs even when the subject knows they are taking a placebo? It feels more like justification after the fact. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effec... [1 alternate] http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-w...
saalweachter 13y ago
You have to be very careful when endorsing placebos. The research I've heard about basically says "placebos only have subjective effects". The classic study was on asthma. Participants receiving the placebo reported feeling better, but had no measurable improvement in lung function. So relying on a placebo for a subjective feeling of improvement could be dangerous whenever what's needed is an actual, objective improvement -- ie, "whenever something is actually wrong".
zecg 13y ago
Yes! Also, placebo has been shown to be more efficient if more expensive, so they can't just be giving them away.
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> placebos are actually somewhat useful. Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick? Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact?
- dagw 13y ago
  Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact? Here's the official opinion of the American Medical Association: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion8083.page http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-...?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick?" It depends a little on what else they could dispense. I would rather they give out homeopathic medicines then give out antibiotics, in the face of unreasonable demands from their patients. I'd more rather they successfully educate their patients. I'm not sure the degree to which that's typically possible.

by seszett 13y ago

Sniperfish 13y ago

Would that not logically justify reimbursement for anything taken for its placebo effects - which would be literally anything as research[1] showed placebo effect occurs even when the subject knows they are taking a placebo? It feels more like justification after the fact. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effec... [1 alternate] http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-w...

saalweachter 13y ago

You have to be very careful when endorsing placebos. The research I've heard about basically says "placebos only have subjective effects". The classic study was on asthma. Participants receiving the placebo reported feeling better, but had no measurable improvement in lung function. So relying on a placebo for a subjective feeling of improvement could be dangerous whenever what's needed is an actual, objective improvement -- ie, "whenever something is actually wrong".

zecg 13y ago

Yes! Also, placebo has been shown to be more efficient if more expensive, so they can't just be giving them away.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

> placebos are actually somewhat useful. Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick? Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact?

dagw 13y ago
Would it be ethical for a doctor to dispense ineffective sugar pills to the sick and conceal this fact? Here's the official opinion of the American Medical Association: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion8083.page http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-...?
dllthomas 13y ago
"Would you go to a doctor who you knew dispensed ineffective sugar pills to the sick?" It depends a little on what else they could dispense. I would rather they give out homeopathic medicines then give out antibiotics, in the face of unreasonable demands from their patients. I'd more rather they successfully educate their patients. I'm not sure the degree to which that's typically possible.