Out of curiosity (II)
-
We know, but something is better than nothing. It's all based on intergrity. Of course, the moderators have to back it up with proper knowledgeOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Qualifications can be faked. I can easily faked mine with photoshop.
About the disclaimer: Seriously, if the moderators disappeared one by one, no one can put it up. -
I would rather they not put up their qualifications. This will bring about another arguement whether the qualifications is real.Originally posted by mystiv:We know, but something is better than nothing. It's all based on intergrity. Of course, the moderators have to back it up with proper knowledge
Like what your signature, is it doing the things right or doing the right things? A question to ponder over. -
fymk,
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. For starters, I do agree with you that there out to be disclaimers here or something. We need to remind people that whatever medical advice gets posted here are not used in lieu of a proper medical evaluation. If you're sick, by all means go and find out more about your illness, but you should still see the doctor.
However, I absolutely disagree with your usage of the word 'quacks'. I don't understand... how does their sharing of the medical information they have with others make them quacks? While you and I both may have formal medical training, bear in mind that we're both not qualified to make our own diagnoses. If I were to make a diagnosis and the guy gets worse, I'll be in deep trouble. I can only make my own field evaluations and patch the guy up enough for the medical officers to do a full evaluation. I imagine that the same goes for you.
In that respect, we're not much different from the other forummites who may not have formal medical training.
However, I don't see what's wrong with their sharing of information which they get from trusted sources and personal experience. What's wrong with a forummite who shares what he knows about (for example) colorectal cancer from the experience of his grandfather who has it? Just because he doesn't have formal training doesn't make him a quack.
For your information, half of what I know about first aid and medicine are lessons which I got from field experience. I didn't learn everything I know in the classroom. So if you say that the other forummites are quacks, then I suppose I'm one as well for sharing my field experiences.
I would like to kindly suggest that you take back what you said about quacks. -
You could always get the Mods to place a disclaimer in a sensible tone and with proper explanation of your stand, instead of trying to go on a bombing run.And then you feign surprise when they launch counter-attacks, purely because you did not show some form of moderation in behavior and you expect them to believe at first instance.Originally posted by fymk:Yes , maybe opening the topic in another forum may be a bad idea. That may be a bad judgement on my part I admit.
However I didn't start with flaming - check what I said in the first post of Just out of curiosity . I only asked - take a look for yourself . The first post was asking about the qualifications . And I was accused of being a clone . Naturally the human thing to do is to answer back .
I bear my own consequences . Yes I admit I might not be right always. However I don't see the person involved even giving an answer like that. That infuriates me .
It is because of people like these, I see patients delay treatment and one died on me - read what I said in the topic which the moderator has closed . If I can do my part by questioning them and maybe getting a huge disclaimer across which is a fairly easy thing to do for thinkdifferent to type out will do but instead she has chosen to prove how knowledgeable she is instead of trying to put a disclaimer out there as a sticky asap.
A doctor ranting to a patient about his case will NOT make the patient any closer to listening to qualified advice.If you had made your point nicely and backed it up, they would be quite happy to rectify that oversight.You cannot expect people to silently take things do you?
Yes, medical advice might be misconstrued by individuals, and "first do no harm" also lives side by side with "buyer beware".So there..The chaps here have done us all a favor, and I'm sure their intentions are not out to hurt anyone. -
Well,qualifications are but just one aspect.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Qualifications can be faked. I can easily faked mine with photoshop.
About the disclaimer: Seriously, if the moderators disappeared one by one, no one can put it up.
Locking up doesn't mean one cannot answer. It can also mean one doesn't want to continue with the argument. If one idiot decides to start another same thread after thread is closed, I have nothing to say. I will just start flaming. Like what I did in amicute's thread about Singaporean Chinese.
There's a limit in one's tolerance, going overboard and want to test them to see their reaction, one seriously need to see a psycologist.
Fymk,
Let's say I have done a lot of serious reading about the rise of Islamism in the European Union, I can certainly hold a serious discussion about this issue and write a paper about my views.
I might not hold a degree in Middle East or European Studies, but does that stop me from being a relative expert in this issue?But I don't expect nations to look at what I discuss and formulate policy too right?
it's about what you do with the information given to you.Please do not threaten KM and LO with senseless argy-bargy, especially after the issue has been solved. -
I agree with you, LazerLordz.
-
1. I'm not a qualified doctor and my position in this forum is not the one of a doctor, I am just the assistant to the two QUALIFIED DOCTORS here.
I answer the questions, explain and discuss them when none of the doctors is here to do so. I don't order anything and I usually tell the forumer to see the doc anyway.
2. Though my knowledge isn't as deep as of a doctor, I have enough knowledge to discuss medical issues in this forum. In a case of me being not sure about something, I consult the doctor in my family and I don't think this is something wrong or proves my incompetence. Even experienced doctors consult each other. What I post is supervised by the two doctors.
This isn't a place to look for a cure, this is place for discussing medical questions, one doesn't have to be a doctor to discuss medical questions. As I said, there are two qualified doctors to answer the serious questions and to clear the doubts of the forumers, but still tell them to visit a doc and advise then which check ups or procedures they should ask the doc to do.
3. I said more times that we will put up a disclaimer when the other mods are back - we need to discuss about the right disclaimer all together. I have no idea when they will be back, but once they are here, the disclaimer comes.
We can also state our qualification and hope nobody will question them. If anyone has some idea what else we should put up or write to prevent the forumers of not seeing a doc and relying on the internet only, feel free to express your idea.
4. I haven't locked the previous thread because I can't answer the angry words of fymk nor because it would put bad light on me (I absolutely don't think it puts bad light on me, I haven't done anything bad nor wrong.) I haven't censored nor altered anything she wrote.
I have locked it because fymk would keep on arguing and I see no sense in it , I don't wish to argue. I gave her enough space to express herself in this forum before locking her thread. I have already explained the things about which fymk is still excited so I see no sense in a further argument.
I will lock even this thread if the argument goes on.
5. If anyone thinks that it's better when I resign in this forum, the person should express it and I will consider it and suggest it to the other mods.
6. fymk, it's not my fault nor the fault of the mods here or this forum that the patient you have mentioned has died, we tell the forumers to see a doc anyway
Besides, anyone can look up on some info on the medical internet sites, read them and follow what is written there instead of visiting a doctor. Do you want to forbid also internet sites with medical content?
I have a huge headache and feel dead tired. I really have enough of arguing, justifying and explaining. I'm not in a court.
As I said, if anyone thinks I should resing, say so.
If fymk stops to argue only if you all agree with her and send me to hell, please do agree with her and send me the unqualified quack to hell. -
Time to rest. You know yourself well, don't need me to remind you, right?Originally posted by thinkdifferent:1. I'm not a qualified doctor and my position in this forum is not the one of a doctor, I am just the assistant to the two QUALIFIED DOCTORS here.
I answer the questions, explain and discuss them when none of the doctors is here to do so. I don't order anything and I usually tell the forumer to see the doc anyway.
2. Though my knowledge isn't as deep as of a doctor, I have enough knowledge to discuss medical issues in this forum. In a case of me being not sure about something, I consult the doctor in my family and I don't think this is something wrong or proves my incompetence. Even experienced doctors consult each other. What I post is supervised by the two doctors.
This isn't a place to look for a cure, this is place for discussing medical questions, one doesn't have to be a doctor to discuss medical questions. As I said, there are two qualified doctors to answer the serious questions and to clear the doubts of the forumers, but still tell them to visit a doc and advise then which check ups or procedures they should ask the doc to do.
3. I said more times that we will put up a disclaimer when the other mods are back - we need to discuss about the right disclaimer all together. I have no idea when they will be back, but once they are here, the disclaimer comes.
We can also state our qualification and hope nobody will question them. If anyone has some idea what else we should put up or write to prevent the forumers of not seeing a doc and relying on the internet only, feel free to express your idea.
4. I haven't locked the previous thread because I can't answer the angry words of fymk nor because it would put bad light on me (I absolutely don't think it puts bad light on me, I haven't done anything bad nor wrong.) I haven't censored nor altered anything she wrote.
I have locked it because fymk would keep on arguing and I see no sense in it , I don't wish to argue. I gave her enough space to express herself in this forum before locking her thread. I have already explained the things about which fymk is still excited so I see no sense in a further argument.
I will lock even this thread if the argument goes on.
5. If anyone thinks that it's better when I resign in this forum, the person should express it and I will consider it and suggest it to the other mods.
6. fymk, it's not my fault nor the fault of the mods here or this forum that the patient you have mentioned has died, we tell the forumers to see a doc anyway
Besides, anyone can look up on some info on the medical internet sites, read them and follow what is written there instead of visiting a doctor. Do you want to forbid also internet sites with medical content?
I have a huge headache and feel dead tired. I really have enough of arguing, justifying and explaining. I'm not in a court.
As I said, if anyone thinks I should resing, say so.
If fymk stops to argue only if you all agree with her and send me to hell, please do agree with her and send me the unqualified quack to hell.
Don't overtire yourself. Not worth it. Be the champion that the world knows and I know.
I don't want to see the history repeats itself. By the way, I will pm you on oxford's email. He's currently not online. You can email though. Remember to tell him you are thinkdifferent. He's a very careful man. Unknown people blocked.
My vote: Please don't resign. -
I vote for thinkdifferent to stay.
-
Actually you have can put one up right now. Stickys are easy to do . And since you did say you worked on a legal side - what's wrong with the following wordings :Originally posted by thinkdifferent:1. I'm not a qualified doctor and my position in this forum is not the one of a doctor, I am just the assistant to the two QUALIFIED DOCTORS here.
I answer the questions, explain and discuss them when none of the doctors is here to do so. I don't order anything and I usually tell the forumer to see the doc anyway.
2. Though my knowledge isn't as deep as of a doctor, I have enough knowledge to discuss medical issues in this forum. In a case of me being not sure about something, I consult the doctor in my family and I don't think this is something wrong or proves my incompetence. Even experienced doctors consult each other. What I post is supervised by the two doctors.
This isn't a place to look for a cure, this is place for discussing medical questions, one doesn't have to be a doctor to discuss medical questions. As I said, there are two qualified doctors to answer the serious questions and to clear the doubts of the forumers, but still tell them to visit a doc and advise then which check ups or procedures they should ask the doc to do.
3. I said more times that we will put up a disclaimer when the other mods are back - we need to discuss about the right disclaimer all together. I have no idea when they will be back, but once they are here, the disclaimer comes.
We can also state our qualification and hope nobody will question them. If anyone has some idea what else we should put up or write to prevent the forumers of not seeing a doc and relying on the internet only, feel free to express your idea.
4. I haven't locked the previous thread because I can't answer the angry words of fymk nor because it would put bad light on me (I absolutely don't think it puts bad light on me, I haven't done anything bad nor wrong.) I haven't censored nor altered anything she wrote.
I have locked it because fymk would keep on arguing and I see no sense in it , I don't wish to argue. I gave her enough space to express herself in this forum before locking her thread. I have already explained the things about which fymk is still excited so I see no sense in a further argument.
I will lock even this thread if the argument goes on.
5. If anyone thinks that it's better when I resign in this forum, the person should express it and I will consider it and suggest it to the other mods.
6. fymk, it's not my fault nor the fault of the mods here or this forum that the patient you have mentioned has died, we tell the forumers to see a doc anyway
Besides, anyone can look up on some info on the medical internet sites, read them and follow what is written there instead of visiting a doctor. Do you want to forbid also internet sites with medical content?
I have a huge headache and feel dead tired. I really have enough of arguing, justifying and explaining. I'm not in a court.
As I said, if anyone thinks I should resing, say so.
If fymk stops to argue only if you all agree with her and send me to hell, please do agree with her and send me the unqualified quack to hell.
TITLE : DISCLAIMER
" This forum is only used for discussions about health and not accredited to give a diagnosis via the internet. It bears no responsibility for those who takes its advice seriously . Please go and see a doctor if you have an actual medical/health problem "
I am sure the other moderators won't mind at all unless they intended to use this forum as a real virtual clinic . This disclaimer should adequately cover their legalities.
Maybe thinkdifferent, you should read what I said . I didn't ask for you to resign . Don't get so dramatic .
I said maybe you should refer people to websites which are reputable like Mayo Clinic , or just tell them to see a doctor with their complaints IF none of your moderators , who presumably is qualified, is available to answer. As for information - if you say who your mom is and your award winning essay - then I am very sure that you are able to back it up with what medically peer reviewed journals have said .
As for the quack name because you have gave me a reason enough to by telling me that you read books of medical knowledge when you were a child etc etc and therefore implying that you can give advice way beyond the scope of a layman . And it is well within reason.
Yes qualifications can be faked . Hey do you know that you can check a doctor's credentials online? If anyone wants to impersonate a doctor , I am sure there are heavy penalties imposed by legislation . -
Is it going to hurt anyone when you talk about the rise of Islam in European Union? Well , you just have to make sure your facts are right or else a muslim may just hammer you back with the facts. But that doesn't hurt , does it?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Well,qualifications are but just one aspect.
Fymk,
Let's say I have done a lot of serious reading about the rise of Islamism in the European Union, I can certainly hold a serious discussion about this issue and write a paper about my views.
I might not hold a degree in Middle East or European Studies, but does that stop me from being a relative expert in this issue?But I don't expect nations to look at what I discuss and formulate policy too right?
it's about what you do with the information given to you.Please do not threaten KM and LO with senseless argy-bargy, especially after the issue has been solved.
People will be people and there will always be someone who will take what could be a wrongly dispensed medical advice seriously .Why? For reasons unknown or maybe the person is suffering from some incurable disease and in denial about it . Who knows? There could be smart people reading and very naive people reading - who is going to say who is not behind the computer?
I am not threatening . I am putting forth 2 pointers for their own good and the good of others . If oxford mushroom, alfagal and renorenal wants to put advice - it is their call and their registration if they are willing to risk it , presumably they are registered at all . They would know about conducts and ethics of the medical profession if advice is given wrongly and some naive person really get harmed by the advice.
The Good Samaritan Act only covers when a person is in iminent danger and cpr is required and maybe ACLs when there is no other people or places nearby to help but he dies - it covers the medical / healthcare professional within the limit he can practice. After that - open house on a law suit .
It certainly does not cover them from law suits ( yes , there are people who do that) until their disclaimer comes up.
If I wanted to make trouble for them , I would not even say anything about a disclaimer. I won't even bother putting forth explanations. And I won't certainly be bothered telling thinkdifferent to refer people to reputable websites, use medical journals at all or maybe just tell people to visit the doctors and ask .
I could have sit back and done nothing at all and laugh at some of them until one day someone puts up the fact that something DID went wrong and then I will tell them to complain to MOH . That could be worse for the poor well meaning and qualified moderators .
It is all in fairness I asked for the purpose of clarifying something and all I got was answers which are beyond belief . Being human , of course, with nothing to restrain me online , I say what I think directly . -
Renorenal may have had good intentions for the forum but :Originally posted by renorenal:Hi all,
This is to inform you that during consultation, you may need to provide me honestly, with your age and gender (not a must if your question is for educational purposes, but applied to people who wish to have their condition understood and clarified), and at times, even race.
You need to understand that this is for risk stratification of certain diseases that may be more common towards certain age groups, gender and race.
If you feel too sensitive over providing me with such information, you can PM me and I will keep it confidential.
Example:
The middle aged female patients are more prone to acquiring rheumatoid arthritis.
Guys in their 20s who acquire certain HLA genes are more prone to succumbing to Ankylosing Spondylitis.
Indians, based on their common food and the way they cook it are more prone (according to statistics) to succumbing to heart diseases.
Information provided are at your own disposal and your own responsibility.
Your cooperation is much appreciated. Thank you!
"During consultation " that is already the implying that a person is qualified enough to hold a virtual clinic and make a diagnosis or a differential one .
No offence to renorenal but all doctors worth their salt will see the patient before making a diagnosis. Instead of requiring just those information . There are familiar history , medical history , physical assessment , medication history ( I am sure that you would know certain drugs are suspected of causing cardiomyopathy like clonzapine in caucasians ), tests to confirm .
For example , I am 26 year old female and I have beta thalassaemia minor but yet I am not anaemic with a high red blood cell count . What does it tell you? Nothing at all . I could have polycythaemia vera (rare for my age) or dehydration but you don't know what is my family history neither do I . And if I am a layman , I won't be aware which components of the rbc high or low as well ( i.e. erythrocyte count , reticulocytes count , MCHV , MCV etc) . I could be a silent alcoholic as well or maybe I have a heart condition or maybe just a rare condition ? Who knows?
That is why the forum is open to legal attacks until a disclaimer comes up . -
Lordz, for most part I agree with you as usual, but this point's muddying the waters.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Let's say I have done a lot of serious reading about the rise of Islamism in the European Union, I can certainly hold a serious discussion about this issue and write a paper about my views.
I might not hold a degree in Middle East or European Studies, but does that stop me from being a relative expert in this issue?But I don't expect nations to look at what I discuss and formulate policy too right?
I don't agree with the example you provide because people are unlikely to act upon it. However, let's go along with it for the moment. Supposing you put forward an argument that concludes that certain factions of the Muslim community are prone to terrorist recruitment, and some reader comes along and burns down one of their mosques on the basis of what he's read in your posts. Even if you are not tracked down and charged for sedition or inciting racial violence, you'll know that your seemingly innocent comments have led to a tragic result.
The same applies here, only with a greater degree of likelihood. Even without the research evidence fymk provided, think about common experience: it's common for one person to tell another "don't worry about it, it's normal", and the other person ignores a problem upon the advice of an unqualified source because he or she prefers to live in blissful ignorance. The same, of course, applies to hypochondriacs - they'll go with the advice that best fits their world view.
Also, qualification is a major issue. Of course, one cannot dispute that "buyer beware" is an assumption in most situations, but does the buyer know what to be wary of? In my experience, the buyer does not; I've lost count of the number of times someone has told me, "My counsellor turned up at my house one night uninvited", or something of the sort, and they're surprised when I ask them if they've discussed the issue with the Psychologists' Registration Board because they don't even know the Board exists!
How many lay persons are aware of what recourse they have if something goes wrong? Very few, I'll wager. As such, "buyer beware" is not a strong defence in any sense.
The greatest irony here is that it's the professionals who best understand these problems, when the people receiving the services are the ones most in need of such knowledge. I've had people PM me about someone whose description fits the DSM-IV criteria for some illness or other, but I make a point not to label it because I'd be overstepping my professional bounds. Instead, I refer them to someone suitably qualified like a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and provide my views on the points that need to be emphasised when describing the person. Of course, when I do that, I almost invariably get the objection, "But you're a psychologist, right?", because they don't know the difference between the various fields of psychology. Sure, I've got the textbook stuff down pat, but my practical experience is in a corporate environment, not a clinical one, so any diagnosis or opinion I provide isn't worth the breath I take to utter it. It's plain and simple: there's no room for ego when it comes to people's health and well-being. If you don't know, you don't know - don't pretend because you're potentially opening a Pandora's Box.
Insipid afterthought: I take it that mayi was being facetious about Photoshopping qualifications. If you are professionally qualified, there will have to be a regulatory body who will affirm your credentials. -
Maybe you should read in detail about what I said.Originally posted by fudgester:However, I absolutely disagree with your usage of the word 'quacks'. I don't understand... how does their sharing of the medical information they have with others make them quacks? While you and I both may have formal medical training, bear in mind that we're both not qualified to make our own diagnoses. If I were to make a diagnosis and the guy gets worse, I'll be in deep trouble. I can only make my own field evaluations and patch the guy up enough for the medical officers to do a full evaluation. I imagine that the same goes for you.
In that respect, we're not much different from the other forummites who may not have formal medical training.
However, I don't see what's wrong with their sharing of information which they get from trusted sources and personal experience. What's wrong with a forummite who shares what he knows about (for example) colorectal cancer from the experience of his grandfather who has it? Just because he doesn't have formal training doesn't make him a quack.
For your information, half of what I know about first aid and medicine are lessons which I got from field experience. I didn't learn everything I know in the classroom. So if you say that the other forummites are quacks, then I suppose I'm one as well for sharing my field experiences.
I would like to kindly suggest that you take back what you said about quacks.
If there is not much difference from other forumnites who may not have formal medical training - then why even bother with registration of medical personnel? If healthcare training is so passe- why even bother with registration of healthcare professionals?
I did say something about support groups - they do share something in common - the suffering of a similar disease - they however will keep within the scope of their afflicted disease. Am I going to argue with a longterm renal patient - HELL NO - they sometimes do know their conditions very well - even more so than the doctors or nurses sometimes- bad days good days etc .
Either I could have misunderstood that but the way it was put forward- she gave me an impression that she hijacked renorenal's answer ( to be fair reno gives sound answers) and posed it as her own when she told the other forumner to post the link to it.
Do you know what a quack is? A person who passes off as a knowledgeable medical practitioner - but then again nowadays we have people passing off as nurses , psychologists , dietitians etc . They come under the collective word of "quack" when they are not registered to even practice. Unless she is registered as a healthcare professional , even an occupational therapist , social worker, physiotherapist , nurse - then I will take the naming of '' quack' back . She has not once given me a cause to take it back.
Combat medics are exempt from that word - they are in the field and they have some form of practical . They are employed and recognised by the army in a military sense - they are technically what I might say - registered with the army to practice within the army for the well being of the army . They have first aid skills and basic training to cope with traumatic situations and I do have a healthy respect for them . They are military paramedics , just like our own ambulance paramedics - trained to cope first line .
To say they are not any different than any forumnites who don't have practical training - it is wrong - we both know theory and practical comes across as different . I didn't say formal medical training - I did say practical healthcare training .
Fudgester : Sharing your experiences is ok because it iS YOUR OWN - it does not make u a quack because u did what u were trained to do with the authority and blessing of the army . -
Doesn't mean if the doctors see you physically they call tell all these that you have pointed out. All these are just theories. Besides it have been pointed out that it is advice, not diagnosis. The quote you got from renorenal, is what he wrote before he left the forum. That's when he was helping out everyday. Now, the word diagnosis is not correct, as he no longer feels so. That's why the forum description is changed to "A place for health doubts, not ultimate remediesOriginally posted by fymk:Renorenal may have had good intentions for the forum but :
"During consultation " that is already the implying that a person is qualified enough to hold a virtual clinic and make a diagnosis or a differential one .
No offence to renorenal but all doctors worth their salt will see the patient before making a diagnosis. Instead of requiring just those information . There are familiar history , medical history , physical assessment , medication history ( I am sure that you would know certain drugs are suspected of causing cardiomyopathy like clonzapine in caucasians ), tests to confirm .
For example , I am 26 year old female and I have beta thalassaemia minor but yet I am not anaemic with a high red blood cell count . What does it tell you? Nothing at all . I could have polycythaemia vera (rare for my age) or dehydration but you don't know what is my family history neither do I . And if I am a layman , I won't be aware which components of the rbc high or low as well ( i.e. erythrocyte count , reticulocytes count , MCHV , MCV etc) . I could be a silent alcoholic as well or maybe I have a heart condition or maybe just a rare condition ? Who knows?
That is why the forum is open to legal attacks until a disclaimer comes up ."
He understood something since someone flamed him. That's the reason that caused the change.
But if you choose to be dishonest about your medical history and all, the advices dish out here won't be of any use. He has already requested you to be honest. If you are alcoholic yet never reveal, that would affect the advice he gives out. -
The "buyer beware" may not be a strong defence, I have to agree. I have nothing to say about this "buyer beware" thing.Originally posted by Gedanken:Also, qualification is a major issue. Of course, one cannot dispute that "buyer beware" is an assumption in most situations, but does the buyer know what to be wary of? In my experience, the buyer does not; I've lost count of the number of times someone has told me, "My counsellor turned up at my house one night uninvited", or something of the sort, and they're surprised when I ask them if they've discussed the issue with the Psychologists' Registration Board because they don't even know the Board exists!
How many lay persons are aware of what recourse they have if something goes wrong? Very few, I'll wager. As such, "buyer beware" is not a strong defence in any sense.
The greatest irony here is that it's the professionals who best understand these problems, when the people receiving the services are the ones most in need of such knowledge. I've had people PM me about someone whose description fits the DSM-IV criteria for some illness or other, but I make a point not to label it because I'd be overstepping my professional bounds. Instead, I refer them to someone suitably qualified like a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and provide my views on the points that need to be emphasised when describing the person. Of course, when I do that, I almost invariably get the objection, "But you're a psychologist, right?", because they don't know the difference between the various fields of psychology. Sure, I've got the textbook stuff down pat, but my practical experience is in a corporate environment, not a clinical one, so any diagnosis or opinion I provide isn't worth the breath I take to utter it. It's plain and simple: there's no room for ego when it comes to people's health and well-being. If you don't know, you don't know - don't pretend because you're potentially opening a Pandora's Box.
Insipid afterthought: I take it that mayi was being facetious about Photoshopping qualifications. If you are professionally qualified, there will have to be a regulatory body who will affirm your credentials.
About the qualifications, I wasn't being humourous about it. I went to check the definition of facetious, and its meaning is humourous. I am serious about it, anybody with enough skills can fake it. There is definitely a medical body who can affirm the doctors' credentials here. But can they find out whether this doctor's certificate is real? Unless you are a photoshop expert, a normal person can't tell between a real and fake picture. -
In theory, all forumers will have no difference between those doctors who had formal training (or any other healthcare professionals). All these information can be easily ripped off the web.Originally posted by fymkIf there is not much difference from other forumnites who may not have formal medical training - then why even bother with registration of medical personnel? If healthcare training is so passe- why even bother with registration of healthcare professionals?
In practical, however, difference will be seen immediately. A doctor who has formal training, been working for years can tell you that the symptoms fits certain illnesses in theory and other illnesses that are pretty rare that theory don't state that has those symptoms as well. A forumer who rips off those information off the web wouldn't know this, unless he has experienced it or someone closed to him experienced it. -
[Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:In theory, all forumers will have no difference between those doctors who had formal training (or any other healthcare professionals). All these information can be easily ripped off the web][/quote].
Err.. I think the web is notorious for inaccurate information.
[quote]
In practical, however, difference will be seen immediately. A doctor who has formal training, been working for years can tell you that the symptoms fits certain illnesses in theory and other illnesses that are pretty rare that theory don't state that has those symptoms as well. A forumer who rips off those information off the web wouldn't know this, unless he has experienced it or someone closed to him experienced it.
Eh.. -blink- I thought this is the exact reason why fymk is pointing out the importance of disclaimers and qualifications? I am confused... i thought you were arguing with each other leh. -
And the forumners reading it has no idea whether the person is qualified to give the opinion .Is this aspect not right? The reader may not be aware if the information given is just ripped off the internet from some galanguni website . Is it not right?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:In theory, all forumers will have no difference between those doctors who had formal training (or any other healthcare professionals). All these information can be easily ripped off the web.
In practical, however, difference will be seen immediately. A doctor who has formal training, been working for years can tell you that the symptoms fits certain illnesses in theory and other illnesses that are pretty rare that theory don't state that has those symptoms as well. A forumer who rips off those information off the web wouldn't know this, unless he has experienced it or someone closed to him experienced it.
Now if this forum is not run by medical doctors, every one would just come and ask for opinion from anyone or rip information off from the net and I won't care . However look at the stickys and tell me what you see. Virtual Clinic, medical interview etc . Now there is the implied suggestion that it is ran by qualified personnel .
Look at how aunt agony is ran - no one implied they are qualified to give advice ever - every one just put up their opinion and that's it . Speaker's corner - no one ever said they are politicians right? Of course we have some WP and PAP supporters but as the name implies - anyone can go in . Same with SAF - any NS guy can go in and post about his personal problems in SAF or talk about blanket parties etc .
Not this forum . What angers me is that naive people could well be hurt . Regardless of commonsense or not , some will make the mistake of taking advice which may or may not be right .
Maybe you should suggest to thinkdifferent or oxford mushroom to put a disclaimer asap that advice given here are not accredited and should therefore the moderators are not accountable for any mishaps that might have occurred and furthermore some moderators are not qualified to give certain advice except discuss it in a general tone . Then I am off the case. It is THAT SIMPLE TO PUT A STICKY for a moderator - takes a few words and whoa lah ! Done .
Yes . If he had posted a disclaimer then he would not gotten flamed because he can always point to it and say accept the conditions when u post here.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Doesn't mean if the doctors see you physically they call tell all these that you have pointed out. All these are just theories. Besides it have been pointed out that it is advice, not diagnosis. The quote you got from renorenal, is what he wrote before he left the forum. That's when he was helping out everyday. Now, the word diagnosis is not correct, as he no longer feels so. That's why the forum description is changed to "A place for health doubts, not ultimate remedies"
He understood something since someone flamed him. That's the reason that caused the change.
But if you choose to be dishonest about your medical history and all, the advices dish out here won't be of any use. He has already requested you to be honest. If you are alcoholic yet never reveal, that would affect the advice he gives out.
How would you know between a hypochondriac and a person who has a genuine complaint? To a hypochondriac , the symptoms are real but the tests may or maynot show otherwise . Ever heard of Munchausen's syndrome? Or Munchaunsen by proxy? Those are psychiatric illnesses whereby they make themselves sick and not tell the doctors that it is self inflicted and both are VERY HArd to diagnose . Even with patients in real life showing up at a doctor's practice or hospital - it is difficult to see who is very anxious to the point of having somatic pain or who is experiencing real pain. How would a doctor online make out a test when the patient themselves sometimes have no idea of the lab result except the usual " oh my doctor said I have anaemia" . Now anaemia comes in many forms : sickle cell anaemia , pernicuous anaemia , thalaessemia related anaemias etc .
Oh by the way , that was part of my medical history which I threw in - my doctors just said I am healthy except for high red cell count with beta thalaessemic minor . Oh yes I am a freak of nature according to them because people like me are usually anaemic or mildly but never with high red blood cell counts - one did say my body could be compensating for the poor binding capability in the heme .
That is why the forum needs a disclaimer to protect the moderators as well as the public from any thing untoward. -
Fymk, as I've reiterated, do you feel the need to do another Hiroshima just to get your request for a disclaimer across?I'm sure that a few PMs and a simple, nice request would have done the trick.Originally posted by fymk:Actually you have can put one up right now. Stickys are easy to do . And since you did say you worked on a legal side - what's wrong with the following wordings :
TITLE : DISCLAIMER
" This forum is only used for discussions about health and not accredited to give a diagnosis via the internet. It bears no responsibility for those who takes its advice seriously . Please go and see a doctor if you have an actual medical/health problem "
I am sure the other moderators won't mind at all unless they intended to use this forum as a real virtual clinic . This disclaimer should adequately cover their legalities.
Maybe thinkdifferent, you should read what I said . I didn't ask for you to resign . Don't get so dramatic .
I said maybe you should refer people to websites which are reputable like Mayo Clinic , or just tell them to see a doctor with their complaints IF none of your moderators , who presumably is qualified, is available to answer. As for information - if you say who your mom is and your award winning essay - then I am very sure that you are able to back it up with what medically peer reviewed journals have said .
As for the quack name because you have gave me a reason enough to by telling me that you read books of medical knowledge when you were a child etc etc and therefore implying that you can give advice way beyond the scope of a layman . And it is well within reason.
Yes qualifications can be faked . Hey do you know that you can check a doctor's credentials online? If anyone wants to impersonate a doctor , I am sure there are heavy penalties imposed by legislation .
Your constant usage of the word quack is highly debatable and fails to take into account the context of what is going on.If I give advice based on medical texts, I am quoting a reviewed document and I am just a conduit and a facilitator of information here, if I choose to say dispense, then I will have a hunt on my tail, so..why not just say it's a semantics issue and once and for all, put this damned issue to rest? There will be ignorant fools online or in the real world anyway.
However, a disclaimer will protect all parties and this I definitely agree with.
Well, I hope this issue is solved amicably.It's just jarring to see such a flamefest going on early in the morning. -
This I have to agree, it is the basic fundamental of health care. Which is why the chaps here have always told the people who ask their advice, to follow up and see a real-life practitioner.In fact, other than the disclaimer, I see this place as a discussion forum for ailments, and where individuals from all walks of life can hang around and learn a bit here and there.Originally posted by Gedanken:Lordz, for most part I agree with you as usual, but this point's muddying the waters.
I don't agree with the example you provide because people are unlikely to act upon it. However, let's go along with it for the moment. Supposing you put forward an argument that concludes that certain factions of the Muslim community are prone to terrorist recruitment, and some reader comes along and burns down one of their mosques on the basis of what he's read in your posts. Even if you are not tracked down and charged for sedition or inciting racial violence, you'll know that your seemingly innocent comments have led to a tragic result.
The same applies here, only with a greater degree of likelihood. Even without the research evidence fymk provided, think about common experience: it's common for one person to tell another "don't worry about it, it's normal", and the other person ignores a problem upon the advice of an unqualified source because he or she prefers to live in blissful ignorance. The same, of course, applies to hypochondriacs - they'll go with the advice that best fits their world view.
Also, qualification is a major issue. Of course, one cannot dispute that "buyer beware" is an assumption in most situations, but does the buyer know what to be wary of? In my experience, the buyer does not; I've lost count of the number of times someone has told me, "My counsellor turned up at my house one night uninvited", or something of the sort, and they're surprised when I ask them if they've discussed the issue with the Psychologists' Registration Board because they don't even know the Board exists!
How many lay persons are aware of what recourse they have if something goes wrong? Very few, I'll wager. As such, "buyer beware" is not a strong defence in any sense.
The greatest irony here is that it's the professionals who best understand these problems, when the people receiving the services are the ones most in need of such knowledge. I've had people PM me about someone whose description fits the DSM-IV criteria for some illness or other, but I make a point not to label it because I'd be overstepping my professional bounds. Instead, I refer them to someone suitably qualified like a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and provide my views on the points that need to be emphasised when describing the person. Of course, when I do that, I almost invariably get the objection, "But you're a psychologist, right?", because they don't know the difference between the various fields of psychology. Sure, I've got the textbook stuff down pat, but my practical experience is in a corporate environment, not a clinical one, so any diagnosis or opinion I provide isn't worth the breath I take to utter it. It's plain and simple: there's no room for ego when it comes to people's health and well-being. If you don't know, you don't know - don't pretend because you're potentially opening a Pandora's Box.
Insipid afterthought: I take it that mayi was being facetious about Photoshopping qualifications. If you are professionally qualified, there will have to be a regulatory body who will affirm your credentials.
It's no substitute for professional medical opinions, but I dare say that there are fellows who might actually uncover something and actually go on to their doctors,subsequently being able to confirm that it's actually there.
Ah, a disclaimer.That a short little notice could cause such mayhem is something truly unique to us humans.
-
fymk,
Everyone here pretty much agrees on the need to put up disclaimers as a sticky thread. I, for one agree with you wholeheartedly that disclaimers should be put up so that we can prevent fools from using forum postings in lieu of full medical evaluation.
At least where I'm concerned, though, that's not the issue I'm having with you. The issue I'm having with you is your having to resort to such high-handed approaches like labelling everyone here as 'quacks' and spreading the flames to the Club 30 forum for no apparent reason.
Yes, I do know what quacks are. Quoting from wikipedia (type 'define:quack' in Google):
'Quackery is the practice of fraudulent medicine, usually in order to make money or for ego gratification and power. Those who practise quackery are called "quacks" and are in the business of selling false hope to ill-informed people who may be genuinely suffering.'
I do not see any of the forummites here spreading fraudulent knowledge of medicine just to boost their egos or to make money. I only see them trying to inform and educate others in the medical world. I do not see them giving out actual medical diagnoses. I only see them giving out opinions on what the problem might be and dishing out advice.
If you say that they need formal medical training just to give out medical advice, then my mom's a quack too for advising me to take paracetamol when I have the flu. She sure as heck doesn't have any formal medical training.
And by implication, everyone else's mom is a quack too whenever they prescribe self-medication to their children.
I am not asking any more of you than to take back what you said about the other forummites being quacks. -
Bro, just chill man.
I would love to comment more on the psychological aspect on those rants, but I won't , because I'll be labelled a quack.
-
Wrong information but I did asked her to give me the sources of the information which she instead quoted her mother and her mom's friend the " tb specialist " .Originally posted by fudgester:fymk,
Everyone here pretty much agrees on the need to put up disclaimers as a sticky thread. I, for one agree with you wholeheartedly that disclaimers should be put up so that we can prevent fools from using forum postings in lieu of full medical evaluation.
At least where I'm concerned, though, that's not the issue I'm having with you. The issue I'm having with you is your having to resort to such high-handed approaches like labelling everyone here as 'quacks' and spreading the flames to the Club 30 forum for no apparent reason.
Yes, I do know what quacks are. Quoting from wikipedia (type 'define:quack' in Google):
[b]'Quackery is the practice of fraudulent medicine, usually in order to make money or for ego gratification and power. Those who practise quackery are called "quacks" and are in the business of selling false hope to ill-informed people who may be genuinely suffering.'
I do not see any of the forummites here spreading fraudulent knowledge of medicine just to boost their egos or to make money. I only see them trying to inform and educate others in the medical world. I do not see them giving out actual medical diagnoses. I only see them giving out opinions on what the problem might be and dishing out advice.
If you say that they need formal medical training just to give out medical advice, then my mom's a quack too for advising me to take paracetamol when I have the flu. She sure as heck doesn't have any formal medical training.
And by implication, everyone else's mom is a quack too whenever they prescribe self-medication to their children.
I am not asking any more of you than to take back what you said about the other forummites being quacks. [/b][/quote]
quack(a): medically unqualified; "a quack doctor" (princeton and yes from google)
Oxford definition : quack
• noun 1 an unqualified person who dishonestly claims to have medical knowledge
Your mom is doing what mothers do - they relieve ur symptoms from their own experience -. It is called maternal instinct , not quackery . It pains most mothers to see their child suffer . Sometimes decisions mother makes may not be right but they never intend their own child harm because the children are own flesh and blood . It is a protective instinct . That makes it so different from quack .
Like I said I admit I am wrong for pushing it into club 30 forum . For pushing it there , I do apologise for that impulsive action .
However I will not take back the word I used to describe thinkdifferent :
Based on :
1.BCG thread
[quote]Originally posted by thinkdifferent:
Yes, it's against TB. BCG vaccination has been shown to give 70%-80% protection against TB. Atleast in the past time. If the effectivness would be only 5%, it wouldn't help to lower the number of TB cases so drastically in all countries where this vaccination has been used.
Nowdays new and resistant strains of TB appear, it can be that those are resistant even against this vaccination.
She did however pointed me to renorenal's answer which she gave me the impression that she given the answer but did not in fact since it is under renorenal's name. To reno renal's credit , he did answer the question quite well .
2. Nasal swelling
I think? She didn't even bother to question more except hanker on about allergies .Originally posted by thinkdifferent:I think you have an allergy. It's better to remove the factor which triggers your nasal mucous tissue to swell then to cut it away. The nasal mucous tissue is very important for the nose. It moisturizes the air you are breathing, it catches the bacterias which are in the air and it allows you to smell.
Do you know what is the reason for the swellings? Have you done the allergy test?
I did two posts advising the forumner to see a doctor and if it gets worse - to see an ENT specialist.
3.Dry cough
Alfagal, another moderator in this forum , did the right thing by asking the guy to bring his father to see a doctor . However thinkdifferent did post the above, that says alot more.Originally posted by thinkdifferent:Any other symptomps (temperature, running nose, sore throat, fatigue) or the cough only?
For the above examples , I have no reason to withdraw the descriptive word.
I do apologise for what I did in the club30 forum but I certainly won't apologise for my use of a descriptive word which summarises what I think .
_____________________________________________________________
Yes lazerlordz u can label the psychological aspect of the rants - I am what policymakers call, protectionist and yes I do defend my professional registration like any other healthcare professional does . You may not see it the way I do . We both look from a different perspective.
I am all for dissemination of health information . However what I have read so far in the forum with thinkdifferent's answers does not impress me that is why I said the other moderators better get the disclaimer as well as for the sake of the public .
Another thing , I don't see why it is so difficult to put up a sticky to act as a disclaimer . Kindly enlighten me on why the disclaimer needs to await discussion? -
Gotta disagree with you there, mayi.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:About the qualifications, I wasn't being humourous about it. I went to check the definition of facetious, and its meaning is humourous. I am serious about it, anybody with enough skills can fake it. There is definitely a medical body who can affirm the doctors' credentials here. But can they find out whether this doctor's certificate is real? Unless you are a photoshop expert, a normal person can't tell between a real and fake picture.
You're thinking about certification in terms of a physical piece of paper. The paper is in fact nothing more than a representation of the person's registration with the regulatory body, the person having first passed the professional standards required by that body to practice in that particular field.
For example, if someone showed you a practising certificate from the Singapore Medical Council, you could call the SMC and ask if he is indeed a doctor. No matter how well he Photoshopped the certificate, if the SMC says he's not on their list, you'll know he's a fake.
Anyway, you've just demonstrated a point that I made. Lay people need to know these things about their health care providers, but they don't, and instead they count on certificates that can be faked without understanding the system behind those certificates. It's a dangerous world out there.