|
snorch posted:That's not the message I'm trying to convey, but rather that patients often come to value the experience more than the treatment, and in turn attempt to justify the "alternative" as the best decision in their minds, because the way it's portrayed on both sides is that you can choose either one or the other, but not both; doctors are can't stand the mention of the hocum quackery, and the quacks can't stand those uppity doctors. Doctors--good doctors--are very well practiced in dealing with patients who put faith in hocum quackery, as well as those who cribbed health info off the internet, etc. They don't like scream and throw scalpels when they hear about those folk therapies. As long as the alt meds are not actively harmful and the patient is also compliant with real medicine, they're fine with them. When it's a chiropractor doing forceful adjustments, the doctor would be acting unethically if he didn't try to get the patient to stop going. Or if the patient isn't compliant with the real medicine because they prefer homeopathy, the doctor obviously has a duty to explain why the alt med is bullshit. So no, it's not set up as if you can have one or the other, not both. You can have both real medicine and fake medicine, as long as the fake medicine isn't hurting you your doctor is unlikely to care that much. Also, a lot of the conmen types who do alt-med don't shittalk doctors, they just say "They're fine for what they do but I do something they can't." Others, sure, know that the doctors can expose them as frauds (or are delusional and think that their bullshit actually works and Western medicine is poison blah blah) and aggressively try to get their customers to avoid real medical care, but again, the reasonable ones are fine with their customers seeing a doctor.
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I see that as reason to investigate everything on a case-by-case basis (and deal sternly with anyone who's so far out of line that it's legally actionable). Likewise it's increasingly easy to find anecdotes online of people who feel they were severely damaged after being inappropriately given strong psych drugs for very ordinary run-of-the-mill life stresses. Does the mere existence of some number of psychiatrists who push undocumented poly-drug cocktails on people inappropriately mean that the entire field is an issue? What do you mean by 'undocumented'? And the difference, obviously is that there are zero times when homeopathy is actually doing anything. The field is an 'issue' because it's complete bullshit, not just because the people doing it are pushy about the bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 20:38
|
|