Posted by Adam on August 21, 2000, at 23:36:07
In reply to Article on Problems with Medical Bulletin Boards, posted by Cam W. on August 12, 2000, at 16:59:48
Hmm.
Well, coming out of lurkerdom for a second, I've actually found that, as time went on and my research into psych-related stuff became more extensive, the more I knew, the less I wanted to tell people about it. I keep getting this worry that playing p-doc or drug expert or anything else is a distinctly bad idea, and maybe I should just stop it for good. I don't know. I'm happy to tell people what I (at least think I) know or have learned if they are my friends, and some have even said (my girlfriend especially) "God, you know, my doctor doesn't tell me any of this crap. I have no clue what these drugs do." I go home all happy feeling like I helped out and looked like a smartypants, etc. And then I get the nagging question in my head...did I get all that right? Does it matter? Should I leave all such talk to the experts?
Then I also wonder: Why DON'T the experts just talk about this more? Or if they do, why are they usually making you and I pay for it?
The net has loads of good stuff and even bigger loads of B.S. Of all the sites I have seen, this one is head-and-shoulder's above the rest. And yet it could also be among the most dangerous in some respects, party because it can be so compelling. One thing I really like parousing from time to time are the 'Tips, but I notice the additions ended a long time ago. Why aren't more P-Docs sharing their knowledge with us? Why, if people like the author are so worried about frauds of one form or another spreading lies and damn lies, aren't they, rather than taking potshots at internet pseudopsych, doing something about it in the way of contribution?
Here's a crazy idea: Five or ten psychiatrists pop in from time to time and aswer a few nuts and bolts questions about a drug. Maybe this is unethical behavior, I'm not sure. It just seems that while health-care professionals are spending a fair amount of time publishing in one form or another in a way that can be read surfing the net, they aren't interacting all that much. At least, I'm not seeing it. There are sites like quackwatch, which is very good for spotting the quacks, but they are few and far between, and, of course, the quackwatchers aren't aswering your questions. I would love, love, love to pick a good p-docs brain. I have heaps of questions I'd like to ask. I would love to have my mistakes corrected (reasonably gently, of course) when I make them.
So, you know, why not? It's anonymous. One couldn't do more harm than an erroneous poster or a chronic liar, could they?
I read articles like this and I think: Absolutely this is true, and it is right to provide such cautions, so long as one does not overgenralize, or resort to sneering elitism and derision. But I also think: Is the meter always running? Is the potential of the internet not worth as much of your time as its pitfalls? Do you ever want to experience a form of electronic discourse outside of the circle of your profession that is about your profession?
For the vast majority, it would seem the answer is no. So then, how do we offset these negative elements without ignoring it all?
poster:Adam
thread:42703
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000811/msgs/43490.html