![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by zazenduckie on November 28, 2006, at 8:19:30
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » zazenduckie, posted by madeline on November 27, 2006, at 17:15:53
> I like the new spelling
O thank you. I keep doing the change your password and forget it routine to self block and then have to reregister with a new name each time. I only lasted 5 days this time. I'm pitiful! Maybe I should freeze the password in a gallon of water and then defrost it when I change my mind instead of reregistering like SI people do with razor blades. Then maybe the impulse would pass.
>
> I don't want to sound too forward, but would you mind turning your babblemail on?I'm sorry I don't babblemail. But thanks for asking :)
>
Posted by Phillipa on November 28, 2006, at 11:36:11
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble Correction, posted by zazenduckie on November 28, 2006, at 8:06:31
I do understand how you feel. I didn't know him personally cyberspace know and I was involved cause he wrote his first e-mail to me that day and his Mother found it on the computer which is how I became involved. Aplogy accepted. No problem at all But could we let him rest? Love Phillipa
Posted by zazenduckie on November 28, 2006, at 12:21:06
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble Correction » zazenduckie, posted by Phillipa on November 28, 2006, at 11:36:11
>> But could we let him rest?
Phillipa with all due respect, I am not disturbing his rest.
I was talking about administrative issues and have said about all I have to say at this time. I don't think anything will ever come of it. But I thought it needed to be said.
It's hugely horribly sad when somebody that young dies. I think it's natural to wonder if anything could have made a difference for him or for someone else here.
But as a favour to you I'll try to shut up for awhile.
Posted by Phillipa on November 28, 2006, at 20:21:42
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble Correction » Phillipa, posted by zazenduckie on November 28, 2006, at 12:21:06
I don't want you to feel badly. I think there is merit in what your goals are. I in my opinion only think the internet is not that safe for young people. Not this site as a duputy or Bob usually steps in and helps with the issue. What bothers me is the internet sites with things like mixing med combos that could hurt you and things like that. I think here that the eating board as you brought it up could help a lot of people. There will always be those who use the internet shall we say wrong or misguided? Love Phillipa ps no news yet on the other.
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2006, at 20:34:01
In reply to Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by zazenduckie on November 27, 2006, at 16:59:15
> > Do you feel that Psycho-Babble played a causative role in the suicide of Ame Sans Vie?
(Not determined to be a suicide)
> No, not causative.Then what?
> But I think someone should take a careful look at whether ASV's relationship with Babble was good either for himself or for others who read the years of archived posts Dr Bob keeps available to the public.
Do you feel that the extent to which free speech is allowed on Psycho-Babble provides information by which the majority of readers hurt themselves?
> I hope someone lets us know what the cause of death was and whether the years of extreme medication and other substance use he described here contributed.
What would be the importance of having this information? Do you suppose that his intent to post on Psycho-Babble his experiences with medication influenced his behavior? Did his posting through the years influence the behavior of others? Is there any evidence that such influence was harmful to a single person? And what if it was? What is the threshold that one should use to judge the benefits versus dangers of Psycho-Babble?
- Scott
Posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 12:07:04
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » zazenduckie, posted by SLS on November 28, 2006, at 20:34:01
> > > Do you feel that Psycho-Babble played a causative role in the suicide of Ame Sans Vie?
>
> (Not determined to be a suicideI was actually posting under the assumption that the unusual drug consumption might be implicated in an accidental poisoning rather than an outright suicide. Or that years of the drug regimen he described might have compromised his health in other ways that led to his death. I thought Phillipa had posted that it wasn't a suicide.
>
> > No, not causative.
>
> Then what?I think if a poster posted about taking a combination of narcotics amphetamines and barbituates and various herbal mixtures and stated his opinion that he was something of an expert on pharmacology and the board gave him a forum and reinforced that opinion and gave him positive feedback that perhaps they colluded to some extent.
>
> > But I think someone should take a careful look at whether ASV's relationship with Babble was good either for himself or for others who read the years of archived posts Dr Bob keeps available to the public.
>
> Do you feel that the extent to which free speech is allowed on Psycho-Babble provides information by which the majority of readers hurt themselves?I don't know. I wouldn't think so.
>
> > I hope someone lets us know what the cause of death was and whether the years of extreme medication and other substance use he described here contributed.
>
>> What would be the importance of having this information?Because his opinions and advice are still in the archives as well as his medication history and it would put that
in perspective.
>>Do you suppose that his intent to post on Psycho-Babble his experiences with medication influenced his behavior?I don't know. Sometimes people have said they are going to try a certain medicine and report back to Babble. I don't know if ASV did. I wouldn't think that was a very big influence, but I don't know. People will sometimes do things for an audience they wouldn't otherwise do.
>>Did his posting through the years influence the behavior of others?Possibly.
>>Is there any evidence that such influence was harmful to a single person?
I don't know. I think it would be good if someone impartial went through the archives and tried to find out. But I don't think that is very likely to happen.
>> And what if it was?
If it was I think it would be prudent to remove whatever posts were leading to harm even for a single person. And to reconsider the posting guidelines.
>>What is the threshold that one should use to judge the benefits versus dangers of Psycho-Babble?I don't know. I think I'd go with Hippocrates. First of all do no harm.
Posted by verne on November 29, 2006, at 12:55:00
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » zazenduckie, posted by SLS on November 28, 2006, at 20:34:01
I don't think the recipe of drugs (and the dosages) described would stand up to scrutiny by a medical review board. This doctor needs to lose his license.
Now I'll take my block. (make it a long one)
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2006, at 16:33:20
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 12:07:04
> > > > Do you feel that Psycho-Babble played a causative role in the suicide of Ame Sans Vie?
> >
> > (Not determined to be a suicide
>
> I was actually posting under the assumption that the unusual drug consumption might be implicated in an accidental poisoning rather than an outright suicide. Or that years of the drug regimen he described might have compromised his health in other ways that led to his death. I thought Phillipa had posted that it wasn't a suicide.
> >
> > > No, not causative.
> >
> > Then what?
>
> I think if a poster posted about taking a combination of narcotics amphetamines and barbituates and various herbal mixtures and stated his opinion that he was something of an expert on pharmacology and the board gave him a forum and reinforced that opinion and gave him positive feedback that perhaps they colluded to some extent.
>
>
> >
> > > But I think someone should take a careful look at whether ASV's relationship with Babble was good either for himself or for others who read the years of archived posts Dr Bob keeps available to the public.
> >
> > Do you feel that the extent to which free speech is allowed on Psycho-Babble provides information by which the majority of readers hurt themselves?
>
> I don't know. I wouldn't think so.
>
>
> >
> > > I hope someone lets us know what the cause of death was and whether the years of extreme medication and other substance use he described here contributed.
> >
> >> What would be the importance of having this information?
>
> Because his opinions and advice are still in the archives as well as his medication history and it would put that
> in perspective.
>
>
> >>Do you suppose that his intent to post on Psycho-Babble his experiences with medication influenced his behavior?
>
> I don't know. Sometimes people have said they are going to try a certain medicine and report back to Babble. I don't know if ASV did. I wouldn't think that was a very big influence, but I don't know. People will sometimes do things for an audience they wouldn't otherwise do.
>
>
> >>Did his posting through the years influence the behavior of others?
>
> Possibly.
>
> >>Is there any evidence that such influence was harmful to a single person?
>
> I don't know. I think it would be good if someone impartial went through the archives and tried to find out. But I don't think that is very likely to happen.
>
> >> And what if it was?
>
> If it was I think it would be prudent to remove whatever posts were leading to harm even for a single person. And to reconsider the posting guidelines.
>
>
> >>What is the threshold that one should use to judge the benefits versus dangers of Psycho-Babble?
>
> I don't know. I think I'd go with Hippocrates. First of all do no harm.
>
Friends,
It is written above,[...poster posted about taking (...a combination of narcotics,amphetimines, barbituates...)..board gave him a forum..perhaps they colluded...]
I think that what ZZDuk has posted is one of the top ten most important issues here for this and other mental health forums.
Lou
>
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2006, at 16:56:58
In reply to Lethal Cocktail of Drugs?, posted by verne on November 29, 2006, at 12:55:00
Friends,
It is written here,[...I don't think the recipe of drugs..would stand up to scrutiny. >This< doctor...].
The grammatical structure of the statement could mean that in [...>This< doctor...]that the doctor could be the doctor that prescribed the drugs, if they were prescribed. But the statement writes,>his< licence. So that could mean that the {doctor} is a male, but I am unsure of that from what is written. However, there could be another interpretation to the statement.
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 17:54:52
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 12:07:04
perhaps they colluded to some extent.
>
I think "were complicit to some extent" would be a better choice of phrase.
Posted by Phillipa on November 29, 2006, at 19:07:02
In reply to Rephrasing » zazenduckie, posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 17:54:52
Still no word from his Mother. I'll e-mail her again and see if she found out anything. Love Phillipa ps even his quoted friend e-mailed me that he always thought what he took was atrocious. So babble didn't hurt this young person.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2006, at 19:41:08
In reply to Lethal Cocktail of Drugs?, posted by verne on November 29, 2006, at 12:55:00
Friends,
It is written here,[...recipe..dosages described..medical review board...lose his license...].
I think that the dosages described in AmSnV's posts could raise the question as to if they are or are not within the PDR's ranges as combined in the manner that AmSnV writes. As to if a doctor needs to lose his/her license for such a prescription,if there was a prescription,and if the doctor in question is the one that wrote a prescription to ASV, I do not know. The question that I have, is if it is OK for the members here to post their concern about the drugs being described as being taken, and if so, do the rules for the forum in any way restrain one from posting that they do not believe that the combination and the dosages posted could be supportive and that others should not follow the example given. I would like the reader to review the posts here by ZZD for other aspects of this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Jost on November 29, 2006, at 19:56:29
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 12:07:04
One small (or not so small) point.
The Hippocratic oath requires a very high degree of care--that's why it's so significant in the ideal behavior of the ideal physician. Far from the level one could expect from a casual relationship, or even a fairly demanding standard of responsibility--
how an online message board could possibly meet that standard is beyond me.
That would effectively end Psychobabble, which I think would do a disservice to us all.
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2006, at 20:14:35
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by Jost on November 29, 2006, at 19:56:29
Friends,
It is written here,[...a high degree of care..Far from the level one could expect....how (this forum)..could..meet that standard is beyond me...].
The statndard that ZZDuk proposed, was [...to do no harm...] and to,[...reconsider the posting guidlines...].
I think that we could look at what the agenda of this forum is centered on and go from there.
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 20:35:53
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by Jost on November 29, 2006, at 19:56:29
> One small (or not so small) point.
>
> The Hippocratic oath requires a very high degree of care--that's why it's so significant in the ideal behavior of the ideal physician. Far from the level one could expect from a casual relationship, or even a fairly demanding standard of responsibility--
Jost I did NOT suggest that the board provide any care at all or that it follow the Hippocratic oath. I was using just the single thought that the first priority is to do no harm. It was in response to this question of SLS
>>What is the threshold that one should use to judge the benefits versus dangers of Psycho-Babble?What is the threshhold you would use Jost? How much harm are you willing to tolerate for how much benefit?
And how would you determine whether it is helping or hurting? I think that would be difficult.
Is the fact that someone is here for many years proof it is helping or proof it is hurting?
I don't think the fact that someone stays here is proof it is helping necessarily. If one person feels fulfilled giving bad advice to a number of people and one person takes the bad advice and is harmed is that OK? That's 50-50. What if 99 people are not harmed and 1 is very damaged?
>
>
Posted by Phillipa on November 29, 2006, at 20:46:42
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble » Jost, posted by zazenduckie on November 29, 2006, at 20:35:53
I spoke with his Mother via e-mail tonight the report is not in yet but according to his Mother who is deeply grieving all I will say is the final was not from babble but an outside site. Love Phillipa I hope she doesn't read these posts she's hurting so badly .
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 29, 2006, at 20:46:59
In reply to Re: Rephrasing » zazenduckie, posted by Phillipa on November 29, 2006, at 19:07:02
Frinds,
It is written here,[...Babble didn't hurt this young person...]
If this is a the topic of this discussion, I would like to pursue the discussion so that all of the facts can be seen so that all of the discussants have an opportunity to post their thoughts and opinions about this.
Has not ZZD raised the question of if the other members here were complicit as to how their participation, or lack of, could have or have not been an influence to the member in question? I would like for the readers here to review ZZd's posts.
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 30, 2006, at 11:03:11
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by Jost on November 29, 2006, at 19:56:29
> One small (or not so small) point.
>
> The Hippocratic oath requires a very high degree of care--that's why it's so significant in the ideal behavior of the ideal physician. Far from the level one could expect from a casual relationship, or even a fairly demanding standard of responsibility--
>
> how an online message board could possibly meet that standard is beyond me.
>
> That would effectively end Psychobabble, which I think would do a disservice to us all.I tend to agree with this.
What is the responsibility of the administration of Psycho-Babble?
I think it is counterproductive to limit the submissions to Psycho-Babble to those that are deemed containing information or judgments consistent with the majority opinion of the medical community - as if such a thing were actually practicable. Of course, it has happened many times that the majority opinion in the medical opinion has been wrong, and that support groups such as Psycho-Babble have been the on the vanguard of exploring the newest and most accurate information and ideas.
No, I don't believe it is the responsibility of Psycho-Babble to secure the best use of the written material submitted on its boards by 100% of its readership. This is not the venue for the distribution of professional medical advice, which itself is variable depending upon the expert providing it. It is a community of mutual support and education, for which the administrators of the site provide caveats regarding the validity of the posted text: "Don't necessarily believe everything you hear. Your mileage may vary. The only posts I take responsibility for are my own." Personally, I think the language used here should be stronger and more explicit, and perhaps not to appear in a small font. However, I think it is currently sufficient to promote a cautious approach when interpreting the posted material.
As with the rest of the Internet, it is the responsibility of the client to exercise reasonable caution when surveying it. It comes as the price of admission. It is part of the cost of free speech and the free exchange of information and ideas. I believe these free exchanges are important to help guarantee to all the availability of information and ideas.
It has been my observation that Psycho-Babble seems to succeed more often than it fails. It works because of its wealth of participants. Accurate information almost always emerges. Often, several recommendations are offered that reflect standard as well as novel approaches, and are usually described as such. It has become the norm in behavior to offer recommendations as unqualified suggestions, rather than statements of absolute certainty.
Yes, Psycho-Babble has, and will continue to provide an arena where posted material can be interpreted by some individuals in ways that will encourage them to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their best health. This is a consequence of the free exchange of information and ideas that occurs on the Internet.
- Scott
Posted by zazenduckie on November 30, 2006, at 11:44:47
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by Phillipa on November 29, 2006, at 20:46:42
the final what? and which ouside site? Since ASV regularly offered advice to Babblers
"lol, well even though it's not illegal, I don't think Dr. Bob would appreciate anyone using this forum to directly provide that sort of information
"and offered to email that information which he thought Bob would not appreciate, I think it would be a good idea to clue us in as Bob's site was used to indirectly exchange such information.
I think the best tribute to ASV would be to warn those he counseled on here wouldn't it?
> I spoke with his Mother via e-mail tonight the report is not in yet but according to his Mother who is deeply grieving all I will say is the final was not from babble but an outside site. Love Phillipa I hope she doesn't read these posts she's hurting so badly .
Posted by zazenduckie on November 30, 2006, at 11:52:16
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by SLS on November 30, 2006, at 11:03:11
Thanks for time Scott. I have mixed emotions about censorship on the boards myself.
Posted by Phillipa on November 30, 2006, at 13:48:47
In reply to the final was not from babble?, posted by zazenduckie on November 30, 2006, at 11:44:47
The site on his computer was not babble, he used MY Space and a lot of other web-sites as well as reasearching as a lot of us do. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Love Phillipa
Posted by notfred on November 30, 2006, at 15:14:31
In reply to Re: the final was not from babble? » zazenduckie, posted by Phillipa on November 30, 2006, at 13:48:47
> The site on his computer was not babble, he used MY Space and a lot of other web-sites as well as reasearching as a lot of us do. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Love Phillipa
The final WHAT ? solution, last web site he visited ? what ???
Posted by Phillipa on November 30, 2006, at 16:06:08
In reply to Re: the final was not from babble?, posted by notfred on November 30, 2006, at 15:14:31
Whatever was on his computer. This info was not given to me. Sorry can't help you there. But what I will say is the internet is full of anything a person wants. It was a lot simpler in many ways before the internet. Now anyone who wants can set up a website. Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2006, at 17:43:35
In reply to Re: Ame Sans Vie and Babble, posted by SLS on November 30, 2006, at 11:03:11
Fiends,
It is written here,[...this (forum) is not a venue...for medical advice...].
But could there be those that think that it is?. Are there not members that could be likened as the {...less-sceptical?...}. Could not those members be led to think that what they read is endorsed by the forum if what they read is not sanctioned as uncivil?
There is IMO a difference between an unmoderated forum with no restrictions to the content of posts, and a moderated forum that has trained in some way many moderators to sanction posts that are not in accordance with any of the forum's rules, let's say, that prohibit posting what could have the potential to advocate harm to themselves or others. There is also a difference,IMO, when the owner/moderator can control the content which could restrain or show approval or to influence the acceptability or rejection of the content in question.
There could IMO also be members that think that the forum is for them to get medical advice because the owner is a doctor which means that he is an expert. This is different IMO from a forum, let's say, moderated by a psychologist, who is not a {medical} expert.
Then there are many posters that describe themselves as professionals. And there are members that describe themselves as being in desperate circumstances. Those members in desparate circumstances could IMO have the potential to accept what they read here as credible to them, regardless of any disclaimer in the FAQ. For if members ar told to not believe everything they read, could they also believe some things that they read?
If there is a forum for skydivers, and the moderator is an expert skydiver, would it not be considered reasonable for the members of that forum to give credance to what the forum purports because could not the members, thinking that the owner being an expert, controls and influences the content?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on November 30, 2006, at 18:49:03
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of scott's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2006, at 17:43:35
> There could IMO also be members that think that the forum is for them to get medical advice because the owner is a doctor which means that he is an expert.Then they would be mistaken. And this belief, when posted about, usually gets corrected by other posters.
gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.