![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 154. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by notfred on November 30, 2006, at 20:17:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of scott's post-, posted by gardenergirl on November 30, 2006, at 18:49:03
>
> > 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
We all took a test to be allowed to post on this board. We all answered questions about this very issue. If one answers these questions correctly then clearly people understand Dr Bob does not give medical opinions or advise here.This issue was disclosed clearly to the posters, by answering the test questions, indicating that they understand Dr Bobs role here.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2006, at 20:53:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of scott's post-, posted by notfred on November 30, 2006, at 20:17:43
Friends,
It is written here,[...(Dr. Hsiung) does not give medical opinions..here...]. This is in response to,[...There could be IMO members that think the forum is for them to get medical advice because the owner is a doctor...].
Let us suppose that a lawyer hosted a forum and had the members take a test that had a question indicating that the forum was not to get legal advice. Yet the forum discussed legal issues and the owner/lawyer commented on these issues and allowed legal issues to go unsanctioned that he thought was correct, and sanctioned those posters that posted false conclusions as being a jump to a conclusion. And also , the lawyer had a rule that members could not post what is a jumping to a false conclusion, or anything that was an exaggeration or overgeneralization, and the lawyer made those determinations. I believe that there is the potential IMO on that hypothetical forum for some of the members, even though there was a disclaimer to the contrary, to {trust} the owner's statements where a member jumped to a conclusion or exaggerated and such because the owner is an expert and IMO the lawyer would want to do what is best for the members by pointing out that there was a jump to a false conclusion so that incorrect legal advice was not thought to be correct.
But there is much more to this....
Lou
Posted by notfred on November 30, 2006, at 20:59:22
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of notfreds post-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2006, at 20:53:38
You asked me not to post to you, so as I understand the rules here, by you putting my name in the subject this no longer holds.
Lou, please do not post to me.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 5:53:34
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of scott's post-, posted by gardenergirl on November 30, 2006, at 18:49:03
friends,
It is written here,[...they would be mistaken...] This is a response to,[...there could be IMO members to think that the forum is to get medical advice because the owner is a doctor...].
Regardless of any statements to the contrary in the FAQ, it is in my post what is IMO the >potential< for some others here {to think} that they could get medical advice.
The owner here offers guest >experts< on various |medical| topics. In the following case, a doctor, (Kramer), is given a forum to have members pose questions that are of medical importance to them , the member >seeking answers< from the expert. These answers could be written to not be accepted as fact in the FAQ, but regardless of that, the member is receiving an answer from a guest >expert<.
In the following, a member asks about the use of benzodiazepines for longer,I guess, than the PDR states. The guest expert posts the following which says that if the member needs a longer acting drug than Ambien (and Sonata), that they are not for that member and that [...benzos are wonderful,>safe<,and effective drugs...].
Now is there not the potential for some readers to give great credibility to the guest expert's statements about benzodiazepines?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020327/msgs/101368.html
Posted by SLS on December 1, 2006, at 6:21:20
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of scott's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on November 30, 2006, at 17:43:35
> It is written here,[...this (forum) is not a venue...for medical advice...].
> But could there be those that think that it is?.Yes. Let us say for the sake of debate that there are a few people who make this mistake.
What do you suggest that we should do about this?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 7:16:29
In reply to Lou's response to aspects gg's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 5:53:34
> friends,
> It is written here,[...they would be mistaken...] This is a response to,[...there could be IMO members to think that the forum is to get medical advice because the owner is a doctor...].
> Regardless of any statements to the contrary in the FAQ, it is in my post what is IMO the >potential< for some others here {to think} that they could get medical advice.
> The owner here offers guest >experts< on various |medical| topics. In the following case, a doctor, (Kramer), is given a forum to have members pose questions that are of medical importance to them , the member >seeking answers< from the expert. These answers could be written to not be accepted as fact in the FAQ, but regardless of that, the member is receiving an answer from a guest >expert<.
> In the following, a member asks about the use of benzodiazepines for longer,I guess, than the PDR states. The guest expert posts the following which says that if the member needs a longer acting drug than Ambien (and Sonata), that they are not for that member and that [...benzos are wonderful,>safe<,and effective drugs...].
> Now is there not the potential for some readers to give great credibility to the guest expert's statements about benzodiazepines?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020327/msgs/101368.htmlFriends,
In response further to gg's statement,[...they would be mistaken...], let us look at another offered statement from a guest expert provided by DR. Hsiung to the members her. Dr. Kramer answers questions from members seeking medical answers from him as an offered expert.. In the following, a member poses a question about Ambien to Dr. kramer. Dr. Kramer replies,[...there is >no< data that shows that long term use is a problem...]
But let us look at the facts drom {controlled clinical trials} from >sanofi aventis<.
The list of {problems}include >tolerance< and >dependence< and >withdrawal< and >changes in behavior and thinking<. These are not [...long-term problems |from data|?
Yet the doctor states that there is nodata that shows that long term use is a problem.
I ask;
Is there not the potential for some members to consider the statement by the guest expert to be fact and accept the statement if they do not do research on their own outside of after reading Dr. Kramer's statement that [...>there is {no} data< that shows that long term use is a problem...]?
Lou
PS1:here is the link to Dr. Kramer's statemnt
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020327/msgs/101376.html
pS2:here is the link to the data that shows the long term effects of Ambien from sanofi aventis
http://www.ambiencr.com/default.aspx?s=about&c=side_effects
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 9:27:15
In reply to Scott's question to Lou, posted by SLS on December 1, 2006, at 6:21:20
Friends,
It is written here,[...yes...there are a few people who make this {mistake}...].
But is it a {mistake} to >them< that are seeking medical infomation here?
In any reply , I am asking that the following be considered:
A. Does the owner/moderator play an active role in developing the information that was posted?
B. Does the owner/moderator have an editorial function?
C. Is there personal participation by the owner/moderator?
D. Are there assistants that have some instruction as to the operation of the site and have authority to sanction the content of the site?,(deputies),and act in the owner/moderator's behalf?
E. Can they also have an editorial function?
G. does the owner/moderator prohibit anyone, for any reason, to notify him to remove what the member considers to be defamatory posts about that member?
H. Has the forum's rules been made to accommodate the {less-confident member}, exclusivly, and no rules have been made to accommodate the ,let's say, {those that have a less-ability to remember member}? Could not a member that could be clasified as a {less-ability to remember member}forget that there is a statement from Dr. Hsiung that the forum is not for medical advise when they read statements from guest experts here as the one's cited and act upon those statements as {medical advice}?
K.other considerations not specified
Lou
Posted by Jost on December 1, 2006, at 11:28:09
In reply to Lou's response to Scott's question to Lou, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 9:27:15
Lou, I don't understand your last post as a response to Scott's question.
This was Scott's question:
" Yes. Let us say for the sake of debate that there are a few people who make this mistake [ie, think this is a venue for medical advice].
What do you suggest that we should do about this?"
Although your response follows Scott's question, and you call it a response in the header, I don't see how your post connects back to Scott's question.I myself have wondered at times about your view about question Scott asks.
Maybe you could address that concern directly, viz.:
1. What specific actions do you think should be taken if some people incorrectly believe that everything posted here is medical information approved by the administrator of the site?
2. Additionally, how much time would it take to accomplish those actions;
3. and I think finally, what would the effect be on the ongoing free interchange of members posting and reflecting upon one another's posts?
Thanks,
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 16:31:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Scott's question to Lou, posted by Jost on December 1, 2006, at 11:28:09
Friends,
It is written here,[...what actions do you think..be taken..some people..believe..medical infomation approved by the administrator of this site...?].
Any infomation offered here in a very broad sense could be considered IMO to be medical infomation by the overiding nature that this is a site for support and education involving mental health issues.
There could be direct medical posts about drugs and treatments, there could be medical infomation relative to psychiatric/psychological aspects or even the other boards such as the faith board or the eating board and the other boards which could be considered IMO to be part of the whole in mental health issues.
One way that infomation offered that could be considered to be false or misleading or have the potential to cause harm if the statement is followed, is for the forum to have the a symbol placed next to the statement in question that could cause harm and such. A hand with an open palm indicating to halt is one of my suggestions. That symbol could be made known to the forum to mean that what is posted there is not something that the medical profession endorses, so that caution is indicated. I think that Dr. Hsiung could do this himself and by having the {report this post feature} used by members that question the authority of the statement(s) in question. Another way would be for others to be allowed to post that they do not think that what is posted is what they believe to be true, personally to them, and be allowed to offer their perspective in the thread. If this sounds unusual, I could email to clarify this if you would like.
Another way could be that DR. Hsiung and also the deputies not be permitted to play a role in {developing} a topic. This could mean IMO that they could not >innitiate< a topic, or {advance} an idea presented. They would have a neutrality function. This could mean that they possibly could not be posting in any function except as a deputy.
There is much more to this...
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
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.