![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 73 to 97 of 154. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 21:39:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott-, posted by Jost on December 1, 2006, at 21:03:20
Friends,
It is written here,[...we benifit.. from.. those..who have had {good advice}...{If} everything was subject to being authorized by (Dr. Hsiung)..he may not be..we would lose...if we restricted what was possible to post here...].
It is not my intention to have a system incorperated here that could allow Dr. Hsiung to subject everything to his authorization, but to have him note something that is contrary to the accepted practice. This note, in the form of a symbol of a hand raising caution, only alerts a statement to have the potential to be contraindicated according to known parameters. An example could be if someone posted that they advocate drinking beer while taking a benzodiazepine.
By posting the symbol, caution does not mean that the post is restricted, but that the post could be of the nature of advocating a harmful, or even life-threatening combination. As to knowing if the advice that one has is {good}, could not the symbol make that determination?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on December 1, 2006, at 21:42:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Jost's post-gdadvic, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 21:39:43
Gee funny for about 20 some odd years I drank beer nightly and my pdoc knew and took xanax or valium and he said it was okay. There wasn't an internet then. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on December 1, 2006, at 21:43:27
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Jost's post-gdadvic, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 21:39:43
Gee funny for about 20 some odd years I drank beer nightly and my pdoc knew and took xanax or valium and he said it was okay. There wasn't an internet then. Love Phillipa ps I didn't stop breathing or end up in the hospital
Posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 6:45:43
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Jost's post-gdadvic, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2006, at 21:39:43
> It is not my intention to have a system incorperated here that could allow Dr. Hsiung to subject everything to his authorization, but to have him note something that is contrary to the accepted practice.
> This note, in the form of a symbol of a hand raising caution, only alerts a statement to have the potential to be contraindicated according to known parameters. An example could be if someone posted that they advocate drinking beer while taking a benzodiazepine.
> By posting the symbol, caution does not mean that the post is restricted, but that the post could be of the nature of advocating a harmful, or even life-threatening combination. As to knowing if the advice that one has is {good}, could not the symbol make that determination?
That sounds like a noble idea, and has its appeal. Again, the problem arises in that we would be fostering the editing of posts by allowing the commentary that comes in the meaning behind the use of such symbols. And again, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Bob, or any other single MD, possesses enough knowledge and understanding to review and certify the safety of all drug combinations in a forum where novel treatment strategies are discussed.
It would be interesting to get some feedback from Dr. Bob on this.
I don't know, Lou. There are a few drug / substance combinations that are indeed dangerous. It would be good to insure safety. Fortunately, the participants on Psycho-Babble are rather vigilent about watching for such things and regularly post appropriate comments.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 7:22:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Jost's post-gdadv, posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 6:45:43
Scott,
you wrote,[...sounds like a noble idea..problem..editing of posts..I don't think..that.. (DR. Hsiung)..possesses enough knowlege..certify the safety of all drug combinations...{it would be good to insure safety}..participants.. post..comments...]
To edit could mean a lot of things, such as to delete. But it is not my intention to have a deletion to a post, but to have a cautionary symbol placed with the statement in question that could have the potntial cause harm to those who could be catagorized as {the less-likely to question a drug combination} member. I gave the example of the use of alcohol with benzodiazepines. In my suggestion to Dr. Hsiung here, he could post a link to give credibility to his cautionary symbol, in this case such as under the heading in the link,{...Precautions While Using This Medicine...};
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202084.html
I find no fault with posting a link from experts in a field of concern that others could research on their own. Would it not be good for the community as a whole to have the moderator, who is an expert, post a cautionary symbol to perhaps have the potential to save lives? And has not Dr. Hsiung made a rule to accommodate the {less confident} poster, so could it not be reasonable to accommodate the {less-likely to question a drug combination} member?
Lou
Posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 8:55:12
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of Scott's post-nobida, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 7:22:18
> Scott,
> you wrote,[...sounds like a noble idea..problem..editing of posts..I don't think..that.. (DR. Hsiung)..possesses enough knowlege..certify the safety of all drug combinations...{it would be good to insure safety}..participants.. post..comments...]
> To edit could mean a lot of things, such as to delete. But it is not my intention to have a deletion to a post, but to have a cautionary symbol placed with the statement in question that could have the potntial cause harm to those who could be catagorized as {the less-likely to question a drug combination} member. I gave the example of the use of alcohol with benzodiazepines. In my suggestion to Dr. Hsiung here, he could post a link to give credibility to his cautionary symbol, in this case such as under the heading in the link,{...Precautions While Using This Medicine...};
> www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202084.html
> I find no fault with posting a link from experts in a field of concern that others could research on their own. Would it not be good for the community as a whole to have the moderator, who is an expert, post a cautionary symbol to perhaps have the potential to save lives? And has not Dr. Hsiung made a rule to accommodate the {less confident} poster, so could it not be reasonable to accommodate the {less-likely to question a drug combination} member?
Interesting ideas, Lou. I'm not sure they are practicable, though.I consider adding a symbol a form of editing.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 10:29:12
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to aspects of Scott's post-nobida, posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 8:55:12
Scott,
You wrote,[...interesting ideas,Lou..practicable?..symbol..a form of editing...]. A symbol to show caution could be implemented here, as a symbol to show that a poster is a new member has a symbol to show that. A red or orange symbol could be used instead of the hand symbol. Other symbols could be used also.
An edit could be of many natures. But the caution symbol is to indicate, not to delete or modify the words in a statement. An administrative note could also be posted, which is another form of editing. But the administrative note,{please be civil} is also an edit. Could not an administrative note that could caution about the dangers of a post's statement be at least just as important and relevant here as the {please be civil} edit?
Lou
Posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 11:27:35
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of Scott's post-intidas » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 10:29:12
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...interesting ideas,Lou..practicable?..symbol..a form of editing...]. A symbol to show caution could be implemented here, as a symbol to show that a poster is a new member has a symbol to show that. A red or orange symbol could be used instead of the hand symbol. Other symbols could be used also.
> An edit could be of many natures. But the caution symbol is to indicate, not to delete or modify the words in a statement. An administrative note could also be posted, which is another form of editing. But the administrative note,{please be civil} is also an edit. Could not an administrative note that could caution about the dangers of a post's statement be at least just as important and relevant here as the {please be civil} edit?
I am currently against the idea of "flagging" posts in the manner you suggest. However, I would be interested to know what others think.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 11:43:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to aspects of Scott's post-intidas, posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 11:27:35
Scott,
You wrote,[...against..flagging..(as) you suggest...].
If you are against the symbol,are you also against having the green indicator to show that the poster is a new member? If not, could you list what your differences could be that could have you endorse the one symbol, if you are against the other symbol? If you could, then I could have the opprunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 12:31:57
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of Scott's post-agflag » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 11:43:50
Lou, what you're suggesting would establish a different sort of relationship with the board than Dr. Bob currently has. And he has been utterly clear that he's not interested in establishing that sort of relationship.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 13:46:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to aspects of Scott's post-agflag, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 12:31:57
Dinah,
You wrote,[...your suggestion could establish a different relationship...he's(Dr. Hsiung) not interested...].
If my suggestion could establish a different relationship, could my suggestion also {not} establish a different relationship?If an edit writes,{please be civil},and if an edit is used to indicate that the poster is a new member, how in your opinion, could an edit that is a symbol that indicates caution about something posted that could have the potential to kill someone or cause harm to someone be a {different} relationship and if so, why would ,in your opinion, you think that DR. Hsiung would be against the use of the edit in relation to the symbol for caution? If you could clarify this, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 14:29:04
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 13:46:32
Because the new poster notification is an administrative function, for one, and is done automatically by the computer, for another.
It has nothing to do with what you're proposing.
You're proposing that Dr. Bob establish a relationship with the board where he effectively gives medical advice. He's not going to do that. I wouldn't do that. His role here is strictly administrative. He's made that more than clear.
That's really all I have to say about it. I can't be any more clear than that. I don't know how.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 15:08:09
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 14:29:04
Friends,
Dinah has replied to me with something like that I am proposing that Dr. Hsiung establish a relationship with the board where he gives medical advice.
Let us look at the facts. I am suggesting that DR. Hsiung place a symbol in the thread where statements that offer, let's say for example, drug combinations that could have the potential to harm of even cause the death of a person to be notated in some way that the medical profession does not endorse the combination of drugs advocated. One example could be if a poster advocated drinking alcohol while taking a benzodiazepine. DR. Hsiung could also post an administrative comment with the symbol.
The question here now, is if Dr. Hsiung was going to implement my suggestion on the board, would he be [...giving medical advice...]?
The concept of giving medical advice could be understood in many ways. I think that to notate that taking a combination of drugs that a member posts to take, that could have the potential to cause someone to die, is not IMO giving medical advice , but clarifying that there is danger in the taking of the combination in question.
There are many web sites that list the adverse reactions of combinations of drugs and I do not see any mention that they are giving medical advice. The government offers liturature about the harmfull effects and possible death by taking various combinations of drugs and I have not seen where the government has been accused of giving medical advice.
Teachers of health related subjects tell their students about the potential for death from taking various combinations of drugs.There are other doctors that have web sites that warn their readers about the harmfull effects of some combinations of drugs. I have not seen any claim that they are giving medical advice by republishing the PDR's section on such or posting the manufacturers liturature for such. I think that medical advice is different from posting common knowlege available on the internet.
DR. Hsiung has also posted that he may ask someone here about their feelings if they ask another to please not post to them and has posted that he does not think that he is establishing a psychiatric relationship if he was to do that.
Dr. Hsiung offers expert's opinions about medical issues here. And does he not receive the questions first and then forward them to the expert? If so, is this not establishing a >vicarious< relationship? If not, could anyone here post why not? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 15:18:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 14:29:04
.
>His role here is strictly administrative.No not strictly. He has assumed the role of protecting posters by not allowing the posting of sources of drugs that are not permitted by the FDA. He has made the judgement that descriptions of suicide methods or fatal dosages of drugs may not be posted. He has all ready assumed a role as gatekeeper for the posts which are allowed here based on his professional judgement regarding safety and legality.
I believe he should limit posters to describing their own experiences rather than offering diagnosis or treatment suggestions for other posters.
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 16:13:36
In reply to Role NOT strictly administrative, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 15:18:19
What you're proposing is a rule change, which would fall under administrating.
What Lou is proposing is that Dr. Bob look over every post and judge the medical wisdom of it. That would not fall under administrating.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 16:16:04
In reply to Role NOT strictly administrative, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 15:18:19
> .
> >His role here is strictly administrative.
>
> No not strictly. He has assumed the role of protecting posters by not allowing the posting of sources of drugs that are not permitted by the FDA. He has made the judgement that descriptions of suicide methods or fatal dosages of drugs may not be posted. He has all ready assumed a role as gatekeeper for the posts which are allowed here based on his professional judgement regarding safety and legality.
>
> I believe he should limit posters to describing their own experiences rather than offering diagnosis or treatment suggestions for other posters.
>
Friends,
It is written above,[...No..protecting posters..limit posters..describeing their own experiance rather than offering diagnosis and treatment suggestions...].
One of the questions surrounding this discussion is if Dr.Hsiung would be giving medical advice if he notated that posts that offer a combination of drugs that could be fatal or harmfull is not endorsed by the medical profession. Another aspect of the discussion is if Dr. Hsiung did take my suggestion and implement it on the forum, would he be establishing a different relationship that he does not want to establish.
If we examine ZZduk's post here, we see that she/he has pointed out that there are things that DR. Hsiung already does on the forum that ZZDuk thinks constitutes that Dr. Hsiung's role on the forum is {not} strictly administartive by the examples above.
Then ZZDuk advocates that posters be limited to posting their own experiances rather than offering to others their diagnosis and/or treatment suggestions.
I find thisIMO to be a logical observation by ZZDuk. And I think that it carries to that if Dr. Hsiung was to notate harmfull examples of drug combinations as being not accepted by the medical community, that that would not IMO be giving medical advice or going outside his role here. I think that if he did implement my suggestion, that some harm could have the potential to be averted and that ZZDuk's suggestion goes along with my thinking about {protecting posters}.
Lou>
>
>
Posted by notfred on December 2, 2006, at 16:44:41
In reply to Role NOT strictly administrative, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 15:18:19
> .
> >His role here is strictly administrative.
>
> No not strictly. He has assumed the role of protecting posters by not allowing the posting of sources of drugs that are not permitted by the FDA. He has made the judgement that descriptions of suicide methods or fatal dosages of drugs may not be posted. He has all ready assumed a role as gatekeeper for the posts which are allowed here based on his professional judgement regarding safety and legality.
>
The above are all enforcement of the published rules for this board. Thats administration.If you want a medical doctor for medical advise, don't expect just because someone has a MD after their name that that can or will offer you medical advice on line.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 17:00:39
In reply to Re: Role NOT strictly administrative » zazenduckie, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 16:13:36
Friends,
It is written here,[...Lou is proposing..Dr Hsiung..judge medical wisdom...not administarative..],[...ZZD is proposing a rule change ...is administrative...].
One aspect of this discussion if that there is that Dinah has posted that the role of Dr. Hsiung is strictly administartive. ZZD has posted that Dr. Hsiung's role ,in her/his opinion, is not strictly administrative. I think that it is self-evident that Dr. Hsiung has rules to protect the members such as to not post to advocate harm. As to if this is administrative or not, the rule is good to have to prevent others from following someone's advice to harm themselves or others.
My concern is the same as Dr. Hsiung's concern that I would like the forum to be administered so that posts that could have the potential IMO for others to emulate that could result in harm or death, have some kind of notation as I have posted here. ZZDuk has offered her/his opinion that posts of the nature that offer diagnosis or treatment be restrained. This could be a rule change, and I think that it could be a {good change}. In both of our concerns, the overiding concern is to have the implementations to protect the members here. I ask, what harm could there be in implementing ZZD's suggestion or mine?
Lou
Posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 17:02:36
In reply to Re: Role NOT strictly administrative » zazenduckie, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 16:13:36
>
> What Lou is proposing is that Dr. Bob look over every post and judge the medical wisdom of it. That would not fall under administratingWhat I am proposing is different. I am proposing that neither Dr Bob NOR posters provide diagnosis or treatment advice for the posters here. I think diagnosis and prescribing is not a proper function of anyone here whether MD or not.
Posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 17:16:57
In reply to Re: Role NOT strictly administrative, posted by notfred on December 2, 2006, at 16:44:41
> >
>
>
> The above are all enforcement of the published rules for this board. Thats administration.
Yes but he also owns the board and makes those rules and interprets them and enforces them. And is responsible for what results from those rules.
>
> If you want a medical doctor for medical advise, don't expect just because someone has a MD after their name that that can or will offer you medical advice on line.
Yes I agree. But more important people without a degree must be stopped from dispensing medical advice and prescribing for other people who are using the board. I believe rather than a warning as in Lou's proposal, all such posts should be removed from the board immediately. I believe the danger to be such that all archives should be removed immediately and if Bob wants to go through and decide which are consistent with the new standard and restore them that's his choice. It wouldn't really seem worth the trouble to me.Lou's proposal would be much more difficult to implement although it would also be an improvement over the present system.
Public safety requires action to be taken and it is Bob's responsibility entirely as he is sole owner and administrator.
:)
Posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2006, at 17:25:08
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-goodchnge, posted by Lou Pilder on December 2, 2006, at 17:00:39
> I ask, what harm could there be in implementing ZZD's suggestion or mine?
I sure would hate to be someone who wrote a post that got a "hand" flag on it. That might feel to me like a badge of shame.
I really like how the members of the community chime in with cautions, corrections, and reminders that "your mileage might vary" and check with your doc, etc. It increases the feeling of safety here for me.
gg
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 17:43:30
In reply to Bob is responsible for public safety on Babble, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 17:16:57
Not quite sure how people can prescribe here. Since no one can dispense drugs, the most they can do is suggest things to suggest to pdocs. It's up to the pdoc in the end to prescribe.
I've had advice offered before on Babble. I took the advice to my pdoc. Sometimes he thought it was a good idea, other times not. At all times the administration of the drug was overseen by the pdoc.
I'm *glad* the advice was offered. Sometimes it might have been something my pdoc hadn't considered but thought was worth a try. And the last time my pdoc seemed like he thought it should have been done long ago. Don't know why he didn't mention it himself, but he didn't.
People come here and ask for opinions or information. They don't come here to be prescribed and diagnosed, and I can't imagine they think they can be, since there's no Babble pharmacy and my pharmacy sure as heck isn't going to hand out drugs from a post.
Posted by Jost on December 2, 2006, at 17:47:27
In reply to Bob is responsible for public safety on Babble, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 17:16:57
No one is giving medical advice in the capacity of a physician.
Since we are all presumed not to be physicians, and we are all notified to be cautious in our approach to information here, we can be assumed to be on our own recognizance as posters and participants.
Nor is anyone prescribing here. Clearly no one has written any prescriptions.
I think that if you, Zazenduckie, feel that this is a dangerous place for you, you can precautions such as you find advisable.
If you think there's mistaken or overstated advice given, I hope you'll advise people in that thread of your information.
I don't think this is a dangerous place. Rather I find it exceptionally helpful and a rare resource.
Jost
PS I'm not in favor of flagging all posts (either actively or passively by the presence of absence of any symbol or icon) as to any quality therein.
Posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 18:06:00
In reply to Re: Bob is responsible for public safety on Babble, posted by Jost on December 2, 2006, at 17:47:27
> No one is giving medical advice in the capacity of a physician.
Precisesly. They are giving medical advice with no credentials at all.
>
> Since we are all presumed not to be physicians, and we are all notified to be cautious in our approach to information here, we can be assumed to be on our own recognizance as posters and participants.You can assume anything I suppose.
>
> Nor is anyone prescribing here. Clearly no one has written any prescriptions.No no one has written any prescriptions. Did you think that was what I meant? No. I meant giving directions about what drugs or herbals to take without necessarily giving instructions for how to obtain it.
>
> I think that if you, Zazenduckie, feel that this is a dangerous place for you, you can precautions such as you find advisable.I am interested in public safety. I believe speaking up is the responsible thing to do.
>
> If you think there's mistaken or overstated advice given, I hope you'll advise people in that thread of your information.I don't feel competent to give medical advice even to counter some one else's errors. I am troubled that there is no where to report public safety concerns about the board. The only authority is Dr Bob. There is no outside oversight and no where to go to report potentially dangerous posts or situations as Bob chooses not to intervene.
>
>
>
Posted by SLS on December 2, 2006, at 19:37:12
In reply to Bob is responsible for public safety on Babble, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 17:16:57
> > If you want a medical doctor for medical advise, don't expect just because someone has a MD after their name that that can or will offer you medical advice on line.
> Yes I agree. But more important people without a degree must be stopped from dispensing medical advice and prescribing for other people who are using the board.Why must they be stopped?
> I believe rather than a warning as in Lou's proposal, all such posts should be removed from the board immediately. I believe the danger to be such that all archives should be removed immediately
What has brought you to believe that there is any danger at all?
> Public safety requires action to be takenIs your concern theoretical or have you evidence of harm being done?
At the moment, I do not share your concerns. I am unaware of harm being done. Psycho-Babble seems to work. If anything, Psycho-Babble acts as a clearinghouse of information to help promote safety. I have seen it act to catch medical errors on more than one occasion.
- Scott
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.