![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 85 to 109 of 154. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by notfred on December 3, 2006, at 0:56:14
In reply to Re: Role NOT strictly administrative, posted by zazenduckie on December 2, 2006, at 17:02:36
>
> What 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.
>
>If people here are taking what lay people say to be a medical diagnosis then the problem lies with them.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2006, at 6:23:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-goodchnge, posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2006, at 17:25:08
Friends,
It is written here,[...That might feel to me like a >badge of shame<...]. This was in response to my posting the question to the forum as to what harm could there be if my suggestion or ZZDuk's suggestion was implemented here.
The phrase,>badge of shame<, has historical origins that remind me of the horrors of Nazism. The deputy administrator as member continues to write,[...I really like how members of the community chime in...]. If you are considereing to foster the use of the phrase,>badge of shame< here, could you consider my feelings before you post anything to reimnforce the phrase, if you are going to do so?
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 7:25:29
In reply to Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2006, at 6:23:13
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...That might feel to me like a >badge of shame<...]. This was in response to my posting the question to the forum as to what harm could there be if my suggestion or ZZDuk's suggestion was implemented here.
> The phrase,>badge of shame<, has historical origins that remind me of the horrors of Nazism. The deputy administrator as member continues to write,[...I really like how members of the community chime in...]. If you are considereing to foster the use of the phrase,>badge of shame< here, could you consider my feelings before you post anything to reimnforce the phrase, if you are going to do so?
As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.However, with respect to Jews, an official "Badge of Shame" was imposed:
"1215 - Fourth Lateran Council institutes the "Badge of Shame", a mark that all Jews are required to wear to distinguish themselves from Christians, and decrees that Jews shall not be seen in public on Good Friday. Fernando III, with the archbishop of Toledo, appeal to the Pope on behalf of the Iberian Jews. The pope, Honorius II, suspends the decision."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_occupation_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula
I doubt very many people would know this fact. Even so, the generic use of the term is well established, and I do not feel that GG showed any lack of sensitivity for using it.
- Scott
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:02:43
In reply to Re: Bob is responsible for public safety on Babble, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2006, at 17:43:30
1. to lay down, in writing or otherwise, as a rule or a course of action to be followed; appoint, ordain, or enjoin.
2. Medicine/Medical. to designate or order the use of (a medicine, remedy, treatment, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
3. to lay down rules; direct; dictate.
4. Medicine/Medical. to designate remedies, treatment, etc., to be used.Dictionary.com
I don't think it has anything to do with dispensing drugs. There are many ways to obtain drugs besides earnest conversation with one's physician. Online ordering is frequently mentioned here, recombining drugs all ready in ones possession, making opioid tea from poppy pods(recipe available on babble),doctor shopping, buying them on the street.
I do see prescribing being done here as defined above.
> 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 zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:20:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 7:25:29
>
>
> As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.There is a similiar controversey with animal rights groups using the term "holocaust" for the plight of endangered animals. I think some terms should not be allowed to become generic and acceptable.
http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/holocaust_imagery.asp
I have enormous sympathy for animals but the use of that term for what is happening to them is repugnant.
In the same way I am sensitive to people's wish not to be embarassed. But I suggest that a caution about someone's advice on an internet forum is in no way comparable to a "badge of shame". And to use the term generically is not something I would find to be a positive thing.
>
> However, with respect to Jews, an official "Badge of Shame" was imposed:
>
> "1215 - Fourth Lateran Council institutes the "Badge of Shame", a mark that all Jews are required to wear to distinguish themselves from Christians, and decrees that Jews shall not be seen in public on Good Friday. Fernando III, with the archbishop of Toledo, appeal to the Pope on behalf of the Iberian Jews. The pope, Honorius II, suspends the decision."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_occupation_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula
>
> I doubt very many people would know this fact. Even so, the generic use of the term is well established, and I do not feel that GG showed any lack of sensitivity for using it.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:25:27
In reply to Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame, posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2006, at 6:23:13
Lou are you offended when I post Merry Christmas?
I wondered that after I posted it last week.
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2006, at 12:00:16
In reply to How people can prescribe here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:02:43
Then, IMO, those things would be the problem, not Babble. Not all Babblers do those things, and there's no evidence to suggest that those who do those things wouldn't do so without Babble.
But my opinions aren't really intense enough to wish to continue to debate the topic.
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 12:27:37
In reply to Re: How people can prescribe here » zazenduckie, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2006, at 12:00:16
> Then, IMO, those things would be the problem, not Babble. Not all Babblers do those things, and there's no evidence to suggest that those who do those things wouldn't do so without Babble.
Obviously they wouldn't be following treatment regimens prescribed by other Babbler posters without Babble.There's not any evidence about anything really at Babble but Bob can't suspend the rules of logic!
Posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 12:52:43
In reply to Generic use of badge of shame » SLS, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:20:01
> > As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.
> There is a similiar controversey with animal rights groups using the term "holocaust" for the plight of endangered animals. I think some terms should not be allowed to become generic and acceptable.Did the word "holocaust" exist prior to the 1930s?
> In the same way I am sensitive to people's wish not to be embarassed. But I suggest that a caution about someone's advice on an internet forum is in no way comparable to a "badge of shame". And to use the term generically is not something I would find to be a positive thing.In my ignorance, I would never have given the term a second thought. I did not recognize it as being associated with a particular group of people. I am still conflicted over its use. It is an effective term for which the use of the historic allusion might be appropriate.
- Scott
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:09:36
In reply to Re: Generic use of badge of shame » zazenduckie, posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 12:52:43
> > > As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.
>
> > There is a similiar controversey with animal rights groups using the term "holocaust" for the plight of endangered animals. I think some terms should not be allowed to become generic and acceptable.
>
> Did the word "holocaust" exist prior to the 1930s?
HOLOCAUST
Definition from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, volume 2 from Macmillan Publishing
HOLOCAUST (Heb., sho'ah). The word "holocaust" is derived from the Greek holokauston, which originally meant a sacrifice totally burned by fire; it was used in the translation of I Samuel 7:9, "a burnt offering to God." In the course of time it came to be used to describe slaughter on a general or large scale, and, especially, various forms of the destruction of masses of human beings. In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. The mass extermination of Jews has become the archetype of GENOCIDE, and the terms sho'ah and "holocaust" have become linked to the attempt by the Nazi German state to destroy European Jewry during World War II.
The use of the Hebrew word sho'ah to denote the destruction of Jews in Europe during the war appeared for the first time in the booklet Sho'at Yehudei Polin (The Holocaust of the Jews of Poland), published by the United Aid Committee for the Jews of Poland, in Jerusalem in 1940. The booklet contains reports and articles on the persecution of Jews in eastern Europe from the beginning of the war, written or verbally reported by eyewitnesses, among them several leaders of Polish Jewry. Up to the spring of 1942, however, the term was rarely used. The Hebrew term that was first used, spontaneously, was hurban (lit., "destruction"), similar in meaning to "catastrophe," with its historical Jewish meaning deriving from the destruction of the Temple. It was only when leaders of the Zionist movement and writers and thinkers in Palestine began to express themselves on the destruction of European Jewry that the Hebrew term sho'ah became widely used. It was still far from being in general use, even after the November 1942 declaration of the Jewish Agency that a sho'ah was taking place. One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of 1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world.
King James Bible: I Samuel 7:0 7:9 And Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered [it for] a burnt offering wholly unto the LORD: and Samuel cried unto the LORD for Israel; and the LORD heard him.
Definition from Yad VaShem web site:
> > In the same way I am sensitive to people's wish not to be embarassed. But I suggest that a caution about someone's advice on an internet forum is in no way comparable to a "badge of shame". And to use the term generically is not something I would find to be a positive thing.
>
> In my ignorance, I would never have given the term a second thought. I did not recognize it as being associated with a particular group of people. I am still conflicted over its use. It is an effective term for which the use of the historic allusion might be appropriate.Scott I wouldn't have either at one time. Lou has made me a lot more sensitive to things like that.
Frankly when I first saw the phrase used here I was uneasy. I thought of the Yellow Star of David badges the Jews were forced to wear in the Nazi era. And that apparently wasn't even the origin of the phrase although it seems to echo what went before. I think some words have so much history that even if some one is not totally conscious of that history there is a sort of second message they carry with them-if that makes any sense.>
> - Scott
Posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:31:27
In reply to How people can prescribe here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:02:43
I see a lot of what you are describing on the drug board myself.
There is a lot of really really really bad advice on that board - and the alternative board as well.
I also think there some people on that board that just flat out do not know what they are talking about at all.
Posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:37:31
In reply to Re: How people can prescribe here » zazenduckie, posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 18:31:27
I don't want anyone to be insulted by my previous statement that some people might not know what they are talking about on the babble board. If I could retract that I would, but suffice it to say, I would definately put myself in that category sometimes too.
Everyone brings something to the table.
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.