|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks, that does sound interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've always wondered why we hold pharma and traditional medicine to one standard and alternative medicine to another. For example, if someone said to you a big drug company was about to release a drug that wasn't proven safe or effective and would be given even though there was solid scientific evidence another form of treatment was safe and effective... well... there would be hell to pay. And yet, that's exactly the free pass alternative medicine gets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| I've always wondered why we hold pharma and traditional medicine to one standard and alternative medicine to another. For example, if someone said to you a big drug company was about to release a drug that wasn't proven safe or effective and would be given even though there was solid scientific evidence another form of treatment was safe and effective... well... there would be hell to pay. And yet, that's exactly the free pass alternative medicine gets. |
How are you defining alternative medicine? A whole lot of practices get lumped into that category, and it would be impractical for governments to step in and regulate them all. But I definitely think we have to be very skeptical of alternative practitioners and treatments, as well as medical doctors and drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| I've always wondered why we hold pharma and traditional medicine to one standard and alternative medicine to another. For example, if someone said to you a big drug company was about to release a drug that wasn't proven safe or effective and would be given even though there was solid scientific evidence another form of treatment was safe and effective... well... there would be hell to pay. And yet, that's exactly the free pass alternative medicine gets. |
How are you defining alternative medicine? A whole lot of practices get lumped into that category, and it would be impractical for governments to step in and regulate them all. But I definitely think we have to be very skeptical of alternative practitioners and treatments, as well as medical doctors and drugs. |
A fair question. For sake of argument, let's pick homeopathy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| I've always wondered why we hold pharma and traditional medicine to one standard and alternative medicine to another. For example, if someone said to you a big drug company was about to release a drug that wasn't proven safe or effective and would be given even though there was solid scientific evidence another form of treatment was safe and effective... well... there would be hell to pay. And yet, that's exactly the free pass alternative medicine gets. |
How are you defining alternative medicine? A whole lot of practices get lumped into that category, and it would be impractical for governments to step in and regulate them all. But I definitely think we have to be very skeptical of alternative practitioners and treatments, as well as medical doctors and drugs. |
A fair question. For sake of argument, let's pick homeopathy. |
I don't trust homeopathy and probably wouldn't bother with it myself -- but the potential for harm from a homeopathic remedy seems much smaller than the potential for harm from medical drugs. I guess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of restricting people's freedom unnecessarily ... if these remedies aren't going to kill anyone (and it seems unlikely in this case), why should the government get involved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
I don't trust homeopathy and probably wouldn't bother with it myself -- but the potential for harm from a homeopathic remedy seems much smaller than the potential for harm from medical drugs. I guess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of restricting people's freedom unnecessarily ... if these remedies aren't going to kill anyone (and it seems unlikely in this case), why should the government get involved? |
If a doctor tells a person they don't need, say, an operation to remove a lung tumor but can have their cancer cured via homeopathy and then they die, should that doctor be allowed to practise medicine?
That aside, consider the outrage if a big pharma company was marketing a sugar pill as an effective cancer treatment. However, there is no such prohibition against someone from marketing shark cartilage as a natural treatment for cancer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| I don't trust homeopathy and probably wouldn't bother with it myself -- but the potential for harm from a homeopathic remedy seems much smaller than the potential for harm from medical drugs. I guess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of restricting people's freedom unnecessarily ... if these remedies aren't going to kill anyone (and it seems unlikely in this case), why should the government get involved? |
Just speaking from personal experience here, I still have scarring from my hippy aunt attempting to treat a skin infection via homeopathy when I was ten. The infection actually became so serious that other complications became a possibility. Of course, when I was finally taken to a real doctor penicillin cleared it up in a couple of days. Still have the scars though.
So yeah, useless 'medicine' can be just as dangerous as no treatment at all. Maybe that's fine for adults, but for children? I'd say it's bordering on abuse/negligence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| I don't trust homeopathy and probably wouldn't bother with it myself -- but the potential for harm from a homeopathic remedy seems much smaller than the potential for harm from medical drugs. I guess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of restricting people's freedom unnecessarily ... if these remedies aren't going to kill anyone (and it seems unlikely in this case), why should the government get involved? |
Just speaking from personal experience here, I still have scarring from my hippy aunt attempting to treat a skin infection via homeopathy when I was ten. The infection actually became so serious that other complications became a possibility. Of course, when I was finally taken to a real doctor penicillin cleared it up in a couple of days. Still have the scars though.
So yeah, useless 'medicine' can be just as dangerous as no treatment at all. Maybe that's fine for adults, but for children? I'd say it's bordering on abuse/negligence. |
Useless medicine can be very, very dangerous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
I don't trust homeopathy and probably wouldn't bother with it myself -- but the potential for harm from a homeopathic remedy seems much smaller than the potential for harm from medical drugs. I guess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of restricting people's freedom unnecessarily ... if these remedies aren't going to kill anyone (and it seems unlikely in this case), why should the government get involved? |
If a doctor tells a person they don't need, say, an operation to remove a lung tumor but can have their cancer cured via homeopathy and then they die, should that doctor be allowed to practise medicine?
That aside, consider the outrage if a big pharma company was marketing a sugar pill as an effective cancer treatment. However, there is no such prohibition against someone from marketing shark cartilage as a natural treatment for cancer. |
I'm against shark cartilage, and I'm sure there are laws that restrict the kinds of claims people can make about such products. If the laws are too sweeping, though, people won't have the freedom to make their own choices after carefully researching the issues. Should the police clear store shelves of all herbs, foods and supplements that may (or may not) eventually be found to have druglike effects? If some people decide potatoes are magic foods, should we ban potatoes to protect consumers from their own stupidity?
Drs. Esselstyn, McDougall and Barnard (see links above) have helped people overcome serious health problems by helping them change their lifestyles. They've saved people from having to take unnecessary drugs and go through unnecessary surgery. I don't know if there's a way for society to punish the doctor in your example without risking the possibility that the wrong doctors may also be punished -- including many who have proven themselves far more credible and trustworthy than the vast majority of their peers. Do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| I don't trust homeopathy and probably wouldn't bother with it myself -- but the potential for harm from a homeopathic remedy seems much smaller than the potential for harm from medical drugs. I guess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of restricting people's freedom unnecessarily ... if these remedies aren't going to kill anyone (and it seems unlikely in this case), why should the government get involved? |
Just speaking from personal experience here, I still have scarring from my hippy aunt attempting to treat a skin infection via homeopathy when I was ten. The infection actually became so serious that other complications became a possibility. Of course, when I was finally taken to a real doctor penicillin cleared it up in a couple of days. Still have the scars though.
So yeah, useless 'medicine' can be just as dangerous as no treatment at all. Maybe that's fine for adults, but for children? I'd say it's bordering on abuse/negligence. |
What I meant before is that the ingredients in homeopathic remedies are unlikely to cause serious adverse effects -- unlike medical drugs, which can be fatal when they're not used correctly (and sometimes even when they are). I wasn't addressing the issue of what happens when illnesses aren't treated. In your case, it sounds as if your condition was more serious than your aunt thought. If your symptoms were bad enough, then maybe she was guilty of negligence -- I can't say for sure. But people do have some freedom in deciding whether to subject their children to medical treatments, especially when the results of either choice aren't 100 percent predictable. Some people do recover from skin conditions without treatment, and some people have fatal reactions to antibiotics.
(I'm not necessarily defending homeopathy here; as I said before, I don't trust it. I'm just not sure the government needs to step in and put a stop to it.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| I think Monsanto is the most evil entity in the world today, and I'm deadly serious. |
I'll second this.
If they were around in the middle ages they'd have been the ones killing as many herbalists & healers as they could get their hands on.
The more things change ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
What I meant before is that the ingredients in homeopathic remedies are unlikely to cause serious adverse effects -- unlike medical drugs, which can be fatal when they're not used correctly (and sometimes even when they are). |
The key is drug companies are required to market products that are both safe and effective. A sugar pill is certainly safe, albeit not effective if one is told it is effective to treat, say, a high fever. It is certainly harmful to take it thinking it is effective and eschewing, say, ASA. I would think a drug company would be drawn and quartered if it marketed ineffective meds, no matter how safe, especially if there is an effective alternative.
My point is drug companies are held to that high standard but then the so-called alternative medicine crowd simply isn't. And lets not pretend alternative medicine doesn't have its own political lobbyists and marketing people. Congress doesn't give alternative medicine millions and millions of dollars a year out of a random act of kindness. I would much rather have tax dollars going to research treatments for AIDS instead of going to research therapeutic touch which will never be held to double blind trials to establish its effectiveness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if a drug company marketed a new wonder-drug and it turned out to be a sugar pill, that would involve blatant deception and fraud. It would be a criminal act. Do you really want to make criminals out of all practitioners of alternative medicine? People have the ability to think for themselves, educate themselves and make their own decisions. I personally am skeptical of most of what gets touted as alternative medicine, but I would never be arrogant enough to dismiss all of it.
As far as tax dollars go, I'd rather see governments invest more in creating healthy conditions for their citizens -- eradicating poverty would be a nice step, cleaning up pollution would be another, and promoting plant-based diets high in fruit and vegetables would be another. You also mentioned breastfeeding earlier ... I wonder how many babies died or developed serious illnesses over the past few decades because doctors and hospitals pushed formula as an equally nutritious or even superior substitute for human milk? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
So what would you call this?
Is this "alternative" or just something else?
http://oceanplasma.org/English/frames.html
also:
http://www.truthquest2.com/oceanplasma.htm
I don't have any experience with this, good or bad, but I do find it interesting.
Having had 3 members of my immediate family die of various types of cancer, while the traditional approaches to treatment only made them sicker, I am interested in exploring the alternatives and I don't think the government or anyone else should have the right to prevent people from trying different approaches. Especially since the failure rate of chemotherapy and radiation are so high.
Also interesting reading:
http://darrendixon.supanet.com/deathbydoctoring.htm
I have friends who have been helped by homeopathic treatments, they weren't suffering from serious conditions though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Well, if a drug company marketed a new wonder-drug and it turned out to be a sugar pill, that would involve blatant deception and fraud. It would be a criminal act. Do you really want to make criminals out of all practitioners of alternative medicine? People have the ability to think for themselves, educate themselves and make their own decisions. I personally am skeptical of most of what gets touted as alternative medicine, but I would never be arrogant enough to dismiss all of it. |
Regardless of intent, drug companies are held to a very high standard, one which the alternative medicine crowd is not. When chasing profits, it's very easy, in non double blind trials, to see effects where effects don't exist. This is why drug companies have very strict testing protocols. Do you really think homeopaths get into the biz for reason other than making money? Would drug companies do expensive clinical trials if they, legally, didn't have to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
