[tallaght01]

Originally Posted by norrie rugger

Not an easy one at all, is it. I really don't envy you guys

First off, you are never going to combat sticky blindness. Regardless of the time I have read/posted, on Boards, I am as guilty as the next guy.
I often just skip the sticky section completely.
Your policy of just linking to this sticky is as good as you are going to get on this matter. If someone relatively new to Boards, or this forum in general posts a medical advice request then the divert here should help.

Second, a lot of people seem to be asking for general information on specific areas. I know that I did, when I ruptured my tendon achillies. I think that (again a sticky) explaining how to pose a question might be good. Show an example of how not to ask a question versus an acceptable means of gathering information about something.
I know that this style pushes the spirit of the rule to the limit but we have all seen areas where someones question structure makes all the difference.

I'm not sure you asking about your ruptured achilles tendon would have been all that appropriate here anyway. The reality is that you can find any general info on any medical condition on the net already. And the specifics are not really what we're about.

I'm just not sure what we can offer people in that respect.

[Kesha]

What about questions like where to find a certain type of doctor/hospital/treatment? Can I ask that? If so on which forum?

[DrIndy]

There is not really a forum which permits this type of discussion as it can raise a lot of problems. People with an axe to grind against one doctor or hospital can give a very false image of what is going on and does not reflect all the other patients who attended.

As such we have taken the decision not to allow this type of posting.

If you are looking for a GP - finding one you like or are comfortable with is a good option.

If you are looking for a specialist - speak with your GP for a referral who will know who is nearby, has an interest in the area of your health issues or has a shorter waiting list.

[Kesha]

It sounds so hopeless it is just hard to believe.

I mean that in general and I do not mean to criticize neither you DrIndy nor board.ie. And I am also not looking to start a discussion. I might just be having a difficulty to accept that, in addition to all medicine being regulated, the information is regulated as well.

Could I ask a hypothetical question? Like:

"If I knew somone who had the XYZ condition and did not trust GPs, how could she:
a) treat herself?
b) find someone without going through a GP?"

Would a) or b) or any form of c) be allowed here?

[tallaght01]

You can ask "how can I find a doctor, other than asking my GP".

But you really don't need us to tell you to look in the phonebook. There's not really an awful lot else we can tell you.

[norrie rugger]

Originally Posted by Kesha

It sounds so hopeless it is just hard to believe.

I mean that in general and I do not mean to criticize neither you DrIndy nor board.ie. And I am also not looking to start a discussion. I might just be having a difficulty to accept that, in addition to all medicine being regulated, the information is regulated as well.

Could I ask a hypothetical question? Like:

"If I knew somone who had the XYZ condition and did not trust GPs, how could she:
a) treat herself?
b) find someone without going through a GP?"

Would a) or b) or any form of c) be allowed here?

a) treat herself?
Did you see the case, this week, where a guy was jailed for "pretending" to be a doctor? How can you believe anything that a random person on the net tells you? I could pretend to be a doctor and tell you that rubbing the skin of a calf, that has been fed only by moonlight will cure you of every malady. Would you believe me?
Also, if (for some mad reason) you did believe me and your friend had permenant damage, from the malady, I and boards could be liable

b) find someone without going through a GP?
Same, as above, goes for this one.
GP has a list of professional aquaintences, whom he can call on for examinations or specalised treatment.
I again could be a quack, with a quack friend, and refer you, to said quack friend.
You get hurt, I am liable and boards.ie potentially also

[Kesha]

post#20 moderator tallaght01, Given the title of this thread and clarity of my question, I do not understand why you chose to discourage me from posting instead of answering me. The fact that my first posts were about the rules should actually indicate that I am not trying to create a problem. I'll have to go ahead and start asking based on:

Originally Posted by tallaght01

You can ask "how can I find a doctor, other than asking my GP".

Should I break any of the forum's rules, please let me know and will try to comply!
BTW, Who owns this forum or is its main administrator?

post#21 norrie rugger, I clearly said that I am not interested in a discussion.

[tallaght01]

Kesha, this is no longer up for discussion.

[irish_bob]

the reasons the moderators on this section of boards forbit asking questions is because they dont want thier colleagues ( gp,s etc) to loose business , their is no bigger clique in ireland than that of the doctor fraternity and as for the arguement that this site could be in the dock for allowing adivce to be given out , doctors in ireland have more or less diplomatic immunity , short of murder , its impossible to be struck off

[PhysiologyRocks]

Originally Posted by irish_bob

the reasons the moderators on this section of boards forbit asking questions is because they dont want thier colleagues ( gp,s etc) to loose business , their is no bigger clique in ireland than that of the doctor fraternity and as for the arguement that this site could be in the dock for allowing adivce to be given out , doctors in ireland have more or less diplomatic immunity , short of murder , its impossible to be struck off

But it's not safe to take medical advice off the internet!

How do you know for certain that anyone here is even a real doctor?
Even if you did, nobody can assess your situation or diagnose you without seeing you or knowing your medical history.

It's just not safe at all.

[sam34]

Originally Posted by PhysiologyRocks

But it's not safe to take medical advice off the internet!

How do you know for certain that anyone here is even a real doctor?
Even if you did, nobody can assess your situation or diagnose you without seeing you or knowing your medical history.

It's just not safe at all.

i think it's fair to say that anyone who thinks it's safe to take specific medical advice from ranomers on the internet has far greater problems than the one they are seeking advice on.

[DrIndy]

Originally Posted by irish_bob

the reasons the moderators on this section of boards forbit asking questions is because they dont want thier colleagues ( gp,s etc) to loose business , their is no bigger clique in ireland than that of the doctor fraternity and as for the arguement that this site could be in the dock for allowing adivce to be given out , doctors in ireland have more or less diplomatic immunity , short of murder , its impossible to be struck off

banned

[norrie rugger]

If you don't trust the Mods/Users here, how about listening to indepentant source
Linkey: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=online-news

Originally Posted by New Scientist

IF YOU regularly turn to a search engine to find out whether, say, you should put ice on a twisted ankle, you're far from alone. Sixty-one per cent of American adults seek out health advice online, according to a survey published last month by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Around a third of those surveyed admitted they changed their thinking about how they should treat a condition based on what they found online. Yet a growing body of evidence suggests that much online health information is unreliable.

"My overall impression is that the quality of health information varies wildly, almost ridiculously wildly," said Kevin Clauson, a pharmacologist at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "If [a website] is treated as an authoritative source, and there's evidence that it isn't, then it's potentially dangerous."

Several studies to be published in medical journals this year highlight the issue. Pia López-Jornet and Fabio Camacho-Alonso of the University of Murcia, Spain, found that information on oral cancers on the top websites gathered by Google and Yahoo searches was "poor" (Oral Oncology, DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.017). Among other things, the websites failed to attribute authorship, cite sources and report conflicts of interest. And a study by a team at the Charité University Medical Centre in Berlin, Germany, of googled advice on how to deal with heartburn found that "the evidence for most of the recommendations is weak to nonexistent" (European Journal of Integrative Medicine, DOI: 10.1016/j.eujim.2009.05.001).

While these and other studies examined dozens of websites, most agree that the site to watch is Wikipedia. Popular and easy to browse, the user-generated encyclopedia is the eighth most visited site on the internet, and the first stop for many seeking health information.

Wikipedia articles appear in the top 10 results for more than 70 per cent of medical queries in four different search engines, according to a study in this month's Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3059). It also gets more hits than corresponding pages on the US National Library of Medicine's MedlinePlus service.

This is worrying, and perhaps an indicator that some people's search engine strategies may not be up to scratch. A 2002 study found that most searchers use only one term in their searches and rarely look past the first page of results - though internet users may have improved the way they search since then (BMJ, vol 324, p 573). More disconcerting is the percentage of doctors who turn to Wikipedia for medical information: 50 per cent, according to a report in April by US healthcare consultancy Manhattan Research.
How does Wikipedia fare as a medical reference? Its collaborative, user-generated philosophy generally means that errors are caught and corrected quickly. Several studies, including one examining health information, another probing articles on surgery, and one focusing on drugs, found the online encyclopedia to be almost entirely free of factual errors.

Better still, the articles improve significantly with time, according to a study Clauson published last December in the The Annals of Pharmacotherapy (vol 42, p 1814). "Wikipedia's editing policy does work," he says.

But any Wikipedia page (beyond those locked to prevent vandalism) is vulnerable to malicious editing - and some drug firms have been caught removing negative information on their drugs from Wikipedia pages.

The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. "If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental," Clauson points out.

For example, Wikipedia's page on the HIV drug Prezista makes no mention of complications when used alongside St John's wort, the herbal supplement used to treat depression. Their potent interaction can cause the HIV therapy to fail.

On the other hand, the publicity Clauson's research garnered has helped fix the shortcomings he highlighted. One error of omission - that pregnant women should avoid the painkiller Arthrotec - was fixed the same day Fox News ran a story on the study.

The medical community has taken note of Wikipedia's success, and has made several attempts to replicate it. For instance, specialty-specific wikis (editable web pages) such as RadiologyWiki and WikiSurgery can be edited only by doctors.

A more general medical wiki called Medpedia, also written and vetted by medical professionals, launched in February. Medpedia was founded by San Francisco entrepreneur James Currier, who teamed up with several prominent medical schools and organisations to build a reliable medical database - with a social networking site at its heart. It includes non-encyclopedic resources such as a section for user Q&As and debates.

"Our goal is to be the place where physicians tell their patients to go educate themselves," Currier told New Scientist. "Everyone can benefit from a more educated patient."

[VexedRed]

Originally Posted by PhysiologyRocks

But it's not safe to take medical advice off the internet!

How do you know for certain that anyone here is even a real doctor?
Even if you did, nobody can assess your situation or diagnose you without seeing you or knowing your medical history.

It's just not safe at all.

Hi again guys,

I apologise for the little furore I caused in here! I am still relatively new to boards.ie and am somewhat sticky-blind. Won't be asking silly questions again.
I completely understand/agree with the policies-it is very true-how am I to know that you're all not a bunch of whackjobs pretending to be medical proffesionals in here anyways... I'm too trusting!

Sorry again

VxR

[sam34]

our interest is mostly in protecting you from any unqualified charlatan claiming to be a professional and dispensing dodgy "advice".