"No medical advice" "No legal advice" Other potentially dangerous advice ok

Kadongy

There seems to be a bit of an inconsistency. There are some pretty extreme recommendations given out on the nutrition and diet forum. These are presented as proven fact when they're not. People buy into it and make potentially dangerous lifestyle decisions based on it. This can't be a good idea surely. The thread that prompted this is here, where very high cholesterol diets are advocated. Research is presented incorrectly suggesting that it has been proven that this is true.

Advice should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

From the charter:

Feel free to offer your advice and opinions
on diet and nutrition in relation to the diets
of others. Your input is most welcome.
Please, however, be sensitive toward the
users you address - don't be a food nazi.
People vary widely in their approach to diet
and nutrition and what works for you may
not work for others. Also, consider the
advice that you are offered, particularly by
those who have achieved and are achieving
their health and weight-related goals. I
would ask for a combination of realism and
tolerance.
Quoted from Dragan (why edit perfection?
)
Quote:
We are all hear to learn and to teach. We
will be sharing information. It is perfectly
fine to point out options and choices to
people, or guide them when they may be
going wrong but it's important to remember
that Nutrition is not an exact science and
differences of opinion will always exist.
Remember, you are not here to tell anyone
what to do, merely to offer insight and
opinion based off your own learnings and
experience. Seek to help, by all means but
do so in a respectful manner. Anything else
will be met with a ban.

3.
Bear in mind we are not professional
nutritionists and we are not doctors, so
don't look for medical advice. Please seek
advice from your Dr. or a Nutritionist before
embarking on any major overhaul of your
eating habits. If you have any pre-exisitng
condition that requires specific nutritional
needs please note that the N&D forum is
NOT a substitute for a qualified dietician.
We cannot advise on the best diet for these
circumstances and any posts doing so will
be edited/ deleted as necessary

Kadongy

Deleted User wrote: »

Advice should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

From the charter:
etc

The disclaimer makes sense, but it is at odds with the sort of content I'm talking about. Potentially dangerous and pretty extreme ideas presented as proven fact when they're not. The thread I linked is a good example.

dr.bollocko

Good idea for a thread.

If everyone started a thread in the feedback forum every time they couldn't win an argument on boards.ie the admins might let us post lolcats in here again.

MungBean

Is feedback the AH of the mod world or something ? Theres no end to you lot thanks whorin in here.

Kadongy

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Good idea for a thread.

If everyone started a thread in the feedback forum every time they couldn't win an argument on boards.ie the admins might let us post lolcats in here again.

yeah cos that's what it was. wow. Too much aggravation. Screw this.

MugMugs

Kadongy wrote: »

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Good idea for a thread.

If everyone started a thread in the feedback forum every time they couldn't win an argument on boards.ie the admins might let us post lolcats in here again.

yeah cos that's what it was. wow. Too much aggravation. Screw this.

You made him close his account. that would be the rattle firmly out of the pram so.

P. Breathnach

Perhaps the point made by OP should be addressed.

I, for one, think that the disclaimer in the forum charter is an inappropriate abdication of responsibility. The gap between dietary advice and medical advice is often worryingly small.

Nodin

MugMugs wrote: »

You made him close his account. that would be the rattle firmly out of the pram so.

....I think it took a lump out of the plasterboard.

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Perhaps the point made by OP should be addressed.

I, for one, think that the disclaimer in the forum charter is an inappropriate abdication of responsibility. The gap between dietary advice and medical advice is often worryingly small.

It does state that posts giving dietary or nutritional advice as medical advice will be removed though. So people are free to reccommend anything they have learned from their own experience but not as medical advice to someone with specific nutritional needs.

Bottle_of_Smoke

this is a mad thread. I'm going up and down the page and I just cannot see where high cholesterol diets were advocated.

did this set him off?

el_dangeroso wrote:

Dietary cholesterol reduces the amount of cholesterol you produce in the liver. Eat less cholesterol, and your liver will make more to compensate.

Eggs are exceptionally nutritious and good for you, I love them but I'm intolerant to them.

perhaps he read the first sentence and thought this was a recommendation to eat more cholesterol. Seemed more just a statement of fact.

Thing is; aside from being wrong and probably mostly just posting this thread in anger - he may have had a point.

Is offering nutritional advice but not medical advice sort of contradictory?

In real life someone close to me has type two diabetes from being overweight. His medical advice seems loopy to me. I'd love to suggest a primal diet but a little voice inside me says "what if the high fat content causes a heart attack. or what if they have an unrelated heart attack anyway and someone knows you suggested a high fat diet...." said guy is also high risk for heart attack in other factors such as smoking alcohol and lack of exercise.

so i just say nothing. seems immoral to me but I'm not a qualified dietitian or doctor. its not my place

Tom Dunne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I, for one, think that the disclaimer in the forum charter is an inappropriate abdication of responsibility.

Abdication of whose responsibility? The mods? The posters? Boards.ie?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The gap between dietary advice and medical advice is often worryingly small.

If a person is foolish enough to take advice from an untrusted randomer on the internet that may impact their personal well being, that person has bigger problems.

Where is the personal responsibility. It continually saddens me the amount of people who blindly and unquestioningly believe everything they read on the internet.

Until such people cop on and take responsibility for their own actions, I don't see why anything should change.

LoLth

@dr Bollocko: good idea for a response, next time can you keep it on topic or dont post. If you find somethign you think is against the forum charter, then please, by all means, report it.

@Mungbean: same applies. Not every argument has to be stepped up to. report a post and walk away.

@MugMugs & Nodin: not helpful or on topic and also not feedback. Next tiem you feel the urge to post inanity like that again, dont.

The OP has closed their account but the topic is valid feedback and is open for discussion. Thanks to those posters who have done so.

seamus

In reality it all boils down to what will get boards.ie sued, it's not about protecting users from potentially hazardous advice. This isn't wikipedia. It should be accepted that all advice given is a poster's personal opinion and not absolute or proven fact.

Medical and legal advice is always expressly forbidden because that can easily land boards in court - even if the advice is perfectly correct and sound.

Otherwise it's really only outlandishly dangerous stuff that's prohibited, like, "The best diet is 2 litres of hydrogen peroxide before bed".

Comments that, "Eggs may not be high in cholesterol" are not going to land boards.ie in court. If someone believes that a particular piece of advice is incorrect, then they should refute that advice with the relevant links and facts.

Wibbs

This can be a hard one to call at times. Boards wide as well as specific forums.

In this case the posts against the OP's side of the debate had scientifically valid studies linked rather than just supposition. The latter tends to be much more common in many online debates. As for the OP's accusation of extreme diets they themselves appear to be vegetarian which may be construed as "extreme"* by some and lacking in nutrients if not careful. Vegan even more so and vegan posts have popped up in there before with no great issue.

Given their on thread and subsequent responses they appear to be quite committed to this particular cause, so the "hobby horse" angle might be a large part of their objection in this case. Would a committed anti bloodsports persons take in the hunting forums be taken as a "fault" in said forum kinda thing?

Stepping back from the hobby horse(and we all have them), where does the line get drawn? Again hard one. We could go back and forth on the moral front with regard to advice, but for me I'd go the legal front as a basic yardstick. Is advice anywhere on the site likely to cause legal difficulties for the site or the volunteers on the site? We can debate the moral angle beyond that line drawn.





*not by me personally, just noting it as an example.

g'em

I know the account has since been closed but howandever...

Kadongy wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of an inconsistency. There are some pretty extreme recommendations given out on the nutrition and diet forum.

In all honesty I don't think there were any recommendations made - there were examples of people's personal diets which could be construed as extreme, but not one of those people suggested that their method was the way to go.

Kadongy wrote:

These are presented as proven fact when they're not.

Again, you'll find that in reality any 'extreme' diets are not allowed on the forum. I have yet to see anyone recommend the "40 eggs a week" diet. What will be suggested is that (in this case) folk shouldn't be afraid to eat eggs and yes, that has been backed up with plenty of scientific examination.

People buy into it and make potentially dangerous lifestyle decisions based on it.

I'm more worried about people buying into the recent revelation that pizza can be legitimately classified as contributing towards one of your five a day. And don't get me started on the whole five a day notion of arbitrary numbers...

Facetiousness aside, I don't see that there is anyone advocating an extreme nutritional lifestyle. I do see very entertaining and often heated discussions about an area of science that is constantly changing and evolving, but all we can go on is the facts before us, and the take-home message has always - and will continue to be - it's a discussion forum, have a read, make up your own mind and find what works for you.

The Nutrition and Diet forum has been a bone of contention since its inception, but tbh the quality of posters that we have there now, while at first glance may appear to be stoically biased towards a certain way of eating, are actually some of the most well-read and informed posters I've seen on boards and they would be the first to engage in a balanced debate about any nutritional topic presented to them. Don't assume that passion for a topic forbids open-mindedness.

If there is a genuine concern that the topics on the N&D forum are straying into dodgy territory then I'm all ears, but to my mind I only see heated debates about scientific findings, not anyone trying to pass off dodgy diet advice.

Gary ITR

A lot of it can boil back to this, edit to suit your forum.

Motors DIY Forum Charter wrote:

Now the biggest caveat to remember here is this is a public forum used by people with no idea what they are talking about. Don't assume the advice given is correct. Maintenance tips offered by forum members, whilst helpful, may not necessarily be correct solution, so if in doubt then contact your nearest dealer or qualified mechanic. If you do something as a result of what you read here, you agree that boards are in no way liable for anything at all - you are responsible for your own actions.

Hal Emmerich

Originally Posted by Motors DIY Forum Charter
Now the biggest caveat to remember here is this is a public forum used by people with no idea what they are talking about. Don't assume the advice given is correct. Maintenance tips offered by forum members, whilst helpful, may not necessarily be correct solution, so if in doubt then contact your nearest dealer or qualified mechanic. If you do something as a result of what you read here, you agree that boards are in no way liable for anything at all - you are responsible for your own actions.

Why can't something like this cover Legal and Medical advice aswell??

OldGoat

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Why can't something like this cover Legal and Medical advice aswell??

I imagine that just relying on the above disclaimer for legal and medical topics would lead to discussions in grey areas, areas that may be litigious or even a risk to health.
The Boards policy of shutting the barn doors even before any discussion can ventrue into grey areas seems to me to be a sensible precaution.

seamus

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Why can't something like this cover Legal and Medical advice aswell??

The legal and medical professions are covered by specific legislation which makes it illegal for someone to practise in either of these areas without being specifically qualified to do so. Even purporting to provide legal or medical advice without being legal to do so (even if the advice is perfectly sound), is illegal in itself.

On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent someone from setting up as a car mechanic, regardless of whether they have any recognised qualifications. In those cases, errors or omissions by the mechanic would be covered by tort or contract law, but it is not specifically illegal for someone to give advice on car mechanics without being qualified to do so.

"I am not a doctor" or "I am not a lawyer" would only be a partial defence. It would probably protect the poster, in the same way that a homeopaths aren't taken to court for pretending to give out curing potions.
But from boards.ie's point of view, simply having a policy of allowing the advice leaves grey areas open. If the site operates a strict no-advice policy, then it can't be argued that medical or legal advice is allowed on boards.ie in some form.

RoundyMooney

That's a fair and logical viewpoint.

Doc Ruby

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Where is the personal responsibility. It continually saddens me the amount of people who blindly and unquestioningly believe everything they read on the internet.

I feel this is particularly relevant to the survivalism forum, there are a LOT of natural remedies that have stood the test of time, and some more modern ones with a good bit of support. One example would be taking activated charcoal pills or activated charcoal neat like you'd find in some car air filters to help absorb recently consumed poisons.

This is well known in some circles, and could easily save someone's life if they eat something they shouldn't out in the wild, but as things stand nobody can talk about this stuff, some of it dating back centuries.

It would be great if we could just get a blanket legal disclaimer and make sure that claims are backed up by an outside link or something. I mean the kid gloves come off in survival situations.

Bottle_of_Smoke

seamus wrote: »

The legal and medical professions are covered by specific legislation which makes it illegal for someone to practise in either of these areas without being specifically qualified to do so. Even purporting to provide legal or medical advice without being legal to do so (even if the advice is perfectly sound), is illegal in itself.

On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent someone from setting up as a car mechanic, regardless of whether they have any recognised qualifications. In those cases, errors or omissions by the mechanic would be covered by tort or contract law, but it is not specifically illegal for someone to give advice on car mechanics without being qualified to do so.

"I am not a doctor" or "I am not a lawyer" would only be a partial defence. It would probably protect the poster, in the same way that a homeopaths aren't taken to court for pretending to give out curing potions.
But from boards.ie's point of view, simply having a policy of allowing the advice leaves grey areas open. If the site operates a strict no-advice policy, then it can't be argued that medical or legal advice is allowed on boards.ie in some form.

In that case there's a very relevant parallel with the nutrition forum.

Anyone can set up a nutrition clinic and tell you they are a nutritionist without breaking any laws.

The same cannot be said about dietitians. Dietitian is a legally protected term and to claim you are one you need a qualification from a recognised institution.

If you have kidney problems you may be sent to a dietitian because a specific diet is required. If your kid is born with PKU you'll be sent for the same reason.

Therefore people asking questions about something like renal diets should fall under the same category as medical advice. I've read the forum the last few years and there have been times where this kind of thread has not been closed immediately and discussion was allowed.

There are grey areas too. Morbidly obese people can be sent to dietitians. However their threads are tolerated. Personally I think this is okay because morbidly obese people also go to gyms and the likes of motivation clinics.

Could it lead to lawsuit attempts though? I wouldn't bet against it.

Doc Ruby

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Could it lead to lawsuit attempts though? I wouldn't bet against it.

Ah mihole this isn't America.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Ah mihole this isn't America.

Thinking courts ordering to pay out for ridiculously frivolous claims is exclusive to America would be very much mistaken.

Wibbs

IIRC at one point the Irish were on a par with or even more litigious than Americans. We can be quick enough with the solicitors letters, especially in the media arena. I'd reckon there are enough letters of that nature to the boards office over the course of a year. 99 times out of 100 they're likely chancers with less of a leg to stand on than Heather Mills, but all it takes is one ambulance chaser with an in and a judge who thinks moveable type is new fangled to cause problems, real financial problems for a site like this. Never mind the moral issues that may be involved.

Doc Ruby

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thinking courts ordering to pay out for ridiculously frivolous claims is exclusive to America would be very much mistaken.

Regulation is there to prevent snake oil salesmen and the like setting up shop, scoring off suckers, and scuttling back into the woodwork, not to stop people honestly sharing information that doesn't need a third level masters degree and seven years of internship to understand. A bit of backup/support would surely cross the t's and dot the i's.

Doc Ruby

I mean what there's dozens if not hundreds of bushcraft sites all across the US and UK where this stuff isn't verboten, none of them seem to have folded up due to litigious tourists who decided to serve up a caesar salad of bad advice yet.

Morag

Irish laws are different, it's that simple.

Also there are many different contra indications with herbals many of which people forget
and the strength and preparations cause quite the variation on simples.

Never mind people who will try and find a quick cheap fix for an issue which requires medical oversight instead of going to a dr, ergo smart and informed discussion should be possible but there will be too many dumb people on what is a general site to try and foster the community and best standards needed.

Honestly all it takes is one joke about having a nice cup of rhubarb leaf tea and some one will try it and then boards.ie can be sited in a wrongful death suit.

Doc Ruby

Sharrow wrote: »

Irish laws are different, it's that simple.

Not really, Irish laws are based on English laws and there's no shortage of bushcraft sites there. A far more litigious environment is the US, and the overwhelming majority of these resources are based there.

The record just doesn't indicate it will be a problem.

What actually could cost someone's life is not being informed.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not really, Irish laws are based on English laws and there's no shortage of bushcraft sites there. A far more litigious environment is the US, and the overwhelming majority of these resources are based there.

You are not comparing like with like. UK laws are subtly different with regard to media law. I'm sure if there are solicitors reading this they'll explain this in more detail.You also forget the constitutional US right to free speech angle which contrary to popular belief is not applicable in the same way in this country and certainly not applicable to a private website. There are things one could write on a US based website that would land you in court in Ireland in a heartbeat. The medical advice thing for a start. US websites seem to have no issue with doctors giving online advice. Do that here and the doctor would be investigated if not struck off.

Like I pointed out before the Irish can be just as litigious as Americans, especially where it comes to the media, print, telly and online. Try suing a newspaper in the US and try the same here. You'll get much further here as people have. This site was already the subject of a lawsuit in the past and I'm sure they've had others chancing their arm that luckily never saw the light of day. IMHO the reason the place has avoided being sued into the ground is because of the tight control of certain subject matters. Matters that include medical and legal advice.

What actually could cost someone's life is not being informed.

Informed by whom? Randomer on the interweb? How do I know your advice is correct? How do you know mine is? See the problem? I could go into any number of online forums and find really bogus even dangerous advice touted by unqualified and anonymous posters. Hell even on a well managed mature site like Boards I see incorrect and horribly uninformed posts on a weekly basis. But and it's a big but, on Boards the subject matter of such posts won't get people injured or killed.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

UK laws are subtly different with regard to media law.

How so, specifically? Actually forget that, I'm not starting a legal practise at this stage of my life, I will say I had a good search and I couldn't find a single instance of a bushcraft site being sued for bad advice. If you can find one, I'd be interested to see it.

I mean look at this, a discussion about using flour to stop bleeding, which starts out in silly land but gets a lot more interesting and level headed as it goes on.

Its like saying the english and americans can handle it but not the Irish.

Wibbs wrote: »

You also forget the constitutional US right to free speech angle which contrary to popular belief is not applicable in the same way in this country and certainly not applicable to a private website.

Didn't imagine it was, but even in the US that provides zero protection for someone maliciously or even ignorantly handing out bad advice, see the famous yelling fire in a crowded theatre example.

Wibbs wrote: »

Informed by whom? Randomer on the interweb? How do I know your advice is correct? How do you know mine is? See the problem? I could go into any number of online forums and find really bogus even dangerous advice touted by unqualified and anonymous posters.

This is where a reasonable amount of support comes in. I mean wikipedia is chock full of semi qualified medical information, but if you can show where you're getting the information and aren't just drawing it from your nethers, and aren't claiming to be a professional, its caveat emptor.

Wibbs

Better question; would you "Doc Ruby" be prepared to lend your legal name and open yourself to the legal ramifications of any advice you were prepared to give? As it is the platform that is boards is primarily the one open to such legal action.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Better question; would you "Doc Ruby" be prepared to lend your legal name and open yourself to the legal ramifications of any advice you were prepared to give? As it is the platform that is boards is primarily the one open to such legal action.

Why, I already have, since I'm a paying member and I've given advice on what to do in life or death situations.

Its the advice I can't give that annoys me, I did up a post about the wonders of birch bark, but was unable to say about birch tar

In Finland wood tar was once considered a panacea reputed to heal "even those cut in twain through their midriff". A Finnish proverb states that if sauna, vodka and tar won't help, the disease is fatal. Wood tar is used in traditional Finnish medicine because of its microbicidial properties.

Morag

Dedicated sites are going to have a different demographic then something the size of this site. There is a greater chance of someone googling or boards searching who has an ailment and then doing something daft then those who have to go and sign up for a private survivalist site.

Doc Ruby

Sharrow wrote: »

Dedicated sites are going to have a different demographic then something the size of this site. There is a greater chance of someone googling or boards searching who has an ailment and then doing something daft then those who have to go and sign up for a private survivalist site.

Nothing private about it, all these are publicly available. What you're saying here is that boards members are thicker than the average member of the public let loose on google?

Morag

Nope I am saying boards users are more likely to trust what a fellow boards member has posted then stuff that is found via google, that sort of thing works well with many topics
from cars, to cooking to photography to bouncy castles but there is a line drawn when it comes to possible harm to living beings, such as people and animals.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Why, I already have, since I'm a paying member and I've given advice on what to do in life or death situations.

I didn't mean subscriptions. I meant unless Doc Ruby is on your driving licence you're not lending your legal name to any opinions you post. As the publisher, Boards is more open to legal action than you are. Plus the law will go were the money may lie, so again Boards is more in the firing line.

Doc Ruby

Sharrow wrote: »

there is a line drawn when it comes to possible harm to living beings, such as people and animals.

There ain't much in bushcraft that isn't potentially dangerous. Deliberately putting yourself outside of civilisation, roads, and Spar shops, and trying to not just exist but thrive out there where the telly doesn't work is inherently risky. Lethally so unless you know what you're doing, which is why the sharing of information in the bushcraft communities is so important.

Wibbs wrote: »

I didn't mean subscriptions. I meant unless Doc Ruby is on your driving licence you're not lending your legal name to any opinions you post. As the publisher, Boards is more open to legal action than you are. Plus the law will go were the money may lie, so again Boards is more in the firing line.

If you mean do I stand over everything I say, then yes I would say that I do.

I get what you're saying, and take it on board. All I'm responding with is that if there were a crowd of trigger happy weekend hikers out there, you'd have already seen a swathe of these discussion boards pulled down. Instead there isn't a single one in any kind of trouble.

I rest me case yer honours, that's my piece spoken.