Flu jab and viral illness

[onewheeldave]

But if the person who doesn't want to discuss "Flu jab and viral illness" stopped posting other things, then the rest of us would be able to get on with discussing "Flu jab and viral illness".

 

I'll post whatever I want as long as it's within board rules.

 

...then the rest of us would be able to get on with discussing "Flu jab and viral illness".

 

Get on with it then- discuss it, quit poking me, and have this discussion which so many here, allegedly, want to have.

 

If people stop poking me, I can just quietly watch the developing flu discussion, and, if I feel there's a contribution to be make, join in at that time.

[Obelix]

This whole tedious discussion started because YOU decided to poke with a pile of bogus rubbish about dishonest practices in case you had forgotten. And then you have the gall to suggest it's other people cause the problems.

 

You've the neck of a giraffe. Wind it in.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 14:34 ----------

 

From the link earlier:

 

Prof Garner said doctors were often "caught between a rock and hard place" as it could be safer to give antibiotics if it was not clear whether the patient had a viral or bacterial infection.

 

I can see that being the problem yes but surely they should be looking at the problems of over prescription. Otherwise you end up getting worrying things like this developing... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015

 

Not that it's much relevant to flu, but we really need to get it into peoples head that they have a duty to look afterthemselves, lest the BBC write something amusing about them... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7779126.stm

[mattleonard]

This whole tedious discussion started because YOU decided to poke with a pile of bogus rubbish about dishonest practices in case you had forgotten. And then you have the gall to suggest it's other people cause the problems.

 

Unfortunately one of the doctors at the practice I attend does seem to have a knee-jerk response of prescribing antibiotics for cold/flu symptoms. I did try to query it the last time she did it for me (the reason I was there was a secondary complication), but there's only so far you can go in trying to tell someone with decades worth of qualifications and experience that they're probably wrong. So, all the more reason why a flu vaccine seems a very straightforward and worthwhile choice.

[JFKvsNixon]

I can see that being the problem yes but surely they should be looking at the problems of over prescription. Otherwise you end up getting worrying things like this developing... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015

 

Not that it's much relevant to flu, but we really need to get it into peoples head that they have a duty to look afterthemselves, lest the BBC write something amusing about them... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7779126.stm

 

It's the accountability problem. Get in wrong by not prescribing antibiotics and they're in trouble, get it wrong by prescribing antibiotics and there's no accountability.

 

In hospital there are a lot stricter protocols in place regarding the prescribing of antibiotics, but also it's easier to do this because obviously the patients are under regular observations so if the patients condition changes then it's easier to address the problem.

[onewheeldave]

It's the accountability problem. Get in wrong by not prescribing antibiotics and they're in trouble, get it wrong by prescribing antibiotics and there's no accountability.

 

Unlikely a doctor will get in trouble for not prescribing anti-biotics, unless it's clear that the patient needs them.

 

After all, said doctor has easy access to scientific evidence showing that over prescription of antibiotics is a serious problem likely to become more serious the longer innapropriate prescribing continues.

 

And, ultimately, making the right decision about whether anti-biotics are necessary, is the doctors profession. Yes, mistakes are inevitable, and, it's a job with some hard choices- that applies to most jobs at that salary level. Even then, it generally takes a very serious error in judgement for a doctor to be actually punished.

[JFKvsNixon]

Unlikely a doctor will get in trouble for not prescribing anti-biotics, unless it's clear that the patient needs them.

 

After all, said doctor has easy access to scientific evidence showing that over prescription of antibiotics is a serious problem likely to become more serious the longer innapropriate prescribing continues.

 

And, ultimately, making the right decision about whether anti-biotics are necessary, is the doctors profession. Yes, mistakes are inevitable, and, it's a job with some hard choices- that applies to most jobs at that salary level. Even then, it generally takes a very serious error in judgement for a doctor to be actually punished.

 

You missed the point.

 

My point was if the GP didn't prescribe antibiotics and it caused harm, for example some got critically ill, they'd be held accountable for that decision. If the GP prescribes antibiotics for an infection that turned out to be a viral infection, then they'd be no comeback for them.

 

So as Prof Garner said doctors were often "caught between a rock and hard place" as it could be safer to give antibiotics if it was not clear whether the patient had a viral or bacterial infection.

[onewheeldave]

You missed the point.

 

My point was if the GP didn't prescribe antibiotics and it caused harm, for example some got critically ill, they'd be held accountable for that decision. If the GP prescribes antibiotics for an infection that turned out to be a viral infection, then they'd be no comeback for them.

 

So as Prof Garner said doctors were often "caught between a rock and hard place" as it could be safer to give antibiotics if it was not clear whether the patient had a viral or bacterial infection.

 

No, I get the point, I just don't agree with it. I think the only way a doctor would be in trouble for not prescribing antibiotics to a patient and that patient then getting critically ill would be if there was solid evidence indicating that, at the time in question, there was good reason to have prescribed antibiotics.

 

Are there many/any documented examples of doctors being punished for not prescribing antibiotics?

[JFKvsNixon]

No, I get the point, I just don't agree with it. I think the only way a doctor would be in trouble for not prescribing antibiotics to a patient and that patient then getting critically ill would be if there was solid evidence indicating that, at the time in question, there was good reason to have prescribed antibiotics.

 

Are there many/any documented examples of doctors being punished for not prescribing antibiotics?

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[mattleonard]

No, I get the point, I just don't agree with it. I think the only way a doctor would be in trouble for not prescribing antibiotics to a patient and that patient then getting critically ill would be if there was solid evidence indicating that, at the time in question, there was good reason to have prescribed antibiotics.

 

Are there many/any documented examples of doctors being punished for not prescribing antibiotics?

 

I think you're right that fear of punishment isn't the primary motivation. I think most GPs are keen to make patients better, and when they are presented with an unwell patient whose symptoms seem consistent with both bacterial and viral illnesses, then I can understand that they want to take the action which may result in the patient getting better, or better much sooner. Unfortunately if it doesn't make them better then it's likely contributing to us all being unwell in the longer term.

 

So, all in all, it seems worthwhile to reduce the incidence of viral infection. Now I wonder how we could go about doing that...

[MAC33]

People look up to doctors like they are gods.

 

They are portrayed that way by the mainstream media for a very good reason.

 

Cut,burn and drug is the basis of modern med i sin.

 

Nutrition,natural treatments etc are looked upon as quack health treatment.

 

Never trust a white coat. They are backed by big pharma.

 

That's what Dr.Carly calls them. She was de-registered by the American Medical Association as she believes that vaccines cause autism.

 

http://drcarley.com/

 

The white coats 'earn' numerous goodies from big pharma---a fact many are completely unaware of.

 

The choice of med i sin should never be motivated by that potential free trip to Jamaica.