Hacker News Reader

Comment by otabdeveloper1 | Hacker News Reader

> Well, people shouldn't be buying antibiotics without a doctors note.

Why? It's not rocket science, and it's not like this is a complex decision that you couldn't adequately make after 15 of Internet searching.

The fake mystique imparted on general practitioner doctors is a toxic force for bad in the world.

> Doctors shouldn't be prescribing antibiotics unless there is a big real need.

The doctor doesn't know if there is a "big real need", and in fact cannot.

The doctor is just running off a standard checklist for one of among 50 almost exactly alike cases during his workday.

View on HN

>Why? It's not rocket science, and it's not like this is a complex decision that you couldn't adequately make after 15 of Internet searching.

Yeah, and people making the wrong decision can only result in a plague like condition with hundreds of millions dead, so no big deal...

>The doctor is just running off a standard checklist for one of among 50 almost exactly alike cases during his workday.

Yeah, who needs doctors when there's the internet + idiots...

Being a doctor (i.e., general practitioner) is a job that is less cognitively loaded and carries less responsibility than the job of a car mechanic.

General practitioners are simply running off standard checklists for standard ailments. It's no different from reading a car repair manual.

And unlike car mechanics, you probably won't succeed in suing your doctor if he used the wrong checklist and got you injured by mistake.

P.S. Being a doctor in a more complex specialty is not much different, but then you're expected to read literature and keep up with current science research. It's still fundamentally checklist-based, but at least there's an expectation that the checklists are being updated.

>General practitioners are simply running off standard checklists for standard ailments. It's no different from reading a car repair manual.

They also have 8+ years of training to "run those lists", know better what to suggest when something is not on the list, can see things the person haven't noticed themselves, and so on -- not to mention that they have more intelligence (to get through med school and all) than the average citizen...

Even the fact that we're seriously having this discussion proves their necessity.

That's how you end up with homeopathy and anti-vaccines, because "what do doctors know anyway"...

(And I'm all for being suspicious of the pharma corporations, medical industry for their profit-driven motives, but "a GP just runs a list so do it yourself off of the internet" is a no-go).

This is wrong is wrong in so many levels. Sure, you can fit the whole universe knowledge in a checklist.

Doctors can see much more than a normal person, by just looking at your face. A bright person would possibly take 8+ years to have a beginner ability on this. Just as I can in 5 minutes grasp the quality of a codebase better than a beginner.

I can give you the guitar tabs for Cliff of Dover. Can you follow the instructions?

> The doctor is just running off a standard checklist for one of among 50 almost exactly alike cases during his workday.

"What do you mean it takes two weeks to build that software? IT IS SO EASY"

> Why? It's not rocket science, and it's not like this is a complex decision that you couldn't adequately make after 15 of Internet searching.

If you've got a tonsillitis (one of the most common reasons for getting antibiotics), how to you find out whether it's the bacterial or the viral type?

> how to you find out whether it's the bacterial or the viral type?

You google more strongly.

Presumably, by getting a bacterial test. That's done in a lab and isn't a doctor's job.

Don't need a lab test for this one, there's a swipe test to determine if it's viral or bacterial.

Source: had about 40 or more in my life, was prone to tonsilitis for ages.

The doctors job is to decide which lab tests are needed based on checks they can do and their expertise.

Not even sure what to reply to this comment. I should probably stop visiting this site asap in case it brainwashes me into thinking like this.

>It's not rocket science

Yeah its fucking medicine

I had the same feeling, sad to see the comment there. It doesn't represent the majority though. Just ignore the dumbass in the room.

It's for the same reason dynamite is not sold wholesale in the hardware store.

A lot of times it will be harmless, but every once in a while some Billy or Jane will dose themselves just right to train their infection to get over the antibiotics they bought, it will happen to be highly contagious,and then suddenly you've got an epidemy in your hands.

> Internet searching.

Replacing visiting a real doctor with internet searches is like replacing a plane pilot with internet searches.

Antibiotic abuse is a real problem, but expecting doctors to fix or even understand it is like expecting car mechanics to make traffic laws for your country.

Antibiotics should be regulated by a serious government effort, not by doctors.

I don't know where you live, but where I live doctors are exactly the ones who understand antibiotic abuse. As in, it is their job.

> Antibiotics should be regulated by a serious government effort

You didn't bring this before. I actually agree with that.

> not by doctors.

Strong disagree with that though. Such government effort can only be successful if it involves lots of doctors.

> As in, it is their job.

What makes you say that? That's like expecting software engineers to understand the implications of clock synchronization in your server CPU. Sure, it'd be nice if employees had that level of dedication, but who are we kidding? That's not what they are being paid for.

> Such government effort can only be successful if it involves lots of doctors.

Well, no. Doctors aren't the ones making epidemiology science research. At best they might read a paper or two if somebody pushes them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com