Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

I actually struggle to see this guy's perspective. If a family are that desperate for their relative to be given ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine/god knows what else it isn't obvious why he wouldn't hand them out.

The role of a doctor, when someone is sick, is to offer good advice and stop them doing anything that will be really damaging to themselves. I'd see this as more similar to a dying man getting access to a priest than anything else.

Maybe this woman would have been screaming at him anyway, but I can see why she would be angry. He is obviously being a bit arrogant. The dude was dying, let the family believe what they want at that point.

View on HN

Doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. They must follow an ethical code. Ivermectin is pointless for that treatment, and would have terribly harming side effects. If you think otherwise, it's clear why you don't understand the MD's rationale.

This patient died, the doctor claims he can tell who is going to die (which seems pretty reasonable). It doesn't get much worse than dying of respiratory failure as horrible side effects go. The risks from ivermectin are very low and it is a routinely proscribed drug.

He'd have made life easier for himself and the family by saying "this won't work, but if you can foot the bill and will feel better about it then OK".

If "hey it probably won't kill them" is your standard for medical treatments, you shouldn't be commenting about medical treatments.

Ivermectin is prescribed (not proscribed) mostly for treating parasitic infection. Using it at therapeutic doses for Covid is dangerous.

My standard is my whole family gets vaccinated and I keep an eye out for when they should be getting boosters.

But I'm not forcing my standards on anyone. If this family wants a silly treatment and there isn't anything better to do, then they should get what they want if they are willing to pay.

One of the reasons this doctor got screamed at is because he took responsibility for making all the decisions and the patient died anyway. Which is good doctoring, I respect that. But if he is surprised that a family is angry that he ignored their wishes without a good reason then he is not paying attention to how the world works. He could have easily just agreed with them and kept the peace, at no undue cost to anyone.

No, doctors shouldn't give in to quack notions of a Q family, who punched said doctor in the face, just to make the conspiratorial family feel better. If doctors believe it is harmful with no benefit, they are obligated by oath to not do it, full stop.

Are you a doctor, healthcare provider, or even in the medical field? If not, I urge you to stop spouting your amateur theories about medicine on the internet, where they can spread and cause further harm.

I put it to you that (although amateur) "it won't work and may cause the listed side effects" is an entirely reasonable to spout it on the internet. You may be misinterpreting my comment.

This isn't a conflict situation and there is no obvious downside for anyone. The doctor isn't giving in to anything. The family is making a stupid request, yes. No skin off the doctors nose to grant it though and if it'll make them happier he may as well. If he thinks it is significantly harmful then he needs to make that argument instead of dismissing them.

So really it is hard not to be snarky about your comment on the terribly harming side effects on the guy that is about to be dead.

Unless we're talking about controlled substances, tell the patient it won't help and is a bad idea. If they insist, give them a release to sign. Once you inform the patient, you're past the point of doing harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com