uret.. #1 / 1
|
 Don't Know, Don't Answer
I wrote an article, which I believe appears in the current issue of Internet World, offering my own judgements of the various sci.med* newsgroups. One point that I tried to make is that in addition to the traditional adage "think before you post", this group, and others like it, require the added caveat "think after you get the answer". People are interested in their health, and the {*filter*} they take, and this is, by its nature, an open forum. If we, professionals (meaning that we make a living from this stuff) wish to be exclusive, there are a variety of alternative forums which are more exclusive. The presence of this group on the net represents an opportunity not only for discussion of drug distri- bution and chemo reconstitution, if anybody cares to start a thread, but for people with legitimate questions to raise them, in the hope of obtaining valid answers. This is comparable to people discussing their diseases in a physician's waiting room. It is also comparable to people taking the PDR out of the Public Library. I give a very nice lecture about the lack of value of the PDR (usually I advocate AHFS-Drug Information as the best overall reference) but the PDR, which is a lousy text for somebody with no background, remains the most popular reference. Simply, people are going to post to this group, much the way a recent college grad who had too many gift pens offered to sell them with a posting on misc.writing. Where else would he go? That leaves questions to be answered. Unlike sci.med.dentistry, where a small carde of dentists seems willing to field anything that comes up, we have no group of volunteer drug information specialists, and so the vacuum will be filled. In my own mind, we should be especially thankful that Steve Dyer has been available to offer a service that we have not. My impression is that his replies have been acurate and complete - and if they are not always atuned to the highly specific needs of the individual who did the posting, that's the nature, not of Steve Dyer, but our own profession, which too often is drug oriented instead of patient oriented. Both the PDR and the average counseling session usually begins by telling the patient what the drug is for, instead of finding out what the drug is being used to treat (can any pharmacist deny telling a patient that ami- trityline is an antidepressant when it's being used as an analgesic - therby leading the patient to believe that the MD has concluded that the patient is not really in pain, etc?) The problem lies in the way we have framed our own practice. In terms of qualifications, while degrees usually provide an assurance of training, there is nothing exclusive about knowledge. Two of the formost historians of our time, Barbara Tuichman and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. never obtained formal qualifications in history - but the Pulitzer Prize Committee didn't seem to mind. I started this entry by mentioning an article that I wrote - even though I have no qualifications other than the fact that I passed freshman English. The quality of a person's work sometimes hinges on training - but in this case it's available for anybody to examine, and can be judged solely on its own merits. Even if this group does not serve as a forum for discussion of Pharmacy practice, it still serves a useful purpose. If inaccurate or in some way misleading replies to questions are posted (and they will be, regardless of who does the posting, because no general answer can ever be applicable to a specific case), then elucidation may be appropriate. But there is nothing gained by turning this into alt.pharmacy.flame. In an earlier post, I spoke favorably of Mr. Dyer's efforts, and I'd like to repeat that. He has filled a void left by RPhs who prefer to pick up their bat and bll and go elsewhere, and he has generally done it with a high degree of knowledge and skill. Sam Uretsky, Pharm.D. P.S. - I'm rather tired of the Prozac thread too, but it seems to be fashionable right now and there's no hope of ending it soon.
|