2009/5/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors will have a net benefit...>>
Then shift the "error" to the pharmacy. It's the same issue.
That's not shifting, that's duplicating, which makes it incredibly unlikely.
Do you really think that *better informed* people are worse off then *less informed* people?
"A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."
While I'm not a fan of argumentum ad proverbium (to completely make up a Latin phrase), that particular proverb is often true and applies in this case. People that know a little often don't realise how much they don't know and, thus, make mistakes that wouldn't have been made if they knew nothing and relied on experts.
Our entire project has the net goal of increasing freedom of information, not cordoning some of it off with us as the nannies.
*Encyclopaedic information.* I still don't think accurate dosage information is within our scope.