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. Do you really think that *better informed* people are worse off then *less informed* people? Our entire project has the net goal of increasing freedom of information, not cordoning some of it off with us as the nannies.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377034x1201454326/aol?redir=http... MaystepsfooterNO62)
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.
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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.>>
--------- -------------------------
I'm sure before the FOIA the government thought we really didn't need to know a lot of things, that we now know. The more open information is, the less likely it will be misused. The fewer eyes review something, the more likely it will be misunderstood. If a patient isn't well-enough educated to understand dosing, that doesn't mean we should not tell them anything. Rather it means, they might want to learn more. Withholding crucial information is not a very good answer to patient's questions.
If dosage information isn't encyclopedic, then why does it appear in encyclopedias already ? Are you claiming that the PDR causes more harm than it prevents ?
Will Johnson