Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 13:11:53
In reply to ethical question raised by a poster, posted by etcical_line on May 6, 2004, at 20:56:09
hi there....my replies delineated with asterisks, below.....
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040505/msgs/344054.html
>
> This point is well taken. In the past Dr. Rod was asked to either provide proof he was a doctor & indicate what kind of doctor he is or don't use Dr in his posting name.
>
> As to the issue of "chemist", there are several issues here:
>
> 1) Chemists are not trained in the medical arts. It is unethical & unprofessional for them to offer medical advice in a professional capasity. Professionals do tend to know their limits and tend not to step over them.*** i have routinely identified myself as a holder of a ph.d., not an m.d. that said, i concur with you in re: all points in (1)****
> 2) Professionals, in the past, have identified themselves as such. There have been several persons here who did post as medical professionals and where up front about their profession and also were very clear about the limits of their posting here. (information vs. doctor/patientrelationship. This is not a consultation, ect) Otherwise this is a huge violation of medical and science professional ethics.
*** again, i agree with you. i also routinely make statements such as ``in my opinion...'' or ``as far as i know from the references i have access to...'' or ``my personal experience with this medication was...'' i also routinely defer posters to other posters who seem to be more knowledgeable than i in many cases*****
> 3) It may not be clear if "chemist" is posting in a professional capacity. However, he/she has directed "ace" to papers this person claims they wrote, off list, while for unknown reasons choose not to allow other posters to review these papers.
*** you are not correct. ``ace'' requested input on Gibbs free energy in biochemical problems. i have told ``ace'' that i have published in that area, and that i would be happy to chat with him via another conduit. i am unaware of any poster who has requested to view my publications****
This, to me, raises some flags. Clearly something is causing many posters to ask "chemist" for advice. "Chemist" is telling people what meds to take. Any reasonable person would infer that posters are seeing this person as an expert in something.
*** i answer posts that specifically are addressed ``To Chemist'' or to posts that i have relevant knowledge. i do NOT tell people to take medications - i profer a suggestion. how is a suggestion of mine (such as ``perhaps ambien will work better for you than halcion?'') different from all the posters who make statement along the lines of ``drug A sucked and then my pdoc put me on drug B and now life is grand! drug B RULES!!!!!''? ****
> 4) Somewhat a separate issue, but I think it is unfortunate few posters understand a chemist is unqualified to treat mental illness. There is a huge gulf between biochemistry and a pdoc treating mental illness with meds. Chemists do not see or treat patients.
*** of course i am not qualified to treat mental illness. i have never claimed anything to the contrary. a car salesman isn't, either, but ``SLS'' gets plenty of good press on the boards ***
> 5) No one is catching errors in what "chemist" posting, Effexor is not long acting. This is key to understanding it's safe use in patients & key to the well reported problems many have. Misunderstanding it's length of action one could assume no taper is needed.
*** lots of people catch errors, and i long since signed-off on the effexor/celexa/lexapro bit. i do my best with my reference base and try to qualify what i write with how much i know about the subject. but to clarify: i was referring to the active metabolite of venlafaxine, which does the work, and the half-life of elimination of the metabolite (ODV) is 9-13 hours. i did not address bioavailability of t_{max} for peak AUC. to me, 9-13 hours for t_{1/2} elimination with 45% absolute bioavailability is ``long-acting,'' but again, that is my opinion of what the phrase ``long-acting'' means.****
> 6) Persons here are often quite desperate for help which leads to a lack of critical thinking. It is reasonable to expect the moderator to know this.
> 7) Therefore, persons should not have screen namesthat suggest professional qualifications in the medical and mental health areas unless they can provide some proof to the moderator.**** i just did, to dr. bob. and yes, i have a ph.d. in chemistry, thus the name chemist is far from inappropriate *****
There is also always the option to pick a neutral name and not claim professional status if someone cannot/does not want to provide supporting credentials.
>
> In the end, it is up to the poster to error check and weigh the neuroscience of what someone posts. While the moderator cannot legislate who to trust or not, the moderator has an ethical responsibility in this case to require some proof of professional status.
>
> This is not a limit of expression but a request to clarify if this is a lay person or a professional discussing biochemistry.
**** i provided a distilled version of my CV in the thread Lamictal insanity, directed to AMD, entitled ``okay, i'll tell you.'' i also have offered to provide to anyone a copy of my CV and they can decide whether or not i have been lying. *****all the best, chemist
poster:chemist
thread:344158
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/344425.html