Most therapies now have professional associations with websites, the front pages of which nearly always have links to subjects such as
'what is blah blah therapy?'
'how does it work?'
'what do blahblahologists believe'
'history of blah blah'
'what does your blah blah therapist actually do?'
Needless to say, in trying to explain matters in lay terms, these pages always fall short of giving a full picture in some way, thereby giving plenty of food for sceptics to pull them to pieces.
Medicine doesn't seem to bother with this, it is assumed that the words 'medicine' and 'doctor' encapsulate everything. Or perhaps it is feared that if Doctors describe their craft in the same way, it will be subject to the same treatment - so better not to open those doors...
But what if somebody who had always been brought up with other therapies went to register with their doctor, and wanted to know more? How would Doctors describe themselves and what they do to an adult who had never heard of medicine? What would they put on their websites?
Never mind us sceptics, what about the raving loonies like you?Originally Posted by special_k
Like the BMA, for example. Hey, look, a website about real doctors that explains all kinds of things.
As if we didn't already know you were a retarded liar. Why would you bother to start a thread like this, considering how incredibly easy it is for anyone to find the websites of professional medical associations?
Wow, I really think you two are actually threatened by this notion!
What words would Doctors have to choose if the Public Relations field was level and medicine lost its position of priviledge?!? What if the public raked over every single word they uttered instead of lapping it up? What if Edzard Ernst turned his sights onto hospitals?
In fact you're acting like you're threatened by my presence on this forum.That's hilarious!
(Lighten up guys, it's just a bit of fun!)
I couldn't find the 'what doctors do' page on BMA, thanks for the link though. Any other ideas?
Last edited by special_k; 20th November 2009 at 10:38 AM.
What gives you the idea that he hasn't? He worked at a Homeopathic Hospital first. He didn't set out on day one to attack woo nonsense, he went with the evidence.
Medicine is what heals people. Drawing a line between real medicine and "sCAM" is an artificial construct unless you are drawing the line between real medicine and fake woo nonsense that doesn't help people. The line is in the same place, not because the woo is called "alternative" but because it doesn't work. Real medicine works (mostly), that is why it is medicine. When something doesn't work or can be improved on then that is done.
The internet is full of the information you say you want, but you haven't looked? Yet when you make some idiotic claim that has no support you tell us to go look for ourselves!
Come on, Bobby, keep it on topic and don't get your knickers in a twist.
Well, you've got us there. There certainly aren't any websites anywhere describing what you so eloquently call 'medicine'.
No, wait...
http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx
http://medlineplus.gov/
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/?cid=pulse_home_1
http://www.bmj.com/
skb
No
Nope
Not really
Er,
no
I'm afraid none of them has an obvious answer to the question 'what is medicine', at least not where I can see it. Lots of links to diseases, all incurable, and descriptions of treatments. I want to know what Doctors believe - in their own words. What is the underlying set of principles to which they adhere, which gives rise to the masses of information on the websites you cite? What guides them to create a new treatment?
Last edited by special_k; 20th November 2009 at 01:26 PM.
Medicine didn't save my father from cancer, it hasn't helped my mother's arthritis. My best friend's MS is 'incurable', another friend says his treatment for depression is a waste of time. My Mother in laws problems were a mystery until she had her metal fillings taken out, thankfully she's doing much better now, no thanks to her doctor shrugging his shoulders. My Brother-in-laws treatment for his allergies has given him osteoporosis, and he's still allergic. And another friend had a near fatal reaction to antibiotics, and yet another lost both his legs and went blind after a 'routine' treatment in hospital.
Admitedly they were very reassuring when I broke my back, but ultimately all they did was tell me what was wrong and send me to bed, the only person that cured me, was me. As far as I know there's still no cure for the common cold, yet apparently the cure for cancer is just around the corner if you believe the posters all around London. For every 'anecdote' of cure by alternatives, there are ten of medical failures - but they're all just anecdotes, right?
So as far as I can see, this definition isn't sufficient, I'm looking for a bit more depth so I can understand exactly how medicine is supposed to be helping the sick.
Last edited by special_k; 20th November 2009 at 01:29 PM.
Medicine didn't save my father from cancer either. It saved him from the pain of the agonizing type of cancer he had though.
Medicine didn't save my mother from cancer either. It gained her 18 months of life on top of a projected 6 month survival period though.
Medicine has helped my own arthritis. Quite a bit.
You are looking for a general definition of medicine, how a doctor would define what s/he does. Doesn't it depend on what kind of doctor you are talking about? Medicine is too specialized for an all-round definition. The best you will get will be "we cure people according to scientifically proven remedies".
So how many people do you know who have been cured?
I have been, for one. Of double pneumonia.
My husband, for another. Of peritonitis. He was 6 at the time, and the usual outcome in the 1940s was death. He had the newly available penicillin however, and lived.
ETA: my mother for another, of an acute breast infection shortly after I was born. Antibiotics again.
Indeed, and don't get me wrong, believe it or not I am not anti-medicine! If I was in a car crash I'd be very happy to be taken to A and E and given the works. Likewise, those saves you describe - emergency medicine is medicine's forte. Outside of emergencies, though, it appears to be flailing qutie badly, despite the magnificent efforts and intentions of its personnel.
All I am campaigning for here is a level playing-field on sites like this. Whist this arena is being used for medi-centric alternatives-bashing, it's only fair and rational for the medical frame of reference to be suject to scrutiny on those same terms.
Does that seem reasonable?
Well there is this...
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_...l_practice.asp
Topic? The topic seems to be you spouting nonsense and contradicting yourself from post to post.
If you really like it on this forum so much you could try and fit in a bit better by not being a raving prat.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks