Live data from Hacker News

Medical Anarchy

chrispacia.wordpress.com

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Medical Anarchy

#51
Another interesting thing to do is having a high quality medical expert system(Watson), running outside the u.s.(say africa[1]) with people who we're taught how to use it(even doctors), with access to video communication with the patient, with access to his test results - administer advice to him.

Assuming good , mostly automated process and a good expert system - this could be a way to offer highly accurate second opinion.

And it would be a perfectly legal service from the provider side.

[1]This could be used locally in the country, which is a nice way to augment/start a country medical system

Re: Medical Anarchy

#52
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very loaded (but easy) question. In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight. It would be very hard to argue that individuals have that right when the states do not. You may wish that it were different, but the fact is that individuals do not have this right,…

>In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight. So wars decide what is right and what is wrong?

That's a perfectly valid way to decide what is right and wrong. A couple hundred years ago they would call it an "appeal to God."

Re: Medical Anarchy

#53
post #28

Disclosure: I'm currently attending medical school in New York. It seems incredibly irresponsible for a doctor to prescribe things based on an internet conversation without a physical exam. You can't auscultate (listen to with a stethoscope), visually inspect, run labs, do basic imaging, etc. over an anonymous internet forum, which are basic facilities that anybody should expect a doctor in the US to utilize. It is p…

I think attempts like this are symptoms of something really badly broken. It obviously isn't a good solution, but for anyone to even be thinking of seriously implementing it speaks volumes.

Yes, but it is a symptom of the medical system being badly broken or a symptom of how we think about these kinds of problems being badly broken...?

Come to think of it, it's both!

Re: Medical Anarchy

#54
post #28

Disclosure: I'm currently attending medical school in New York. It seems incredibly irresponsible for a doctor to prescribe things based on an internet conversation without a physical exam. You can't auscultate (listen to with a stethoscope), visually inspect, run labs, do basic imaging, etc. over an anonymous internet forum, which are basic facilities that anybody should expect a doctor in the US to utilize. It is p…

> You could certainly offer general "advice", but this will never be a substitute for seeing a doctor.

No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that. But surely its better than doing nothing, which is the alternative for people who can't afford to visit a doctor?

Re: Medical Anarchy

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very loaded (but easy) question. In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight. It would be very hard to argue that individuals have that right when the states do not. You may wish that it were different, but the fact is that individuals do not have this right,…

You forgot the prior war where they fought to secede and won.

A revolution/secession is morally and legally wrong unless you win.

Re: Medical Anarchy

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think attempts like this are symptoms of something really badly broken. It obviously isn't a good solution, but for anyone to even be thinking of seriously implementing it speaks volumes.

Yes, but it is a symptom of the medical system being badly broken or a symptom of how we think about these kinds of problems being badly broken...? Come to think of it, it's both!

If you take the concept of business and profit out of medical services and try instead to have a culture of medicine as public service, then ideas such as confidentiality and care become more commonplace.

I am not meaning this as a particularly anti-capitalist view, but I think there are areas of human existence where profit making should be excluded. For certain things, like fire departments, that battle was won long ago, and thankfully we are not in the days of ancient Rome where you would have to argue prices with Marcus Crassus before your house fire was put out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

Re: Medical Anarchy

#57
post #29

I stopped reading when the author implied that the U.S healthcare systems woes were due to supply and demand. This is a shallow view of a completely broken system. The supply and demand ratio is comparable to that of other wealthy nations, yet almost every other wealthy nation has kept their health care industry in check.

this

Re: Medical Anarchy

#58
post #28

Disclosure: I'm currently attending medical school in New York. It seems incredibly irresponsible for a doctor to prescribe things based on an internet conversation without a physical exam. You can't auscultate (listen to with a stethoscope), visually inspect, run labs, do basic imaging, etc. over an anonymous internet forum, which are basic facilities that anybody should expect a doctor in the US to utilize. It is p…

Beyond cost, seeing a doctor is an annoyingly long and cumbersome process. If it were convenient, affordable, and of reasonable quality, more people would likely utilize the service- improving health, earlier detection, etc.

How many old farmers have you seen drag themselves into clinic with their 2-year bone pain that turns out to be multiple myeloma? Would they have come to attention sooner if a virtual visit took 10 mins on their computer, rather than a full day in the city?

Hard to quantify, but I do believe there is a role for a "drive thru" option here. Not every symptom needs the full weight of an academic medical center. Every day in the community there are doctors prescribing based on only a conversation, and there's ample conditions when this is fully appropriate. When a simple answer isn't possible, referrals will undoubtedly be made. The biggest issue is establishing trust.

Re: Medical Anarchy

#59
post #30

I'm bothered that this article seems to believe that the rise in homeschooling (in large part by unqualified parents using low-quality textbooks and ill-considered strategies) is another example of people 'opting out' of some particular brand of oppression by the State, and that doing so will increase supply, or something? As far as I'm concerned, students have a right to a high quality education because without one…

>Just because they're largely minors doesn't, to me, mean that their parents have the right to deny them a future in favor of whatever their personal reasons may be. Yes, this is an infringement on the 'rights' of parents, but I don't think parents have the right to treat children like property in the first place. So the issue is that the parents are forcing a decision on the child, in violation of the child's rights…

Let's suppose that children have a claim-right to high-quality education. This claim-right implies that someone else has a duty to provide a high-quality education for those children.

Generally, that duty falls upon the parents and/or upon the state. The state attempts to fulfill its duty by attempting to provide high-quality public education for all children. Parents attempt to fulfill their duties by (1) providing their children with access to high-quality, public education; (2) providing their children with access to high-quality, private education; or (3) providing their children with high-quality education at home.

Many people disagree with the priorities of these duties (for example, whether the primary duty is on the parents or on the state) and many people disagree with whether any particular example of education counts as "high-quality" (for example, whether a particular teacher is doing a good or bad job at teaching a particular child).

Some people don't believe that children have a claim-right to high-quality education.

My opinion is that a child's claim-right to high-quality education is only violated when neither the state nor the parents provide this high-quality education. States generally provide public education in order to relieve parents from having to fulfill this duty themselves (because of cost or incompetence), while some parents choose to provide this education themselves or privately because they believe that the state fails to fulfill the duty because the education is not "high-quality".

There are people who fall outside of all of these groups as well, and I don't intend to dismiss them. Most people, however, fall into these groups.

With this interpretation of the claim-right of children to high-quality education, it is irrelevant whether the child wants to be homeschooled.

Here's a question: do children have a power-right to waive their claim-right to high-quality education?

Re: Medical Anarchy

#60
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the point is that homeschooling is being done by unqualified people using unverified, quickly-considered techniques, while public schooling is at least largely done by people who got teaching certifications and their methods get public scrutiny. But still, you're assuming that unqualified (according to whose qualifications?) people using unverified (by whom?) techniques are worse on average than public schools. It'…

I think it's reasonable to assume that unless anyone has proven the contrary, which they haven't. If you were replacing a public school with a private school, I'd agree that it is unwise to assume the private school is worse. We're talking about replacing an entire school staff with a couple overworked parents, though. Many arguments in favor of homeschooling are about parents' religious freedom or about how the publ…

> I think it's reasonable to assume that unless anyone has proven the contrary, which they haven't.

I disagree. I think it could go either way, as I have no real scientifically valid evidence either way, but I think the burden of proof is on the party advocating using violence to prevent the other party from doing what it wants.

> Many arguments in favor of homeschooling are about parents' religious freedom or about how the public school system has failed the children, and in both cases this does nothing to demonstrate that the parents are going to do a better job.

True, but it also does nothing to demonstrate that the parents are going to do a worse job.

Post reply on HN