[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Henry Bremridge wrote: > > When I read that wikipedia article, I thought it raised a valid > question: if even some patients get better taking something that cannot do them > harm, is that a problem? (How much they pay for this is separate) The article also raises the doctor/patient relationship issue. How would you react if you discovered your doctor was palming you off with sugar pills? Would you doubt any future pills? Cost is one question, but also does the provider of said remedies push some nonsensical ideas with it, and will folks come back to those ideas when they have something else or something more serious wrong with them? The case of Thomas Sam springs to mind, a result of creating a culture based on ineffective remedies and opposing scientific medicine. I would say it is rare these days to have a medical condition that there isn't a drug that can help in some small way, even if it is only a painkiller. Thus the modern doctor could prescribe something to act as a placebo if he thought it was needed without needing to revert to sugar pills, and if there is a placebo effect involved having some symptomatic or pain relief is probably going to assist in convincing you the prescription is doing you good. A corollary of the "it is rare..." sentiment, is that many drug trials are now against the current drug of choice for a disorder, rather than against a placebo. Since it doesn't matter if a treatment works if it doesn't offer any benefits over existing treatments. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html