Let's face it, people have been using "unofficial" health resources for years. Advice from friends, so-called experts on TV, crank alternatives they had recommended to them. Remember the "snake oil salesman" from old Western shows?
Naturally though, the Web presents us with orders of magnitude more health information than is available through traditional sources. But as Lewis points out, how do we determine what is "good" and what is not? Frankly the last thing we need is Government legislation; firstly because the only way for Governments to control overseas sites is to block them completely, and secondly because Government "experts" have shown themselves inept with many laughable attempts at educating the public on serious health issues.
Instead, many things we love and trust on the Web today, have obtained this level of trust through self-policing. Example: Ebay allows buyers to rate and provide feedback on sellers; the rating of bad sellers naturally sinks, and no one buys from them any more. I can see perhaps similar models being for health-related site. Then again, this kind of anecdotal evidence flies in the face of scientific, study-based medicine.
As far as Lewis' study is concerned, it's all well and good to include only young people in the prime of health. One would expect people enjoying good health to be primarily concerned with lifestyle and fitness. In contrast, I would like to see studies including older people and folks with serious and chronic health problems. Combined with the digital divide, it would provide insights into the value of health information from various online sources versus traditional sources.
In respects to really sick people, the Web has also, unfortunately, provided rich virgin territory for "alternative" quack therapies. Not that I'm knocking things like traditional Eastern medicine, but it seems every miracle cure and ludicrous health claim has garnered ardent followers on the Web. These hucksters especially like to prey upon the chronically ill and hopelessly sick, who naturally view regular medicine as having failed them and are willing to try anything. These crooks thrive in cyberspace where they can operate outside the jurisdiction of Government legislation. Formal bodies like the AMA and WHO must step up to the plate and stamp out crooked practices, especially when they are espoused by regular GPs to make money. Sites like quackwatch.org are invaluable for exposing fraudsters and useless medicine. Furthermore, prominent movie stars and athletes can be held to account when pushing crank therapies to a gullible public.
As a side note, what concerns me most about the ease of obtaining prescription drugs online is not their inherent danger. Drug abusers will always find a source for their habit, whether it be the traditional dealer or a website. If a website offers the same fix cheaper than a dealer, so much the better for society as the junkie will not need to break in to as many houses to pay for their habit. And if their "self-medication" will run dealers out of business, again, so much the better.
No, what concerns me is what the Government will do with drug websites. Many online drug groups are concerned with helping people kick the habit, which is a good thing. But as Nielsen and Barratt point out, these sources will necessarily contain innocuous information which can be twisted and abused by users and pushers -- how to manufacture narcotics from over-the-counter substances, how to increase highs, how to make potent combinations. Other nefarious websites are set up specifically to disseminate this kind of information. Finally, there are reference sites which list ingredients and information of drugs, which, again, can be abused. Now, with the Internet Filter hanging over this country like the Sword of Damocles, it is certain the Government will blacklist these sites because they contain information which could potentially be used for illicit purposes. What will this mean for people seeking advice on kicking a drug habit? What about people honestly seeking information on drug brands? What about people trying to educate themselves on the drug cocktail prescribed to their sick child?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment