Given that the SSRI messes with their ability to make motivated self determined choices, they don’t have full freedom.
That’s a strong claim to make without a shred of evidence.
There are also a lot of cases where a person might be forcefully hospitalised.
Are you saying this shouldn’t be done? Do you understand how or why it is done?
Part of the idea of having a doctor as an expert is also that the doctor will make choices.
I think there’s this concept of “informed consent”. Doctors are expected to make choices, yes, but at no time is the patient rendered powerless in these decisions.
I don’t think that anybody here advocates that you shouldn’t have the choice.
It was a rhetorical device. Don’t twist it to make it something else. Replace “me” with anyone else.
Are you saying this shouldn’t be done? Do you understand how or why it is done?
Given that I don’t know where the people I’m talking with live I know that I don’t have full knowledge of how it’s done.
If I tell someone to go to a local doctor, I’m not sure what the doctor will do with them.
A doctor in a small town in Utah, in Washington, in Berlin, in Moscow, in some small Russian down, in Mumbai or in some small Indian town.
As to why people get hospitalized I think there are three whys:
1) Why did doctors get that power historically?
2) Why did nobody politically move to take that power away from them?
3) Which reasons do doctors have to make that decision?
As far as 1) goes, it has today with a general believe in the usefulness of authorities and removing people who might disturb society out of sight.
As far as 2) goes, Big Pharma wouldn’t want that power to be taken away and lobbies accordingly. There political risk involved when you take the power away and then someone commites a suicide. Politcally it’s much safer to just allow the status quo to perpetuate.
As far as 3) goes, experts want to do everything that’s in their power to deal with a problem and have as much control over it as possible. It’s human nature to seek power and use it.
As to how it’s done, I have a bunch of anecdotal reports from people who reported that it is done pretty badly.
Theoretically the It’s a bit like the standford prison experiment expect in the standford prison experiment the guards didn’t have the choice to admister sedating substances.
There are plenty of issues involved and I haven’t dealt enough with the issue to propose a specific reform. I guess an increase in accountability through auditing would help against power abuse, but getting something like that right is complicated.
That’s a strong claim to make without a shred of evidence.
It’s no strong claim as you already conceeded that they reduce your motivation. If they do so it’s easy to deduct that your choice to move away from the drug will also be effected.
I think there’s this concept of “informed consent”. Doctors are expected to make choices, yes, but at no time is the patient rendered powerless in these decisions.
I think choice engineering with a goal of 100% compliance rates has effects even if you allow for “informed consent”. Power isn’t all or nothing.
Don’t twist it to make it something else. Replace “me” with anyone else.
I didn’t intend to focus on the “you” part. I think access to drugs is a different topic then the usefulness of doctors and the behavior of doctors.
I would like to legally access Modafinil in my country to experiment with whether it helps me. That doesn’t mean that I want to interact with doctors about that topic. I would guess that Lumifer would also be in favor of complete drug legalisation.
That position is also the opposite of the one for which big pharma lobbies.
If you wish me to continue to converse with you, try to keep your replies shorter. Also try not to make a huge number of accusations and weak deductions.
I’m sure there are legislations where people are treated against their will for poor reasons but one of the best and the most benign reasons is to protect temporarily psychotic people who try to kill themselves or others. Did it really not cross your mind that doctors would do this to help other people?
You’re conjuring a huge one sided conspiracy here in a politically loaded topic and you’re making serious accusations without evidence. Try to look at it from my side. What the hell am I or anyone else supposed to do with these claims?
I would like to legally access Modafinil in my country to experiment with whether it helps me. That doesn’t mean that I want to interact with doctors about that topic. I would guess that Lumifer would also be in favor of complete drug legalisation.
You mean all medical drugs altogether should be over the counter? If that’s what you’re saying, I think we’re done here.
You mean all medical drugs altogether should be over the counter? If that’s what you’re saying, I think we’re done here.
Of course not. For one thing, all antibiotics for human use should be legally scheduled as controlled substances, with severe penalties for unapproved use and distribution.
If that was actually feasible, I would agree. I might favor legalizing some recreational drugs, but where exactly would you draw the line between drugs and medicine?
If you wish me to continue to converse with you, try to keep your replies shorter.
I’ll try.
I’m sure there are legislations where people are treated against their will for poor reasons but one of the best and the most benign reasons is to protect temporarily psychotic people who try to kill themselves or others. Did it really not cross your mind that doctors would do this to help other people?
I did say that doctors want to get as much power as possible to cure someone else. This presumably includes a desire to help people.
The claim I that doctors hospitalize people to have more power to deal with the issue of the person isn’t an extraordinary claim. At other times I do make strong claims, but what I wrote in the last post seem all relatively trival as far as the facts I assert. I desribe facts in a way that might be politically incorrect but I don’t see an issue with that.
Do you disagree with my historical assessment? Do you think that mental instituation that existed 200 years ago were places optimized for the well being of the patients? Do you think that’s an extraordinary claim that require strong evidence?
You mean all medical drugs altogether should be over the counter? If that’s what you’re saying, I think we’re done here.
Yes, I hold that position. But we don’t have to discuss the War on Drugs in detail. Just rest assured that I don’t want to take yours or anyone elses access to drugs.
If you get the point that nobody wants to take away your drugs then I succeeded with the point I wanted to make. In that case I think you would have learned something useful from the discussion.
I did say that doctors want to get as much power as possible to cure someone else.
This is really vague. I can’t imagine any significant number of doctors today wanting to force cancer treatment for example. What does “cure” mean if the patient is miserable? Saying that most doctors would want to force any treatment in general is an extraordinary claim. If you’re making that claim I suggest you consider that your perception of human (or modern western?) morality is unusual.
Do you disagree with my historical assessment? Do you think that mental instituation that existed 200 years ago were places optimized for the well being of the patients? Do you think that’s an extraordinary claim that require strong evidence?
No to all of those. It doesn’t follow that there was this Big Pharma lobbying for conserving ancient institutions. It seems to me you’re thinking of what you would do if you were Big Pharma instead of looking for evidence of what they actually do.
If you get the point that nobody wants to take away your drugs then I succeeded with the point I wanted to make.
I don’t think you should put words in Lumifer’s mouth. He can clarify his position himself if he wishes to. He didn’t know about my condition and I don’t think he wanted to take away my drugs, whatever that means.
Saying that most doctors would want to force any treatment in general is an extraordinary claim.
I haven’t used the word force.
What do I believe the doctors do? I know a doctor who works at a hospital where she has the target of increasing the number of procedures that the hospital can bill by 10% every year.
There are people out there who believe it’s ethical to change organ donation from optin to optout. There’s broad research about how to get people to do what you want to do by using tricks like that. I do believe that oncologists frequently use related stategies to increase complience rates and have more patient undergo treatment.
Afterwards the hospital director reaches his goal of his 10% increase. If you don’t think that doctors have power over changing patients choices, the 10% goal wouldn’t make sense.
I want to point out that none of the above implies that the doctor doesn’t believe that the cancer treatment is good for the patient.
I don’t think you should put words in Lumifer’s mouth. He can clarify his position himself if he wishes to.
Given that he’s politically a libertarian who values personal autonomy I have a high confidence that he doesn’t support the war on drugs. I think a libertarian you don’t allow for human diversity position but want to medicate it away position just doesn’t mesh with advocating to ban further drugs from people who want to have them.
I do consider it useful to think of positions in a way where you are allowed to analyse them and make claims about them..
The post I wrote is not about making right/wrong judgements. I wanted to say that using techniques like that is a form of using power to change the “choices” another person makes.
I don’t think that doctors use actually force to get a patient to agree to a cancer operation but I do think that a fair portion uses choice engineering techniques to get the patient to do what they consider to be good for the patient.
Given that I don’t know where the people I’m talking with live I know that I don’t have full knowledge of how it’s done. If I tell someone to go to a local doctor, I’m not sure what the doctor will do with them.
(FWIW hyporational’s Less Wrong user page says that he’s in Finland.)
That’s a strong claim to make without a shred of evidence.
Are you saying this shouldn’t be done? Do you understand how or why it is done?
I think there’s this concept of “informed consent”. Doctors are expected to make choices, yes, but at no time is the patient rendered powerless in these decisions.
It was a rhetorical device. Don’t twist it to make it something else. Replace “me” with anyone else.
Given that I don’t know where the people I’m talking with live I know that I don’t have full knowledge of how it’s done. If I tell someone to go to a local doctor, I’m not sure what the doctor will do with them.
A doctor in a small town in Utah, in Washington, in Berlin, in Moscow, in some small Russian down, in Mumbai or in some small Indian town.
As to why people get hospitalized I think there are three whys: 1) Why did doctors get that power historically? 2) Why did nobody politically move to take that power away from them? 3) Which reasons do doctors have to make that decision?
As far as 1) goes, it has today with a general believe in the usefulness of authorities and removing people who might disturb society out of sight.
As far as 2) goes, Big Pharma wouldn’t want that power to be taken away and lobbies accordingly. There political risk involved when you take the power away and then someone commites a suicide. Politcally it’s much safer to just allow the status quo to perpetuate.
As far as 3) goes, experts want to do everything that’s in their power to deal with a problem and have as much control over it as possible. It’s human nature to seek power and use it.
As to how it’s done, I have a bunch of anecdotal reports from people who reported that it is done pretty badly.
Theoretically the It’s a bit like the standford prison experiment expect in the standford prison experiment the guards didn’t have the choice to admister sedating substances.
There are plenty of issues involved and I haven’t dealt enough with the issue to propose a specific reform. I guess an increase in accountability through auditing would help against power abuse, but getting something like that right is complicated.
It’s no strong claim as you already conceeded that they reduce your motivation. If they do so it’s easy to deduct that your choice to move away from the drug will also be effected.
I think choice engineering with a goal of 100% compliance rates has effects even if you allow for “informed consent”. Power isn’t all or nothing.
I didn’t intend to focus on the “you” part. I think access to drugs is a different topic then the usefulness of doctors and the behavior of doctors.
I would like to legally access Modafinil in my country to experiment with whether it helps me. That doesn’t mean that I want to interact with doctors about that topic. I would guess that Lumifer would also be in favor of complete drug legalisation.
That position is also the opposite of the one for which big pharma lobbies.
If you wish me to continue to converse with you, try to keep your replies shorter. Also try not to make a huge number of accusations and weak deductions.
I’m sure there are legislations where people are treated against their will for poor reasons but one of the best and the most benign reasons is to protect temporarily psychotic people who try to kill themselves or others. Did it really not cross your mind that doctors would do this to help other people?
You’re conjuring a huge one sided conspiracy here in a politically loaded topic and you’re making serious accusations without evidence. Try to look at it from my side. What the hell am I or anyone else supposed to do with these claims?
You mean all medical drugs altogether should be over the counter? If that’s what you’re saying, I think we’re done here.
Of course not. For one thing, all antibiotics for human use should be legally scheduled as controlled substances, with severe penalties for unapproved use and distribution.
If that was actually feasible, I would agree. I might favor legalizing some recreational drugs, but where exactly would you draw the line between drugs and medicine?
I’ll try.
I did say that doctors want to get as much power as possible to cure someone else. This presumably includes a desire to help people.
The claim I that doctors hospitalize people to have more power to deal with the issue of the person isn’t an extraordinary claim. At other times I do make strong claims, but what I wrote in the last post seem all relatively trival as far as the facts I assert. I desribe facts in a way that might be politically incorrect but I don’t see an issue with that.
Do you disagree with my historical assessment? Do you think that mental instituation that existed 200 years ago were places optimized for the well being of the patients? Do you think that’s an extraordinary claim that require strong evidence?
Yes, I hold that position. But we don’t have to discuss the War on Drugs in detail. Just rest assured that I don’t want to take yours or anyone elses access to drugs. If you get the point that nobody wants to take away your drugs then I succeeded with the point I wanted to make. In that case I think you would have learned something useful from the discussion.
This is really vague. I can’t imagine any significant number of doctors today wanting to force cancer treatment for example. What does “cure” mean if the patient is miserable? Saying that most doctors would want to force any treatment in general is an extraordinary claim. If you’re making that claim I suggest you consider that your perception of human (or modern western?) morality is unusual.
No to all of those. It doesn’t follow that there was this Big Pharma lobbying for conserving ancient institutions. It seems to me you’re thinking of what you would do if you were Big Pharma instead of looking for evidence of what they actually do.
I don’t think you should put words in Lumifer’s mouth. He can clarify his position himself if he wishes to. He didn’t know about my condition and I don’t think he wanted to take away my drugs, whatever that means.
I haven’t used the word force.
What do I believe the doctors do? I know a doctor who works at a hospital where she has the target of increasing the number of procedures that the hospital can bill by 10% every year.
There are people out there who believe it’s ethical to change organ donation from optin to optout. There’s broad research about how to get people to do what you want to do by using tricks like that. I do believe that oncologists frequently use related stategies to increase complience rates and have more patient undergo treatment.
Afterwards the hospital director reaches his goal of his 10% increase. If you don’t think that doctors have power over changing patients choices, the 10% goal wouldn’t make sense.
I want to point out that none of the above implies that the doctor doesn’t believe that the cancer treatment is good for the patient.
Given that he’s politically a libertarian who values personal autonomy I have a high confidence that he doesn’t support the war on drugs. I think a libertarian you don’t allow for human diversity position but want to medicate it away position just doesn’t mesh with advocating to ban further drugs from people who want to have them.
I do consider it useful to think of positions in a way where you are allowed to analyse them and make claims about them..
And you think they’re wrong? Why?
The post I wrote is not about making right/wrong judgements. I wanted to say that using techniques like that is a form of using power to change the “choices” another person makes.
I don’t think that doctors use actually force to get a patient to agree to a cancer operation but I do think that a fair portion uses choice engineering techniques to get the patient to do what they consider to be good for the patient.
The point of this conversation is lost on me. I’m out.
Peace.
(FWIW hyporational’s Less Wrong user page says that he’s in Finland.)