> This posting from Craig Silva was caught in the error cycle because it
> included the heading from Judy Quail...Liz Rykert
> >
> >> One of the things
> >> that is happening with so many people gradually gaining access to
> >> the internet is that the health care provider will not be in control
> >> of the information partakers receive.
> >
Health care providers are not in control anyway.  All the information the
physician has regarding disease, medications, treatments, etc., can be
found in libraries, on Medline and Cinahl searches, from the
pharmaceutical company, etc.  As a matter of fact, the FDA restricts the
amount of information that can be placed on a package insert for a
medication, although this is the same information one can find in the
Physician's Desk Reference at any library.  All the medical texts on
diseases can be found at libraries or purchased.  For information on
treatments, one can contact any major medical center.

> >> becoming informed?  It seems like there might be external and
> >> internal or psychological aspects to this experience. What
> >> assistance do people need to help them to access information, to
> >> understand it and to begin to make some judgements about it, and
> >> then to use it?
> >
> >A good education? No seriously, the availability of mass information
> >requires that everyone should be educated to encourage and develop
> >their critical skills so as to be able to assess the quality and also
> >more importantly to determine the authenticity of the information
> >available.
I agree.  Education and critical thinking skills are imperative in an
information based society.  No one should be censored just because the
information only helps one person or because it has not helped someone.

> >> It is almost like people will need mini- research skills, because
> >> they are going to be learning about information itself, not only the
> >> subject matter.
> >
> >A key question in this is the authority of the information available
> >online. The ease with which anyone can publish on the web is a
> >two-edged sword. Whilst it has a liberating effect and breaks
> >certain information monopolies it also allows any crackpot or
> >charlatan to advertise their weird and wonderful views on the world.
> >One area that hasn't yet (to my knowledge) been tested is that of
> >liability for wrong or inadequate information. The lawyers in the US
> >are no doubt wetting themselves over the potential for litigation in
> >this area.
Charlatans exist in publications such as magazines and newsletters that
people think were written by experts.  Dr. Snake Oil is alive and well
on Infomercials on television.  Anyone can write a book without any
credentials whatsoever.  I see no difference on the Internet.  It is the
lawyer's caveat "Buyer Beware" which consumers must adhere to.  At least
on the Internet people can see the vast and widely differentiated types
of information available.  It is this very differentiation that is the
first clue that there is no perfect truth in health and medicine (except
that we are born, and that we die, and certain things will kill you).

Health educators do have an ethical responsibility to see that the
information we offer the public is sound, tested, proven, will cause no
harm, etc.  At the same time, we cannot censor somebody else because we
do not know where the next medical breakthrough will occur (penicillin
came from a pesky mold), nor do we know if what sounds like poppycock
today will be the treatment of choice ten years from now (remember how
all the doctors in the 1960's thought that smoking had nothing to do with
lung cancer? and the few doctors who spoke out were not taken
seriously?).  Health educators also need to provide critical skills
learning reminding people not to believe everything we say either unless
it meets their criteria for themselves and the knowledge they have.

Barbara Kass, B.S.
[log in to unmask]