> 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]