Comment by ytoawwhra92
19 hours ago
Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools?
I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.
> Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools?
Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?
Also, what if a tool still provides value to the user, in some contexts, but not to others, in different contexts (for example, using the tool wrong)?
For the "tool" perspective, I've personal never seen a perfect tool. Do you have an example?
> I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.
I don't see how this is relevant. In the above article, the user went to their doctor for advice and a referral. But, in the US (and, many European countries) blood tests aren't restricted, and can be had from private labs out of pocket, since they're just measurements of things that exist in your blood, and not allowing you to know what's inside of you would be considered government overreach/privacy violation. Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.
> Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?
I know it when I see it.
> I don't see how this is relevant.
It's relevant because blood testing is an imperfect tool. Laypeople lack the knowledge/experience to identify imperfections and are likely to take results at face value. Like the author of the article did when ChatGPT gave them an F for their cardiac health.
> Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.
Do you agree with that restriction?
> I know it when I see it.
This isn't a reasonable answer. No action can be taken and no conclusion/thought can be made from it.
> Do you agree with that restriction?
People should be able to perform and be informed about their own blood measurements, and possibly bring something up with their doctors outside of routine exams (which they may not even be insured for in the US). I think the restriction on medical advice/conclusion, that results in treatment, is very good, otherwise you end up with "Wow, look at these results! you'll have to buy my snake oil or you'll die!".
I don't believe in reducing society to a level that completely protects the most stupid of us.
2 replies →
> I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor,
To me, this is horrific. I am the advocate for my own health. I trust my doctor - he's a great guy. I have spoken to him extensively around a variety of health matters and I greatly trust his opinion.
But I also recognize that he has many other patients and by necessity has to work within the general lines of probability. There is no way for him to know every confounding and contributing factor of my health, no matter how diligent I am in filling out my chart.
I get my own bloodwork done regularly. This has let me make significant changes in my life to improve health markers. I can also get a much broader spectrum of tests done than the standard panel. This has directly lead to productive conversations with my doctor!
And from a more philosophical standpoint, this is about understanding my own body. The source of the data is me. Why should this be gatekept behind a physician referral? I find it insane to think that I could be in a position where I am not allowed to find out the cholesterol serum levels in my blood unless a doctor OKs it! What the fuck?
> I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.
You’re saying it like it’s a good thing.