In a message dated 10/8/0 10:59:29 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< "Health and medical information on the Web has huge potential to benefit
patients and the public, but inaccurate and biased information and potential
breaches of patient privacy may cause more harm than good," stated Dr.
Margaret Winkler, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical
Association and a committee member. "We need to find ways to improve the
quality of medical information on the Web and give users the information
about Web sites they need to make an informed choice," she said.
The committee includes representatives of organizations that have already
developed ethical or quality guidelines for health Web sites, such as the
Internet Healthcare Coalition, Hi-Ethics and the American Medical
Association.
>>
I see your point and why you might welcome such an effort, but I have another
point of view. As someone who has gathered most of the information from
outside of the mainstream on which my family has based our most important
health and lifestyle choices, these are the very organizations that concern
me the most. Their idea of "biased" information is anything that calls
allopathic medicine into question. Frankly, if I want to know where to look
for info on healthcare I go to Quackwatch.com and look up anyone he accuses
of quackery. They are usually the most innovative healers in the country.
BTW, his bf info is way off base, too.
While I, too am extremely concerned about misinformation on the web, I do
not think this cause is furthered by "approving" of certain sites, which, in
effect *disapproves* of other sites. Protecting the public from itself is not
my vision of a free internet or a free society.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
