/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1589551]

I think I'm naive about this subject.

Recently a friend of mine was sick and had to go to the doctors. She has sinusitis and her doctor only took her temperature, blood pressure, and breathing, then proceeded to prescribe her with antibiotics despite not doing a bacterial culture. She told me the doctor gave the prescription "for preventive measures" which does not make sense to me.

We are taught in school and I've read articles online that said it's bad practice to prescribe antibiotics without good evidence of an bacterial infection. We already have a problem with resistant bacteria and the idea can also be seen in insecticides.

So why are (some) doctors so apt to prescribe antibiotics? I've heard so many similar stories. Thank god when I had to go to the ER, the doctors there said I didn't need any antibiotics.

[Anonymous No.1589563]

antibiotics tend to make you feel better no matter what. most people go to the doctor with a problem that will naturally go away in a few days

so, if the doc gives you antibiotics, you feel better and the thing goes away. you think he cured you

[Anonymous No.1589587]

>>1589563
So what you're saying is that the doctor is doing it for his own ego and to make money (himself and pharmaceutical companies)?

[Anonymous No.1589656]

Damn, no more opinions?

[Anonymous No.1589689]

There's such a thing called Broad Spectrum Antibiotics, oftentimes going by the moniker of Shotgun Antibiotics. These medicines are so effective that they are apt to destroy most forms of bacterial infections, simply not as well as the Specific Strain Antibiotic.

Now, therein lies the problem. The Doctor has the choice of treating the symptoms and letting the immune system fight the attack on its own (albeit taking the patient a longer time to recuperate). Killing most of the infection, while leaving the surviving ones to multiply immune to future medicine (though chances are the immune system will kill the leftovers anyway). Or charging the patient a shitload on tests and specific brand antibiotics that'll do the job more safely and more efficiently.

Most Doctors just shoot the shotgun.

[Anonymous No.1589706]

becouse 99% of doctors actually have no fucking idea what they are doing. If you list a few symptoms, they will just think of the most common illness that has those symptoms and say you definately have it, here are some drugs that i get paid even more to prescribe to you.

[Anonymous No.1589727]

>>1589689
But what's the point of prescribing the antibiotics when 1) high chance it isn't bacterial (ie if it's a cold or a flu)

>>1589706
I'm starting to believe this

[Anonymous No.1589738]

It's simpler to simply give antibiotics for a viral infection.

If you don't, the patient (most of the time) will demand them, complain, be dissatisfied and give bullshit reasons like "they work for me".

Mush simpler to avoid a shitstorm and give them despite no benefit beyond placebo.

These are particularly shit doctors, cowards and killers. People like them are the ones responsible for community based antibiotic resistant infections. Ignoring research and doing something anyway is the most arrogant thing anyone can do.

Plus they're probably in the pocket of some pharmaceutical company.

/rant

[Anonymous No.1589751]

>>1589727
Because you'll still treat the symptoms.

Your body is going to heal itself better than most medicine. Those antibodies will get there eventually, but if you have an antibiotic that can lower inflammation and deal with the many results that come from all infections, the patient will be happy.

You're right, the best method is to perform tests and find the cause of the symptoms. But you're misunderstanding a very grave point:
Its REALLY easy to know when you have an infection.
Chances are you will have it, the only discussion is whether or not its viral. So Doctors aren't just blindly prescribing, they know something.

[Anonymous No.1589758]

>>1589706
That's known as pattern matching, what we're taught to do now as we become more experienced, as it saves time and enables easy guideline following.

Contrast that to what "inexperienced" medics do, which is the hypthetico-deductive model. Which is standard scientific method, theory and disprove.

[Anonymous No.1589790]

>>1589751
I'm missing your point or something. If the inflammation is caused by the virus, antibiotics aren't going to help anything. Prescribing antibiotics while the person has a flu isn't going to cure the symptoms because they will go away eventually, like you said.

Like you said, it's either a virus or a bacteria (some cases fungal), the doctor is taking a risk if the symptoms are highly suggestive of a viral infection because it can lead to resistance within the community if the doctor is doing this all the time.

>>1589758
Excusing his rage, of course it makes sense to prescribe antibiotics if I have, like, an infection from an impacted tooth. But for something like the flu, cold, sinusitis? It actually wastes time and money.

[Anonymous No.1589807]

>>1589790
Both Bacteria and Viral Phages cause inflammation. The inflammation is a reaction to the lymphocytes attacking the infected location, so these antibiotics and antivirals both aid against inflammation because its the same situation.

The headaches, sinus pressure, etc, are all symptoms of the inflammation, so in treating that (which let me remind you has nothing to do with the actual infection), the patient feels better regardless.

So you have a choice: Give the patient a broad spectrum antibiotic that will make them feel good enough for the antibodies to just finish the job, or waste time and money performing tests to find the exact culprit.

[Anonymous No.1589854]

>>1589807
I'm not talking about antivirals. Antibiotics kills bacteria. Lymphocytes will attack the virus that is causing the infection.

If it's a cold, flu, there is absolutely no point in prescribing antibiotics. If the patient wants to relieve the symptoms, then the obvious choice is to take tylenol or whatever; not an antibiotic. You are not addressing this issue.

Most sinusitis cases are viral. Seems like it will cause more harm then good prescribing antibiotics for "just in case reasons." Again, it's just wasting money. Shouldn't testing for bacterial or fungal be done when the symptoms aren't getting better after 1.5-2 weeks?

[Anonymous No.1589872]

>>1589807
Dude do you know what you're even talking about. If the person has a mild virual infection, take a goddamn anti-inflammatory to ease the symptoms of headache and fever, not a fucking antibiotic.

Goddamn, I hope you are not going to medicine. You'll make a shitty doctor.

[Anonymous No.1589898]

OP, there was actually a case where a kid was allergic to a certain strep strain. The doctor didn't immediately prescribe antibiotics because he first wanted to make sure it was strep, and nothing else.

Guess what? By not prescribing the antibiotics immediately, the doctor was able to diagnose the allergy and not make a false accusation that it was the antibiotics the kid was allergic to.

There is absolutely no reason to prescribe antibiotics without obvious symptoms or evidence, especially if the infection is mild, like a cold.

[Anonymous No.1589920]

>>1589898
>Clever girl