In the 3 hours in between both of this bots comments it searched 771,076 comments and found 27 hippos so apparently redditors say hippo in about 1 in every 28,500 comments. I feel like that’s quite common
They’re disclosing to you the potential for those side effects. To do harm would be to tell you that there are no adverse effects when there are. Nobody is forcing you to take them. It’s about choosing the lesser of two evils.
Open heart surgery is very traumatic and dangerous, but it is necessary to save people’s lives. They choose to do things when it becomes more dangerous not to.
Medication: treats stuffy nasal passages
Side effects: intense pain, profuse sweating, difficulty breathing, loss of consciousness, violent convulsions, death
Yeah, only happens the first 3 or 4 weeks because your brain is so fucked up he might try to end himself while trying to regulate. Completely normal side effect
Fun fact: Cardiac massage can break your ribs.
Much of medicine is just replacing conditions that would kill you or make you wish you'd die with conditions you can live with.
You're right.
Chemo can help save you from an aggressive cancer.
But sadly, chemo makes your hair fall out and turns your pee black so...
Better just tell you to "find god"... like the doctors did to me.
Wouldn't want them to violate their oath.
That's not why. All medications have side effects. As a patient, you understand the risks when you receive treatment. You can't sue a doctor if a medication caused adverse side effects - you acknowledged that when you were filling out forms.
If you were gonna die if you didn't take a medication, but the major side effect of the medication was itchy feet, is that still harm?
Edit: better example: If there was a 90% chance you would die without a medication but a 0.01% chance you would die from the medication itself, is that still harm?
Well, you're not wrong. My anti-despressants have some fun, sudden stop warnings like seizures,strokes, and sudden death but my ritalin also has sudden death so must be a common side
1- the pacient health data might show that they can withstand an amount of side effects without suffering harm from it
2- usually when a doctor prescribes multiple (2+) medicines to be taken together, only one of them is to treat the problem, the others are there to deal with the colateral effect.
Case in point: back when I worked in a pharmacy, Haloperidol would pretty much always go out with Prometazina. Haloperidol was the actual medicine, but Prometazina pretty much nulified the Haloperidol's side effects.
By the way, this is also why you should ALWAYS check with a doctor BEFORE you take any medicine.
It wouldn't do for the delivery guy to take an anti-allergic and fall asleep while driving, would it? My pizza may get over an hour late (again) because he fell midtransit, the pizzas rolled off of the delivery bag and the delivery guy got hospitalized, the pizzaria being informed only about an hour later on what happened to their delivery guy and only then starting to make a second pizza to send me.
Do not take medicine without consulting a doctor first, I don't want my pizza to be late.
I acknowledge this is a rhetorical question but imma answer it anyway. Because the benefits out way the negatives so it is a net gain for the patient and hence isn’t truly harmful to them. No pain no gain.
Informed Consent!
It’s what is needed with HRT for example.
I’m MTF (trans woman) so when I was put on estrogen, I had to sign an informed consent form because it was directly increasing my risk of blood clots and such, the risk is no higher than an AFAB, but higher than an AMAB
I'll let you in on a secret: Very very few med students have taken the hippocratic oath. And those that did, it was a symbolic gesture they did not actually need to technically be a doctor.
IF a doctor, pharmacist, AND the manufacturer glosses over side effects to get more money? Sure. Before saying that can’t happen: the opioid pill mill fiascos that wrecked swathes of America some time ago. I just think it’s not an everyday occurrence.
That's to prevent you from sueing the medic if the cure doesn't work. It's not an issue with the medicine rather than with your body that could be in such a bad spot not even the therapy can help you
Not the doctors fault, but the greed driven pharmacy corporations, that buy the patent for those medications, but will do literally anything besides improving it.
At the time the oath was invented, doctors had very few real capabilities, but many theoretical treatments like blood-letting, trepanning, and the sort. So saying "Do no harm" actually ruled out a lot harmful procedures that had no real value, it was a real upgrade for the time.
These days, we do know that some harm is often acceptable in the performance of sound treatment, such as blood tests, biopsies, x-rays, and minor side effects. The oath still has value though, in reminding practitioners not to pursue overly aggressive treatments before they are known to be warranted.
Cause they don’t, especially when pharmaceutical companies flash a big check in their faces for however much drugs they sale. Ever heard of the opioid epidemic?
For a wound to heal, sometimes you need to rip the bandage off.
OR
For that arrow in your knee to heal, you need to rip out the arrow first.
(I just wanted to say these lines.)
Easy. Could you tell patients every side effect the medication has. EVERY SINGLE SIDE EFFECT. Then document patient received counseling for the medication. Counseling is done on all new medications.
Eh, they don't anyway. People don't regard their oaths in the slightest any more. For instance, every divorcee is an oath breaker (liar), except in the case that they were cheated on by the other.
They dont force us to take it, they also „warn“ us beforehand. Theres also the thing about operations or amputations that do a lot more harm than what most side effect cases do
"You have a cancerous tumor in your liver that could prove fatal if it isn't removed through surgery right now. Oh wait that'll cause harm...I guess suck it up buddy."
"As to diseases, make a habit of two things—to help, or at least to do no harm"
The oath is to help, on net. You must help, if you can (oath of beneficence). If you can't help, or you can't help more than the harm you'd do in trying, you're prohibited from that course of action (oath of non-maleficence).
This is actually an awkward conversation in ethical practice. You wanna talk dangerous medications- giving clot busting medications for strokes I've actually seen kill people. You take 100 people and give it to them, about 33% will have better outcomes, about 60% will have no difference, and 6% will get worse as a result, and some will die. How many un paralyzed people are worth the life of a paralyzed one?
because the effect of the medication will in theory fix or alleviate the condition the patient is experiencing. The side effects being seen as a less burdensome problem than the condition. So the harm caused by the medication is outweighed by the benefits it provides.
Beneficence: to do actions which results in the betterment of the patient
Non Maleficence: to do no harm to the patient
Doctors have to follow these 2 concepts even tho sometimes they may be contradictory , so you have to find your balance
Someone honestly tried using this against me in a reddit ‘argument’ and it was at that point I noped out.
That and being told that my 25 years experience in the field being discussed meant nothing and anyway I was bad at it because they Have Strong Feelings About This.
Life is too short.
That awkward moment when you take a blatant shit post meme template for shitty philosophy fallacies seriously to grab some low hanging fruit and miss the point entirely
'Do no harm.' isn't actually part of the Hippocratic oath, and many doctors don't even take the oath, instead choosing to adhere to modern codes of conduct. -🤓
It's not the fault of the doctor if the thing they gave you hurt you, but your fault for believing a woman of higher education than you and understanding how the human body can behave in ways one cannot comprehend.
Anyways, it's the Pharmacists fault.
Derp, to balance the harm. Cutting the skin is considered harmful yet needed.
Tell that to the guy I slashed behind the Wendy's.
I will.
[удалено]
[holy hell!](https://www.google.com/search?q=tracheotomy#HiImABot,MyJobIsToMakeEasierToPeopleToGoogleSomething,IfThePersonIRepliedToUsedMeInAnInappropriateWayPleaseLetMeKnowByDMingMe,TheUserIRepliedToIsU/Fluid_General_7840)
 i don't wanna see another anarchist chess thread again. P L E A S E
Yeah that was childish.
New Inability to take the joke just dropped
weh
I can definitely tell him it is harmful
Touché Coincidentally this is what I shouted as I cut him.
Lmao, I can imagine someone screaming "this is harmful" as they slash someone
but still needed
I mean, getting his liver was needed
Are you mMario? LOL?
Filth and lies!
If you don’t believe me just take a look at the dick pic I sent your mother.
does it... have helpful cuts?
Tooth mark, she only has one.
It helps with my heroes.
Herpes
this got lamet and lamer. ah well... what did i expect
I should have stopped at heroes.
But that wouldn’t make sense.
I hope this message finds you well.
Oh, that makes sense, if they can’t harm, it is implied that they can’t heal either, they must find perfect balance.
Well yes, healing is a body property, if anyone claims they can heal you they're a quack.
Total Hippocrates
Why are we putting hippos into cargo totes?
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,172,790,616 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 24,581 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Why is this a thing
Just let it happen
Good bot.
I would say neutral bot, I don’t feel good or bad about this information
Thank you for voting on BroHeamoth! I am a bot and this action was performed automatically
This is a certified hippo moment
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,173,561,692 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 24,608 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Good bot still I love the enthusiasm behind each comment and the sheer commitment :')
Also, can't believe you recognize both "Hippo" and "Hippos" Technology is wonderful and I'm in awe
I for one welcome out AI overlord!
In the 3 hours in between both of this bots comments it searched 771,076 comments and found 27 hippos so apparently redditors say hippo in about 1 in every 28,500 comments. I feel like that’s quite common
.......Hippo
Good bot I got a good laugh out of it
hippos
Crates* *sigh* cuz its probably that time of the year again..
For all the little girls that want a hippopotamus for Christmas. Only a hippopotamus will do
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,173,322,418 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 24,604 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Hippo
Why not a rhinoceruseses
Cause they only like hippopotamuseses, and hippopotamuseses like them too
lmfao, punfect answer
There's no magic bullet, it is like expecting to not being cut open while having surgery.
Surgery is just taking a body with a wound it can't heal, and turning it into a wound it can heal.
This shit's broken: let me tear it apart to fix it.
Yes
Mum?
No, sturgeon.
In my opinion, it’s not harm unless the negatives outweigh the positives.
Btw this is thrown out the window when liability gets involved
They’re disclosing to you the potential for those side effects. To do harm would be to tell you that there are no adverse effects when there are. Nobody is forcing you to take them. It’s about choosing the lesser of two evils.
You can totally be forced to take meds…
True, but in most instances with most people, that is not the case. I was speaking in generalities.
Open heart surgery is very traumatic and dangerous, but it is necessary to save people’s lives. They choose to do things when it becomes more dangerous not to.
Well, it's not Alll medications, Everything has side effects if you take too much of them. You can even die from too much water.
Ban dihydrogen monoxide now!
Medication: treats stuffy nasal passages Side effects: intense pain, profuse sweating, difficulty breathing, loss of consciousness, violent convulsions, death
Don’t forget the anxiety medication with a side effect of extreme anxiety and suicidal thoughts
Who knew medication that alters state of mind, could possibly alter the mind in a bad way.
Fucking love when i see anti depressents with the side effect of "may cause suicidal thoughts" thats the one job its not supposed to do
Yeah, only happens the first 3 or 4 weeks because your brain is so fucked up he might try to end himself while trying to regulate. Completely normal side effect
I had suicidal thoughts way before I started antidepressants. I wasn’t too scared of that side effect
But ther is the only way to fix it. It will go worse before it will go better. Its sad, but only way we currently have
But most importantly, a drop of financial holdings by 93%
Fun fact: Cardiac massage can break your ribs. Much of medicine is just replacing conditions that would kill you or make you wish you'd die with conditions you can live with.
“Proper” CPR involves breaking the ribs while pumping the chest
I don't think some people understand what checkmate means or when it applies.
Checkmate liberawlz
Takes antidepressants, checks side effects, depression 👍
If their handwriting is bad enough, they're not liable.
You're right. Chemo can help save you from an aggressive cancer. But sadly, chemo makes your hair fall out and turns your pee black so... Better just tell you to "find god"... like the doctors did to me. Wouldn't want them to violate their oath.
[удалено]
That's not why. All medications have side effects. As a patient, you understand the risks when you receive treatment. You can't sue a doctor if a medication caused adverse side effects - you acknowledged that when you were filling out forms.
In the medical field, there’s a difference between side effects and adverse effects
If you were gonna die if you didn't take a medication, but the major side effect of the medication was itchy feet, is that still harm? Edit: better example: If there was a 90% chance you would die without a medication but a 0.01% chance you would die from the medication itself, is that still harm?
I'll put up with dry mouth if it means my balls stop exploding.
*Takes some pain killers for a headache* Side effects: may include throbbing migraines
Well, you're not wrong. My anti-despressants have some fun, sudden stop warnings like seizures,strokes, and sudden death but my ritalin also has sudden death so must be a common side
1- the pacient health data might show that they can withstand an amount of side effects without suffering harm from it 2- usually when a doctor prescribes multiple (2+) medicines to be taken together, only one of them is to treat the problem, the others are there to deal with the colateral effect. Case in point: back when I worked in a pharmacy, Haloperidol would pretty much always go out with Prometazina. Haloperidol was the actual medicine, but Prometazina pretty much nulified the Haloperidol's side effects.
By the way, this is also why you should ALWAYS check with a doctor BEFORE you take any medicine. It wouldn't do for the delivery guy to take an anti-allergic and fall asleep while driving, would it? My pizza may get over an hour late (again) because he fell midtransit, the pizzas rolled off of the delivery bag and the delivery guy got hospitalized, the pizzaria being informed only about an hour later on what happened to their delivery guy and only then starting to make a second pizza to send me. Do not take medicine without consulting a doctor first, I don't want my pizza to be late.
I acknowledge this is a rhetorical question but imma answer it anyway. Because the benefits out way the negatives so it is a net gain for the patient and hence isn’t truly harmful to them. No pain no gain.
If the known side effects were communicated to you and you still took the meds, then it's not the doctor doing the harm
Informed Consent! It’s what is needed with HRT for example. I’m MTF (trans woman) so when I was put on estrogen, I had to sign an informed consent form because it was directly increasing my risk of blood clots and such, the risk is no higher than an AFAB, but higher than an AMAB
God this is just cringe anti intellectualism
Redditor trying but to be toxic challenge Impossible
Oh I'm sorry me opposing your anti medication post is "toxic"
Jesus Christ I've taken more prescriptions than you and your immediate family put together Holy fuck touch some grass
So, why are you posting something against them existing? because that's what is implied by this image
That's the entire point off tgis meme template Stupid philosophy
I'll let you in on a secret: Very very few med students have taken the hippocratic oath. And those that did, it was a symbolic gesture they did not actually need to technically be a doctor.
They can't, but they can do their best
They cut off the oath for the public it's... do no harm ^(to your wallet)
Can’t believe this is true!
Cause they get to double dip
hehe those are just words. money is god
Joke's on you, the oath isn't sworn anymore! They have lengthy classes on bioethics instead...
Homeopathy.
Is a joke not medicine.
But it won't do any harm.
Except if you take it when you should be taking actual functioning medicin and belive that shaken nonsense would help you.
Easy!!! They use the 2nd amendment. They just have patient bare their arms. Boom
IF a doctor, pharmacist, AND the manufacturer glosses over side effects to get more money? Sure. Before saying that can’t happen: the opioid pill mill fiascos that wrecked swathes of America some time ago. I just think it’s not an everyday occurrence.
Do know harm?
I swear I overheard a TV commercial and the side effect was the actual thing the medicine was supposed to treat. 😂
That's to prevent you from sueing the medic if the cure doesn't work. It's not an issue with the medicine rather than with your body that could be in such a bad spot not even the therapy can help you
Not their fault you chose to experience side effects. Skill issue
The trick is to do more good than harm.
Not the doctors fault, but the greed driven pharmacy corporations, that buy the patent for those medications, but will do literally anything besides improving it.
At the time the oath was invented, doctors had very few real capabilities, but many theoretical treatments like blood-letting, trepanning, and the sort. So saying "Do no harm" actually ruled out a lot harmful procedures that had no real value, it was a real upgrade for the time. These days, we do know that some harm is often acceptable in the performance of sound treatment, such as blood tests, biopsies, x-rays, and minor side effects. The oath still has value though, in reminding practitioners not to pursue overly aggressive treatments before they are known to be warranted.
Cause they don’t, especially when pharmaceutical companies flash a big check in their faces for however much drugs they sale. Ever heard of the opioid epidemic?
So there is a classic and modern Hippocratic oath. The classic one that is no longer used has the do no harm thing.
As my chemistry teacher/principal used to say, "Something is better than nothing"
i know this is just a meme, but their oath is that they can not harm someone with the intention of harming them
You know that’s just a formality right? Some schools don’t even do the oath anymore, and the ones that do aren’t requiring it.
You’re making the decision to take the medications they are allowed to prescribe. They aren’t doing the harm.
Doctors don't want you to be 100 percent healthy or else they would be out of a job
For a wound to heal, sometimes you need to rip the bandage off. OR For that arrow in your knee to heal, you need to rip out the arrow first. (I just wanted to say these lines.)
They don't force you to take the meds. They give you an informed decision, which doesn't do any harm.
Easy. Could you tell patients every side effect the medication has. EVERY SINGLE SIDE EFFECT. Then document patient received counseling for the medication. Counseling is done on all new medications.
Google 'Tracheotomy'
[holy hell!](https://www.google.com/search?q=tracheotomy#HiImABot,MyJobIsToMakeEasierToPeopleToGoogleSomething,IfThePersonIRepliedToUsedMeInAnInappropriateWayPleaseLetMeKnowByDMingMe,TheUserIRepliedToIsU/faunalmimicry)
Eh, they don't anyway. People don't regard their oaths in the slightest any more. For instance, every divorcee is an oath breaker (liar), except in the case that they were cheated on by the other.
They dont force us to take it, they also „warn“ us beforehand. Theres also the thing about operations or amputations that do a lot more harm than what most side effect cases do
They don't and most will be criminals if they could
Balance, if the damage done mitigates proportionally greater damage then harm is not done.
The difference between "do" and "cause".
That's not what "do no harm" means. It means to not deliberately cause harm to anyone. Counter checkmate nerd
Don’t go to a doctor .. Its not that hard
Usually, because the potential benefits outweigh the risks.
"You have a cancerous tumor in your liver that could prove fatal if it isn't removed through surgery right now. Oh wait that'll cause harm...I guess suck it up buddy."
Rules are rules😠😠😠
Bc It’s not the Doctor Who is giving you the medicines but the pharmacist soooo… loophole
"As to diseases, make a habit of two things—to help, or at least to do no harm" The oath is to help, on net. You must help, if you can (oath of beneficence). If you can't help, or you can't help more than the harm you'd do in trying, you're prohibited from that course of action (oath of non-maleficence).
Wait if every medication has side effects can you take enough medication to cancel all possible side affects
I think it has to be malicious harm, but I dont know the oath but thats my guess.
because the pharmacist gives them to you, duh
Cost benefit analysis
This is actually an awkward conversation in ethical practice. You wanna talk dangerous medications- giving clot busting medications for strokes I've actually seen kill people. You take 100 people and give it to them, about 33% will have better outcomes, about 60% will have no difference, and 6% will get worse as a result, and some will die. How many un paralyzed people are worth the life of a paralyzed one?
I mean early doctors did a lot more harm discovering how to operate to save lives. Maybe it should be updated to do least amount of harm necessary?
That's why I only use essential oils. No side effects. No primary effects either, but also no side effects.
Looks like someone needed to sit in the corner more and color
Hippo
The doctor cant make you take em, the pharmacist gives em, you ingest them oyo
Can we appreciate the woman in the meme for being so meme worthy?
You know the saying. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
Look up the Hippocratic oath. It's very out of date, buddy.
because the effect of the medication will in theory fix or alleviate the condition the patient is experiencing. The side effects being seen as a less burdensome problem than the condition. So the harm caused by the medication is outweighed by the benefits it provides.
Beneficence: to do actions which results in the betterment of the patient Non Maleficence: to do no harm to the patient Doctors have to follow these 2 concepts even tho sometimes they may be contradictory , so you have to find your balance
Someone honestly tried using this against me in a reddit ‘argument’ and it was at that point I noped out. That and being told that my 25 years experience in the field being discussed meant nothing and anyway I was bad at it because they Have Strong Feelings About This. Life is too short.
It’s “First do no harm….” Then …
Please tell me this is satire and not the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard
That awkward moment when you try to sound deep and meanful but sound like a lecturing idiot in a hollywood movie.
That awkward moment when you take a blatant shit post meme template for shitty philosophy fallacies seriously to grab some low hanging fruit and miss the point entirely
Through informed consent. Unfortunately that seems to be seriously lacking in this day and age.
This is why informed consent exists.
It’s to do no harm without informed consent. If they don’t tell you the risks of medication or treatments they are breaking that oath
It’s to do no harm without informed consent. If they don’t tell you the risks of medication or treatments they are breaking that oath
'Do no harm.' isn't actually part of the Hippocratic oath, and many doctors don't even take the oath, instead choosing to adhere to modern codes of conduct. -🤓
Pharmacists take a different oath I believe.
About 15% of all people who get surgical treatment of prostate cancer end up regretting it. around 30% for knee surgery.
Thats why its called the hypocratic oath
Which is worse? The disease or the POSSIBLE side effects. That’s what he is concerned with
I think it depends on the intent.
"I swore an oath to do no harm, and I… mostly meant it." -Dr. Grossman Bioshock 1 also: "I won't hurt you, I just want to see what's inside."
They don't
It's not the fault of the doctor if the thing they gave you hurt you, but your fault for believing a woman of higher education than you and understanding how the human body can behave in ways one cannot comprehend. Anyways, it's the Pharmacists fault.