Hmm, this place has gone awfully quiet. Well, I'm back from the limb and things are going to change.
liquidhockey's post mysteriously disappeared. A shame, because it was indeed an
interesting question. One that should be examined further. So where where we at when we were denied further debate.
Let me summarise.
The question was asked whether somebody who took a drug which was legal to possess and use, but not to supply, would fail a cabin crew medical. He said the chemical was a steroid, which we went onto assume was an anabolic steroid.
There was a rumble from the backwaters of SW England and
QDM, obviously just back from a morning surgery of dealing with 'little Johnny with a sore ear', was a touch bored and had to stir things up a bit. He majestically proclaimed that 'if you abuse yourself, you are not responsible enough to look after others'. He then retired for a lunchtime curry with the drug rep, but only having a chicken korma as he had previously found out his favourite madras was very abusive to his GI tract and he had more patients to look after in the afternoon.
And that's where the thread went to pot (and that is not a freudian slip). Slag, with his customary diplomacy, enquired of QDM whether that meant people who smoked and didn't floss their teeth should be trusted to look after others.
QDM, back from a decent lunch and another afternoon of picking up the pieces, conveniently ignored slag's devastating comment. He took some time out to proclaim that 'those who take chemicals proven to cause physiological and pyschological harm should not be allowed to look after others' Especially when ths concoction is not prescribed by a medical chappy, we don't know how the product was prepared, what the formulation is, and the amount of active ingredient being administered per dose.
QDM then retired to his local cider bar, where as GP in a small community he was held in high regard and he liked this. He lorded it up and had several jugs of extra rough scrumpy brewed locally by some farmer in his orchard.
Slag, although he was a bit slow cos he was recovering from a similar session (but caused by a fine vintage Bordeaux, scrumpy being a part of his past and he liked it that way), would have pointed out that scrumpy fitted all QDM's criteria. Those who have done battle with rough cider know it is a dangerous drug which totally destroys physiological and pyschological well being, where you don't know what the hell is in there, how it was made, and how much alcohol is in each dose unit (except its a lot). Should we really ban people who partake in a bit of a knees up on Christmas Eve. For Gods sake, if you were to ban everybody who abused themselves and liked a drink, where would Virgin get it's cabin crew?
Not only that, but there is overwhelming evidence that alcohol is really not very good for you at all.
QDM, agreed that abuse of alcohol was a bad thing but it obviously didn't count when the drug of choice was anabolic steroids. Slag enquired why?
(And QDM, don't take this too seriously, it's all in good jest, so don't be getting tense when you have to put your super cub down in a stiff crosswind. Them rudder pedals are not for resting your feet on like you do with the five year pile of unopened BMJs by your desk. Remember to dance, baby, dance!)
In all good threads where intelligent men partake in a bit of verbal sparring, you are going to attract the monkeys. And this thread is no exception as
takenthefifth barges in and starts throwing peanuts from the gallery, attempting to defend the
good doctor, yet not really knowing what the hell he defending him from.
Anyway, takenthe5th tells us all that anabolic steroids are 'very dangerous', that the new buzzword in the medical world is 'evidence based practice', and slag really doesn't know what is going on. If takenthe5th had been a good boy and just sit down and shut up, he might have got away with it. But no, takenthe5th had to prove he didn't have a clue about 'evidence based practice'. Alas, he posted a link to a goverment drug propaganda web page that was based upon anecdote, hearsay, case studies and had no evidence on it whatsoever. Unfortunately takenthe5th didn't understand he was making a fool of himself and reappeared later on in the thread. Alas, I feel takenthe5th has no idea what 'p' means, except when he is putting out one of those fires he has started.
Slag, who as a little boy used to cut the legs off spiders and still had a sick urge to play with people who obviously could not defend themselves, lowered himself to reply. He quickly found a balanced summary of the psychological effects of anabolic steroids, with a decent bibliography which made it an 'evidence based' summary indeed. Slag declared (or as far as his opinion would allow him, and you may have realised by now that slag is an opinionated git) to the world that it showed the jury was out on the matter.
gingernut in probably the most sensible posts of the thread, made similar points about the5ths link and the subject in general. Gingernut obviously understands what 'evidence based practice' really means, maybe he/she should start a thread?
So what is the real question here? I humbly contend that it is
Can the medical profession prevent somebody from going to work and supporting themselves and their family if there is no evidence that what they are doing to themselves is harmful
QDM obviously thinks so. He will prevent somebody working if they are on anti-depressants even though QDM himself said he believed the patient to safe.
I don't. I think that blanket bans are appropriate if a substance is proven to be harmful to the population in general, with waivers for those where the substance is proven to have no deleterious effects, and if the user is under responsible medical care.
I say innocent until proven guilty. Others say guilty until proven innocent.
Right, I'm off back to my limb, no doubt that makes more than just me happy
Cheers
Slag