On 25-Dec-08 14:49, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:495### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
>>> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> 
>>> Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or
> ear
>>> inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.
> F*ck, no!
>>> I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.
> 
>> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
>> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
>> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
>> microbes such as MRSA.
> 
> That's where the paradox lies, and I am not sure if one resolution is better
> than the other. From the point of the individual, it's not his or her
> problem that antibiotic use in general populace and in the long term breeds
> resistant strains. The personal benefit is real, and outweighs the personal
> risk. Limiting the use of antibiotics out of concern for breeding resistant
> strains places the society before the individual. Such sacrifices are fine,
> but I think they should be voluntary instead of mandated.
> 
Whether the personal benefit is real is questionable, possibly in the 
very short term, but probably not on a longer time scale. Having every 
individual make that decision is silly. Any responsible government or 
professional healthcare organisation should make that because that is 
their responsibility. All in all a very 'American' point of view if you 
ask me (and I don't even know where you are living).

Post a reply to this message