MN policy on medical advice

[sycamore54321]

I tried looking but I don't see it. What is the MNHQ policy on medical advice? Specifically on posters strongly urging people to ignore their own doctors?

I see it repeatedly in the pregnancy and childbirth threads. The 'default' position appears to be to decline induction, choose VBAC, ignore all sorts of warning signs, keep medical-forum-shopping until you find some midwife who will say what you want to hear while ignoring every other doctor who said the opposite, no acknowledgement of what the OP has described as enormous risk factors. It terrifies me that we could be witnessing posters cheerleading women into decisions that risk their health, fertility and lives, not to mention the health and lives of their babies.

On most other mainstream boards, I see a far more proactive and responsible approach of not permitting anything that might even come close to medical advice. Here it seems perfectly ok to line up to tell a woman with multiple risk favors that her three-weeks-overdue home water VBA4C birth 80 miles on country roads from the nearest hospital is just fine for a 45 year old with high blood pressure and gestational diabetes.

I also see it on other threads in the medical section but the 'ignore the advice of the medical team who know your individual case' mantra seems pervasive on the pregnancy boards. Often the poster might only have asked a question about a specific aspect of a procedure, only to be met with " you don't have to consent to induction, you know" or "you should consider homebirth" etc.

What would be the responsibility of MNHQ or individual posters if it all goes wrong for some poor woman or her baby?

Yy, Rosie. I felt very uncomfortable reading it. As I do with any thread that basically says, 'I've got a degree in / work in XX, and you don't want to be taking ADs because big pharma / lizards.'

I think being told to seek a second opinion (or even a first medical opinion) and to be assertive and a bit more questioning is sensible.

But sometimes the opinions being expounded are just that - opinions - and they are potentially dangerous for some vulnerable posters who may be reading the thread.

If when I had PND I had been reading MN and saw comments from a supposedly qualified poster saying that ADs fuck with your brain, I may well never have embarked on my successful short course of SSRI treatment.

I don't know what the legal position is regarding the liability of an online chat room to misleading advice, but personally I think MumsnetHQ should take as unpaternalistic (materialistic?!) view as possible - individuals are responsible for their own health, not MNHQ. It is up to individual posters whether they follow the advice on these boards.

It is absolutely clear, I would have thought, that the status of advice on a chat room is completely different to that given by a qualified professional. Some people are very sceptical about doctors / lawyers/ other professional advisers already. Some aren't. MN doesn't change that.

Practically, how is MNHQ ever going to check what is and isn't appropriate medical advice? There may be some things which are very very clearly against medical best practice, but there are then so many grey areas where it won't be clear whether or not a piece of advice is harmful or not.

And then what about legal and quasi legal advice given on here? MNHQ can't police that either.

A warning/disclaimer should be enough.

It's the Internet. There are people giving bullshit life advice on every corner. If they can't get it here they'll just get it somewhere else.
And there are many MORE posters with very very good advice and anecdotal data. Would they be deleted too? Or just what MNHQ thinks is 'bad' advice?

Rather than censoring, a warning on threads in certain sections would be sufficient, I feel.

@pinkladyapple

I'm sure that on the desktop version of mumsnet that there is a disclaimer somewhere but it's not very noticeable.

I think that someone giving definitive medical advice (someone saying you should do this rather than giving experience) or a thread asking for advice should be reportable so that MNHQ can post a disclaimer.

Indeed there is
"Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP."

Hi Olivia, having had that disclaimer for presumably quite a while, do you feel it is sufficient? Do you look at practices used by others, some of whom take very different approaches? Do you routinely review your policy on issues like these and if so, when is the next review and how could we contribute to it? Thanks.

I think it's enough. I don't think people need to be nannied and censored - that's not the kind of site mumsnet is.

Take an extreme example. Suppose some comes on posting with clear signs of suicidal ideation, and gets as a reply information about the fatal dose of paracetamol. Does that fall under the "everyone is responsible for their own health, it's just debate". Or someone posting about their child's use of extreme pro-Ana websites is told that it's just debate and perfectly fine.

I think must of us think that deliberately triggering or normalising disordered thinking in vulnerable people is morally dubious, at best, and distinguishing it from shouting "jump" to someone stood on a ledge may not be easy.

On the other hand, "my knee hurts, ibuprofen or a warm bath?" is unlikely to lead to harm.

The question is where on that spectrum advice by randomers with n=small anecdotes and an agenda sit, and whether the endless talk of "research" by people who think it is a synonym for Google should be counter balanced with Cochrane reviews and other gold-standard evidence.

My friend who teaches in deaf-blind has been heard to say that anti-vax propaganda keeps her in a job. Which is rather the point, I think.

Just a reminder that there are no disclaimers or links on the app. On any board as far as I know.

Perhaps MNHQ should put up more or less permanent stickies in top place - containing any information that may be relevant?