Subjecting Yourself to Experimental Meds

ghostlibrary writes "Even while NIH is getting new ethics regs, patientINFORM is being evangelized as a way for ordinary citizens to look up experimental treatment online, in essence circumventing their doctor, and the FDA long ago tacitly approved this. /. debated Wikis in hospital. RSI fans track risky or untested procedures from the Typing Injury FAQ and Health-Hack covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google. Any other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users will become test subjects more than the usual college students and elderly?"

Comments

OT: A little editorial advice

[hey!]

Y'know, this is an interesting article, but it is classic case of "burying your lead". It starts of almost as if it is about the new NIH regs. I had to read it several times to make positively sure I understood what was going on.

Here is the original article:

ghostlibrary writes "Even while NIH is getting new ethics regs, patientINFORM is being evangelized as a way for ordinary citizens to look up experimental treatment online, in essence circumventing their doctor, and the FDA long ago the tacitly approved this. /. debated Wikis in hospital. RSI fans track risky or untested procedures from the Typing Injury FAQ and Health-Hack covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google. Any other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users will become test subjects moreso than the usual college students and elderly?"

Let me suggest this as a better rewrite:

ghostlibrary writes "People who are interested in obtaining information about experimental treatments for health conditions can turn to a new web site called patientINFORM, which is being evangelized by a collective of publishers and medical groups. This site is controversial because it in effect allows patients to circumvent their doctors in the search for unconventional and unapproved therapies. While the FDA has tacitly approved this kind of information service in the past, the NIH is about to issue new regs covering the conflicts of interest this kind of service raises. This site joins other sites that disseminate information about risky or untested procedures, such as the Typing Injury FAQ, which covers RSI (repetitive strain injuries) or Health-Hack, which covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google, and past Slashdot articles have even discussed the advisability of using wikis in hospitals.

Are there other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users are joining the usual college students and elderly as experimental subjects for untested therapies?"

I think this is a bit clearer. A general word of advice -- try to put what an article is about in the first clause of the first sentence if possible