User:Wnt/Why?

This essay is offered in rebuttal to User:TenOfAllTrades/Why not?.

Why should Reference Desk posters be permitted to respond to medical questions?

People have a right to learn about their own health, and we should support that right
The individual always makes the first diagnosis about his or her own health. Whether the choice is to go to the doctor or simply ask one's parents to have a look, or try an over the counter product or a traditional remedy, the individual always has the primary responsibility. Physicians only get involved after some kind of trouble is self-diagnosed — and all too often their lament is, "if only you had asked us about it sooner".

Many people don't have access to physicians — they live in poor countries, or are poor people in countries that do not respect the right of the public to medical care; or they are coerced by employment or other concerns to avoid taking time out for diagnoses.

All too often one hears of patients who have run through many physicians, never once obtaining the right diagnosis until someone points out an obscure condition. People can't trust third parties to take exclusive control over their own health, even when they have broad access to medicine.

Information is not harmful
Some will say that if you give a person some medical information, he'll seize on one bit and ignore the rest, and make the wrong choice. But as Wikipedians we should know better. The more you know, the better-informed your choices will be.

This is the same fear underlying so many other forms of censorship. Will telling people about sex, about explosives, about politically offensive statements and wrong ideologies lead to harm? To think so is a statement of ultimate pride - that you are so much wiser than the people you want to watch over, that their knowledge should be limited to what you think is good for them. It isn't true. On average, the individual, with full freedom of inquiry, is the most trustworthy guide for himself.

Information is not a diagnosis
No one on Wikipedia pretends to know everything about a patient's medical history. They should not pretend to have the One Right Answer to a health problem. What people here can do is tell a questioner where to get more information about a subject. The goal is not to "diagnose" the patient, but to inform the fellow Wikipedian where to obtain more information about relevant topics. These are potential diagnoses which he might make or rule out. They might give him ideas about things to watch for, which might make it easier for a physician to diagnose him. They might give him hope or fear, as is warranted by all knowledge about disease.

Wikipedia is a community
Except on the Internet, not even your stereotypical paranoid-schizophrenic American is afraid to tell a friend about medical conditions that have symptoms resembling what his friend mentions. Wikipedia should be a community where people are free to be compassionate toward one another and give helpful information. (See also Luke 14:5 — perhaps the first version of WP:IAR) There's no law against giving people useful medical information - you're just not allowed to pretend you're a doctor!

Think of the children
Some will say that children can't be trusted to ask about conditions they might have. But children have to learn to start taking care of their own health, looking out for possible diseases. Dismissing their curiosity as harmful sends the wrong message: it tells them not to be looking and thinking for themselves.