When it comes to medical information, medical care professional (Doctors) are concerned about the easy access to medical information. There are many complex issues on the medical information. Consumers (Patients) normally can have information that is not really meant for them. Say for example, MEDLINE database which is now available on web freely (PUBMED) is reliable source of information but intended only for Researchers and Medical Practisioners. If a patient searches the information and starts self-medication, the same information could be disastrous. But it does not mean that PUBMED is not reliable, nor it should mean that information professionals who performs searches for others for fee are unreliable. Let us take another example, Say a person (patient) have access to Drug Indexes like MIMS which have brief information about each drug under classification of Diseases for which these are used, The patient is likely to use the information for self medication. However neither the publisher nor the book seller are at fault. So far the worthiness of a health site is concerned, it is just a matter of trust. Health On the Net Foundation, http://www.hon.ch/ (an NGO) have formulated Eight Principles for sites providing Health Information. They review sites for following these principles and allows the reviewed and certified sites to place its logo. This gives a degree of "Trust" in sites. Indian Medlars Centre's site (NIC) http://indmed.nic.in has been certified to be adhering the HONCode principles. But the site itself is meant for Biomedical Researchers and Medical Services Providers (Doctors & Paramedics). It would rather harm a patient if he uses information retrieved from it. So the moral of the story is : "WHAT A KNIFE WOULD DO DEPENDS ON WHO USES IT" [Sukhi Vani :-)] . With Regards Sukhdev Singh --- Mailing List Manager <mailman@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in> wrote:

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:56:21 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun@mssrf.res.in>

Friends:

A number of people are using the net to find information on topics in which theyy are not experts. In fact I know of people who use this kind of searches on behalf of others and even charge fees for such 'data mining' sevices. One should be wary of such searches, indicates the following report from Australia.

Sinclair, Jenny. "Online Health Sites a Worldwide Worry" The Sydney Morning Herald (16 September 2003)

(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/15/1063478109311.html).

- A study by a Melbourne researcher -- who is also a nurse and a communications consultant -- concluded that most health-oriented websites "failed to meet basic standards." Many are "commercially driven," the study found, and others are downright misleading. The study reviewed the top 100 sites returned by a Yahoo! search for breast cancer, diabetes and depression, and compared them to the Health On the Net Foundation's code of conduct. The biggest failing was the amount of unverified information found on 58 of the sites. Other issues: "user confidentiality, openness about sponsorship and, importantly, making sure that users treat the information as complementary to proper medical treatment, rather than replacing it." The study did find that there was plenty of good information out there, and that it is generally a good idea for people to have unfettered access to online health information.

Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam]

_______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com