The Jolly Contrarian

Vitamins and painkillers: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Vitamins and painkillers (view source)

Revision as of 16:17, 11 January 2024

1,489 bytes added ,  11 January
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
One that won’t make me nervous <br>
One that won’t make me nervous <br>
Wondering what to do <br>
Wondering what to do <br>
One that makes me feel like I feel when I’m with you<br>
One that makes me feel like I feel <br>
When I’m with you<br>
When I’m alone with you <br>
When I’m alone with you <br>
:— H Lewis (1984)}}The theory goes, so say any number of [[Thought leader|thought-pieces]], that there are three kinds of business:
:— H Lewis (1984)}}The theory goes, so say any number of [[Thought leader|thought-pieces]], that there are three kinds of business:
Line 9: Line 10:
'''Candy''': Those that do nothing, but distract us from the existential horror of our daily lives, what the doctor is about to do to us, the dawning realisation that this is all there is, and so on.</ol>
'''Candy''': Those that do nothing, but distract us from the existential horror of our daily lives, what the doctor is about to do to us, the dawning realisation that this is all there is, and so on.</ol>


This seems a threadbare view of the medical profession, let alone the commercial world at large. Isn’t there a bit more to it than that?
This is a threadbare view of the medical profession, let alone the commercial world at large.


To indulge what may be just a bad [[metaphor]], it overlooks important medical functions such as, you know, ''diagnosing'' patients and then ''curing'' them.  
To indulge what may be just a bad [[metaphor]], it overlooks important medical functions such as, you know, ''diagnosing'' patients and then ''curing'' them.  
=====Painkillers=====
=====Painkillers=====
Paracetamol has the appeal of being quick, generic, asking no great talent of those who prescribe or administer them, and being, at first blush, effective. This they share with [[legaltech]], if by “first blush” you mean “powerpoint pitch to GC".
{{quote|
Long-term or frequent use of certain pain medications can lead to issues such as gastrointestinal problems, kidney damage, and tolerance, where the medication becomes less effective over time. Additionally, some painkillers may interact with other medications you may be taking, leading to adverse effects.
:— ChatGPT}}
The appeal of Paracetamol: it is quick, generic, asks no great talent of those who prescribe or administer it, and, at first blush, it does the trick. This it shares with [[legaltech]], come to think of it.


Painkillers work best where what your patient suffers from is superficial, baffling or terminal. If you  haven't looked, it is lazy, and liable only to compound the injury.  
Painkillers work where problems are ''superficial'', ''baffling'' or ''terminal''.  


Of course, diagnosing is hard and — when your client is a sclerotic institution, forged over the ages through countless regretted mergers, siloed, recombined, spun out, reverse-merged and now sputtering asking with a consumptive wheeze, riven by turf wars, haunted by all this past catastrophe and silted up with poor practice, bad process and superfluous policy — treatment is harder. You too may be tempted to say “take two of these and call me in the morning”.
Patients with superficial or terminal conditions won’t pay ''much'' — at least, not for ''long''.
 
Where patients have baffling conditions either they are a freak, or you are a bozo. By definition, freaks are the exception, so — yeah.
 
So this is the JC’s main beef with the legal operations world: the whole thing presumes that you can solve deep-seated, difficult problems, with generic technology and cheap labour. If this were true it would have been solved long since.
 
The cynical view — and it is one the JC largely shares — is that most sticky legal problems ''aren’t'' all that difficult, addressing not real-world risks, but the interests of legal nest-feathering. Lawyers tell their clients ghost stories and then charge them for formulating outcomes should their phantasmagoric contingencies come about.
 
But this being so, the challenge is not “optimising how one caters for absurd outcomes” — any bozo can do that — but demythologising, untangling knotted organisational threads, sorting wheat for chaff, and delivering simple advice that clearly allocates risk and keeps the lawyers out of the picture.
 
Diagnosing this, like chronic vascular disease, is ''hard''. When the patient is a sclerotic institution, forged through countless regrettable mergers, siloed, recombined, spun out, reverse-merged, riven by turf wars, haunted by past catastrophe and silted up with poor practice, bad process and superfluous policy and it presents with persistent a consumptive wheeze,  — treating it is even harder.  
 
This is no place for bozos who recommend popping a couple of tramadol and calling in the morning.


=====Vitamins=====
=====Vitamins=====
{{quote|Most people do not need to take vitamin supplements and can get all the vitamins and minerals they need by eating a healthy, balanced diet.<br>
{{quote|Most people do not need to take vitamin supplements and can get all the vitamins and minerals they need by eating a healthy, balanced diet.<br>
— ''[https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/ NHS Common Health Questions]''}}
— ''[https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/ NHS Common Health Questions]''}}
Painkillers have at least that benefit of demonstrable difference. Vitamins are more oblique in their quackery. Their instant appeal is that they ''sound'' technical and by design, are not meant to work immediately, so there is no disappointment from the patient when they don't make a difference.
Painkillers have at least make a quick, demonstrable difference. Vitamins are more oblique in their quackery. Their instant appeal is that they ''sound'' technical. Since, by design, they are not ''meant'' to work immediately, there can be no disappointment from the patient when they don’t.
 
The beauty of the long timeframe for treatment is its scope for intervening causes: by the time your vitamin “effects” kick in the patient might have mended its dissolute ways, in which case you can take the credit.
 
Of course, it is more likely the patient won’t be any better, and may well be worse. Here the time horizon gives plenty of room for (a) responsible legal ops personnel to scarper, and for those who don’t, (b) for alternative causal explanations to intrude. Macro geopolitical events — COVID, Brexit, Ukraine, climate change and so on — are easy to cite and magnificently ''unfalsifiable''.


The beauty of the long time frame is the scope for intervening causes: by the time your vitamins are meant to have worked the patient night have, of its own motion, mended is dissolute ways, in which case you can credit this to your pills.  
Again, the real business of achieving the health benefits vitamins supposedly provide is less convenient and less glamorous.  


More likely, if your clients are anything like the JC’s, it absolutely won't have got better, will in face be a lot worse, but in the mean there plenty enough will have happened by way of obliterating alternative intrusion. Macro geopolitical events like COVID, Brexit, the war in Ukraine, and climate change are easy to cite and magnificently unfalsifiable  —
Patients don’t want to be told to lay off the booze, cut out the fags, go jogging three times a week eat more vegetables and fewer pies. Nor do clients.
Advising our patients to live better lives, and therefore avoid the need for quack palliatives, quick fixes and cute misdirection.  


Seeing legal service as something that either masks a deep-seated malaise without addressing it - a painkiller - or a quick, cheap and hard-to-prove-or-falsify substitute for the hard work of maintaining a healthy lifestyle — a vitamin — is the classic legal-tech take.
Seeing legal service as something that either masks a deep-seated malaise without addressing it - a painkiller - or a quick, cheap and hard-to-prove-or-falsify substitute for the hard work of maintaining a healthy lifestyle — a vitamin — is the classic legal-tech take.


It is excellent advice in cynicism: the last thing you want to do is ''heal'' your client, much less advise her about her diet of lifestyle, because by these you do yourself out of a regular stream of income. Sad face.
It is excellent advice in cynicism: the last thing you want to do is ''heal'' your client, much less advise her about her diet of lifestyle, because by these you do yourself out of a regular stream of income. Sad face.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/82610"