Every year, many people receive antibiotics they don’t need or they take them for longer than necessary. You might think this isn’t a problem. After all, many antibiotics are cheap and have relatively mild side effects. But the more we use antibiotics, the more opportunities we create for bacteria to evolve immunity, making antibiotics so ineffective that otherwise common and treatable infections can become serious or even deadly — also known as antibiotic resistance.
So who’s responsible for making sure antibiotics are used only when necessary and only as long as necessary?
In a short commentary in The American Journal of Bioethics, I argue that it is not just doctors that have duties to minimize and shorten antibiotic courses. If recent arguments are any indication, anyone who communicates about, studies, or reviews antibiotic decisions may have similar obligations.
In this episode I’ll lay out the argument and its implications for health systems.
As always, free preprints of my papers are available on my CV at byrdnick.com/cv under “Publications”.
When selecting an affiliate partner for this episode, Homestyler reached out. But their website’s products were missing too many details for me to feel comfortable. So instead I’ll mention that I’ve been using PDF Expert for nearly a decade. Its interface is more attractive than Adobe products, and it usually costs less. In fact, I’m using PDF Expert to read this episode’s commentary: You can find out more at readdle.8kpa2n.net/Byrd.
You can find or tag me on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, or the legacy platforms if you want to engage more there.
You can also send questions via the contact form on this website. I guess you could also do that in a podcast review.
Related posts
- 25+ Cognitive Science Podcasts
- Do reflective people agree about ethics?
- Does Ethics Rest On A Mistake? Three Arguments That It Does
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:11 — 14.0MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | TuneIn | RSS | More
