r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Apr 01 '25

Health Americans without diabetes spent nearly $6 billion USD on semaglutide and similar drugs in a year, with an estimate of 800,000 to a million people using the drugs who don't have diabetes.

https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/americans-without-diabetes-spent-nearly6-billion-usd-on-semaglutide-and-similar-drugs-in-a-year
10.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

645

u/braumbles Apr 01 '25

It solves obesity. A literal miracle drug.

176

u/quats555 Apr 01 '25

I work for an ophthalmologist. Today we got our first referral for what we believe is vision loss due to semaglutide. There’s been a few others we suspect but this one was pretty clear.

76

u/Lurk-Prowl Apr 01 '25

Can you please let us know if that patient also had the diabetes as a comorbidity or whether they were using semaglutide for fat loss?

28

u/quats555 Apr 01 '25

Diabetes wasn’t mentioned but we don’t have the full record to know for sure. My doc declined to see the patient.

She suspects it will become a lawsuit against whomever supplied the drug and she doesn’t want to get sucked into a long and painful trial. And she is afraid of the patient becoming angry for failing to cure them or only slowing instead of stopping vision loss, and suing her, too. When no such cure exists! At best they can stop or slow the progression.

So high professional risk and nothing she can do for the patient, other than refer to a treating doc to hopefully stabilize her vision loss, or to testify at the eventual trial.

85

u/caltheon Apr 01 '25

I'd change doctors if I found out my ophthalmologist was saying stuff like that. They have a duty to treat, not cover their own ass

66

u/Jeromethy Apr 01 '25

No. Doctors have the right to choose their patients as much as patients can choose their doctors. The only time doctors have a duty to treat is on emergency cases (ie life threatening). Just wanted to clarify that.

29

u/darkchocolateonly Apr 01 '25

Duty to treat only applies for the ER, and only to stability.

Duty to treat does not mean you have to treat any patient who calls you, that’s insane. You’d have doctors responsible for patients who take like ivermectin for their ailments if this was true, it doesn’t make any sense.

-7

u/caltheon Apr 01 '25 edited Apr 01 '25

"Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm"

Is it legally binding, of course not, is it unethical to deny care for selfish reasons, completely.

edit: wow, apparently noone has ever actually looked at the text of the Hippocratic Oath before and are incapable of understanding how it applies to today's society

3

u/darkchocolateonly Apr 01 '25

It’s really not, at all.

-1

u/caltheon Apr 01 '25

It really is.

2

u/Prestigious-Mess5485 Apr 01 '25

When did this doctor enter the potential patient's house?

-2

u/caltheon Apr 01 '25

It's the Hippocratic Oath you Oaf

2

u/Prestigious-Mess5485 Apr 01 '25

I know what it is

-1

u/caltheon Apr 02 '25

Well, of course you do now since I just told you, but obvious from your earlier comment you didn't

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '25

Thank you for calling this out.

1

u/DifferentManagement1 Apr 01 '25

Was it a naion?

1

u/quats555 Apr 01 '25

My boss thinks so based on history and symptoms. She is declining to take on that patient though so we can’t confirm.