美國人吃魚抗生素，是因為它比看醫(yī)生便宜

美國人吃魚抗生素，是因為它比看醫(yī)生便宜

Health care costs in the United States are, well, pretty insane. A decent insurance plan helps mitigate out-of-pocket costs for certain medications, but those with no health coverage can find themselves with enormous bills and no hope of paying them down. It’s a bizarre situation and as elected officials continue to debate just how broken it all is, regular citizens are doing their best to save money where they can.

美國的醫(yī)療保健費用是相當(dāng)瘋狂的。一份像樣的保險計劃有助于降低某些藥物的自付費用，但那些沒有醫(yī)療保險的人可能會發(fā)現(xiàn)自己背負(fù)著巨額賬單，而且沒有希望付得起。這是一個奇怪的情況，當(dāng)當(dāng)選的官員繼續(xù)討論這一切有多糟糕時，普通公民正在盡最大努力存錢。

For some, that apparently means using meds intended for animals in place of prescription drugs meant for humans. As the Guardian reports, a new research effort reveals that online stores that offer cheap antibiotics meant for pet fish are a favorite of some who take the medication themselves instead.

對一些人來說，這顯然意味著要使用針對動物的藥物來代替針對人類的處方藥。據(jù)英國《衛(wèi)報》報道，一項新的研究表明，網(wǎng)上商店提供的廉價抗生素本來是給寵物魚吃的，但卻成了一些自己服藥的人的最愛。

The study took a relatively straightforward approach to explore the likelihood of people using fish antibiotics on themselves. The team used readily available public information in the form of product reviews on websites. Many online stores that offer fish antibiotics offer customers the ability to write reviews and some of those reviews reveal the true nature of an individual’s purchase.

這項研究采用了一種相對直接的方法來探索人們對自己使用魚類抗生素的可能性。該團隊以產(chǎn)品評論的形式在網(wǎng)站上使用現(xiàn)成的公共信息。許多提供魚類抗生素的網(wǎng)上商店為顧客提供寫評論的能力，其中一些評論揭示了個人購物的真實本質(zhì)。

The number of reviews of such drugs in online stores that mentioned the customer using them in their own body rather than for their animals was “small but significant.”

網(wǎng)上商店對這類藥物的評論中，提到客戶在自己身上而不是在動物身上使用這些藥物的數(shù)量“雖少，但意義重大”。

The researchers suggest that the trend of using drugs meant for animals in place of prescription medications for humans is largely based around cost.

研究人員認(rèn)為，用動物藥物代替人類處方藥的趨勢很大程度上是基于成本。

“Self-medication and the availability of antibiotics without healthcare oversight might contribute to increasing antimicrobial resistance and delayed appropriate treatment,” Brandon Bookstaver, co-author of the research, explains.

該研究的合著者Brandon Bookstaver解釋說:“自我用藥和在沒有醫(yī)療監(jiān)督的情況下使用抗生素可能會增加抗菌素耐藥性，推遲適當(dāng)?shù)闹委煛?rdquo;

“We were particularly concerned that the high volume of positive feedback on the comments about human use might encourage others to attempt to use these drugs.”

“我們特別擔(dān)心的是，大量關(guān)于人類使用的正面反饋可能會鼓勵其他人嘗試使用這些藥物。”

Making matters worse, it seems at least some of the online retailers selling such antibiotics are comfortable with the idea of their customers using them for their own needs, rather than for animals.

更糟糕的是，似乎至少有一些銷售抗生素的網(wǎng)上零售商認(rèn)為，他們的顧客是為了自己的需要，而不是為了動物。

The report notes that at least one retailer replied to a question and assured a would-be buyer that the drugs were safe for human consumption.

報告指出，至少有一家零售商回答了一個問題，并向一位潛在的買家保證，這些藥物對人類消費是安全的。

It’s a difficult problem to solve, but until basic health care becomes a bit more affordable, it’s an issue that will likely continue to fester.

這是一個很難解決的問題，但在基本醫(yī)療保健變得更容易負(fù)擔(dān)之前，這個問題可能會繼續(xù)惡化。