[lmm]

> It’s been shown that doctors who over-prescribe antibiotics get better patient reviews for example.

Are they over-prescribing, or are the others under-prescribing? Comparing how hard it is to get antibiotics as a human with how easy it is to get them for animals (even if there's no evidence of disease) certainly makes one think.

[sarchertech]

Antibiotic overuse in animals is a problem. It was recently banned for use as a growth promoter however, and use in animals is inherently less likely to lead to human infectious drug resistant bacteria.

And none of that has any impact on whether or not we should limit antibiotic overuse in humans.

Doctors certainly aren’t under-prescribing antibiotics if you look at the data.

[classichasclass]

I think there is a big problem with antibiotic overuse in food animals, certainly. Although they can be useful for growth, large livestock farms are environments where drug-resistant infections can spread easily. I try to buy antibiotic-free meats as a rule but that doesn't really stop the damage caused by the meat companies that don't care about it.

As far as human antibiotic use, the flip side are the colleagues who will tell me that they did a thorough workup on a patient, found no indication for antibiotics, told the patient so to the best of their ability, and got dinged on the insurer's survey or castigated on doctor rating sites. I'm of course only hearing the provider's side of the story, but nobody likes to be told no, even when it's the right answer. (Also insert opioids, stimulants and benzodiazepines into this conversation.)