美國(guó)人吃魚(yú)抗生素，是因?yàn)樗瓤瘁t(yī)生便宜

美國(guó)人吃魚(yú)抗生素，是因?yàn)樗瓤瘁t(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(guó)的醫(yī)療保健費(fèi)用是相當(dāng)瘋狂的。一份像樣的保險(xiǎn)計(jì)劃有助于降低某些藥物的自付費(fèi)用，但那些沒(méi)有醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn)的人可能會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己背負(fù)著巨額賬單，而且沒(méi)有希望付得起。這是一個(gè)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(shí)，普通公民正在盡最大努力存錢(qián)。

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(duì)一些人來(lái)說(shuō)，這顯然意味著要使用針對(duì)動(dòng)物的藥物來(lái)代替針對(duì)人類(lèi)的處方藥。據(jù)英國(guó)《衛(wèi)報(bào)》報(bào)道，一項(xiàng)新的研究表明，網(wǎng)上商店提供的廉價(jià)抗生素本來(lái)是給寵物魚(yú)吃的，但卻成了一些自己服藥的人的最?lèi)?ài)。

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(xiàng)研究采用了一種相對(duì)直接的方法來(lái)探索人們對(duì)自己使用魚(yú)類(lèi)抗生素的可能性。該團(tuán)隊(duì)以產(chǎn)品評(píng)論的形式在網(wǎng)站上使用現(xiàn)成的公共信息。許多提供魚(yú)類(lèi)抗生素的網(wǎng)上商店為顧客提供寫(xiě)評(píng)論的能力，其中一些評(píng)論揭示了個(gè)人購(gòu)物的真實(shí)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(duì)這類(lèi)藥物的評(píng)論中，提到客戶(hù)在自己身上而不是在動(dòng)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(dòng)物藥物代替人類(lèi)處方藥的趨勢(shì)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(shuō):“自我用藥和在沒(méi)有醫(yī)療監(jiān)督的情況下使用抗生素可能會(huì)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(lèi)使用的正面反饋可能會(huì)鼓勵(lì)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(xiāo)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(dòng)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(bào)告指出，至少有一家零售商回答了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，并向一位潛在的買(mǎi)家保證，這些藥物對(duì)人類(lèi)消費(fèi)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(gè)很難解決的問(wèn)題，但在基本醫(yī)療保健變得更容易負(fù)擔(dān)之前，這個(gè)問(wèn)題可能會(huì)繼續(xù)惡化。