Not officially, of course there is no problem with ml instead of mL. However, there is the practical consideration of how Americans read these symbols. Using mL is more user-friendly and readable, especially for those not accustomed to metric symbols. After all, think of all the places where you see "mcg" instead of the correct symbol with the Greek letter mu ... it's a similar issue (even though I myself wish "mcg" would be replaced with the proper symbol).
-- Ezra ----- Original Message ----- From: mech...@illinois.edu To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:49:45 AM Subject: [USMA:49004] Re: NPR story on ml dosing There is *no problem* with either ml or mL, only with l rather than L for liter. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:29:48 +1100 >From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> >Subject: [USMA:49003] Re: NPR story on ml dosing >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > Dear John, Martin, and All, > Wow! Here we go again -- off and running down the > "metric conversion" approach to the metric system. > It's hard to know who's leading in this race. Is > it the Consumer Healthcare Products Association > (CHPA)? Is it the Food and Drug Administration > (FDA)? Is it the American Medical Association (AMA)? > Who is leading the "metric conversion" contest? Let > me quote from the NPR article > at at > http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/30/131701589/why-it-s-so-easy-to-give-kids-the-wrong-medicine-dose > > But a study just published online by JAMA finds 98 > percent of the top-selling 200 over-the-counter > children's medications sold in 2009 came with > confusing inconsistencies in dosing instructions. > A common mix-up: The instructions on the bottle give > teaspoon measurements, but the dosing cup marks > milliliters, or ml. And who remembers this > conversion? > The doctor asks, "who remembers this conversion?" > but this should be a totally irrelevant question. A > better response is to ask, "Why is anyone seeking to > find a "metric conversion" solution to this problem > at all? > It seems to me that these good folk at CHPA, FDA, > and the AMA are seeking to find some sort of "metric > conversion" to solve the problem of the 98 % of > medications that are currently suffering from > "metric conversion" problems. These people seem to > be innocently ignorant of the observation that the > "metric conversion" approach to a metrication > upgrade does not work -- and it never has! > Seeking a "metric conversion" solution to a "metric > conversion" problem screams for a sign that reads: > "Here lies insanity!" > For those unfamiliar with the four approaches to a > metrication upgrade, go > to http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/ApproachesToMetrication.pdf > Direct metrication > Let me suggest that "direct metrication" should be > considered as the best way to proceed with medical > dosing. I think that this is what the medical > scientist and lead researcher is seeking. Consider > this quote from the NPR article: > Many experts — including the lead author of the > new research — say adopting one unit of > measurement would be the best way to go. "If we > could have milliliters be the only unit of > measurement used, then I think this may be the best > system," says researcher H. Shonna Yin of New York > University School of Medicine. > So what would "direct metrication" look like for > dosing medicines. > * Each medicine should be supplied with an > appropriate measurer marked with its size clearly > stated in millilitres using the correct > international symbol mL > * Generally, there should be two sizes for these > measures -- 5 mL and 20 mL to minimise comparisons > with spoons from the cutlery drawer (the use of 15 > mL almost demands comparison with tablespoons in the > USA). > * Each measurer should have only one volume marked > on it; these would usually be either 5 mL or 20 mL > but not both. Multiple markings should be strictly > avoided. > * There should be no reference to any other > measuring words either on the measurer or in the > accompanying literature, Specifically, this means no > mention of the pseudo measuring words: spoons, > teaspoons, tablespoons or cups. (Note: I know that > the little plastic measurers are often referred to > as 'cups' but when I read this I immediately picture > a 250 mL cup and this is definitely not recommended > as in "give the child one 'cup' each evening before > bed"). Note: I don't much like the word measurer but > its the best I can do at the moment. > * All references to "metric conversion", or > conversions or comparisons of any kind, should be > identified, explicitly denigrated, then expunged, > deleted, and removed from all literature associated > with any and every medicine. (Do I make myself > clear?) > P.S. I am appalled at the use of ml rather than mL > in the heading of this email. > Cheers, > Pat Naughtin > Geelong, Australia
