Ha! I had not heard that one. I will remember it.

Jan

There's actually an old saying, attributed, I think, to the man who started Johns Hopkins. It says, if the doctor will listen long enough, the patient will tell him what's wrong. And if the doctor will just be quiet and listen a little longer, the patient will tell him how to fix it!

argh. . I always think wide-open, cost-no-object, and
revise from there. . we have awful constraints in life
which affect everything. -- j
.

Line you, term2, when I go to the doctor, I almost always have a theory as to 'what is wrong' and a set of ideas 'what should be done about it'. But I am a biomed geek, so I do not expect other people to be as excited about looking this stuff up.

One of the problems with the medical profession is that they have gone to a lot of trouble to heap too much onto the doctor. For example, when I studied Medical Technology, we were taught how to diagnose (certain) diseases from laboratory results; we are unfortunately forbidden by law from doing this! The doctors do not have time to learn every new lab test (/radiology procedure/pharmaceutical) but they have boxed themselves into a situation where other medical professions are forbidden to take some of the load off their shoulders. This system needs revision.

The discussion of malpractice suits is another topic altogether...

Jan

"she says she told her doctor she was concerned about cystic fibrosis, but she was never offered screening to see if she was a carrier for the disease, she had trouble contacting genetic counselors, and her doctor never asked if she got genetic counseling." -- She was "concerned" - but did she ask for a test and was refused? Trouble contacting genetic counselors? - really? No one chased her offering services? She had no access to a phonebook and other, more responsive counselors? Come on! Ever tried getting Food Stamps? those offices are never "responsive," yet every moron in the country manages to "get through." If she was truly concerned, which she should have been, I am sure that those answers would have been easier to obtain than Food Stamps.

Depending on where in Montana she is, the options may be rather limited. When we had our first child we had a "choice" of 2 OBs (and no midwives or other alternative practitioners) within an hour's drive -- one with a 60% C-section rate, and the one we "chose."

The first paragraph of the article contradicts what you have written here, sturgatsky

My solution for slavery is irrelevant to Lincoln's crimes because Lincoln's goal had nothing to do with slavery. However, history of slavery shows that it was already barely at break even at the time of the war and it would have died due to economics (as it did elsewhere) without war and without all the long lasting negative effects of Lincoln's war on liberty and free markets.
Lincoln's action toward slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation, was a tactical action of war and it did not free anyone because it only had effect where Lincoln had no authority at the time. Lincoln has been deified by historians writing to eradicate Lincoln's real actions that caused the war. Read the well researched writings of Professor Thomas DiLorenzo. There are also some presentations he gave on youtube that are compelling, too.

One other thing- in this day and age of liability, I find a lot of doctors are hesitant to offer advice for fear it turns out that it was wrong years later and they get sued.

Unfortunately, not all doctors are the same, and some might just be less up to speed on things or they innocently just dont know. If we expect 100% performance out of every doctor, soon there will be no more doctors as it wont be worth the risk to take on a patient. Its up to us as individuals to evaluate what a given doctor says (compare with other doctors , internet info, and other sources) before we blindly take their advice. For example, I have a family doctor I go to for most things, but when it comes to arthritis things like joint replacement, I drive 5 hours to Mayo clinic. I ask a lot of questions, look on the internet sites to see what is said there, and THEN come to some conclusion and take action.

Slavery has always been disgusting, but Lincoln only used it as an excuse for his actions. His writings and speeches prior to war show Lincoln wasn't interested in the plight of the slave. Lincoln has been made into a saint for propaganda reasons. Don't take my word for it. Read the well researched writings of Professor Thomas DiLorenzo. There are also some presentations he gave on youtube that are compelling, too.

when I visit with my MDs, I "expect" that I am buying
their understanding of the state-of-the-art as it applies
to my life situation. . when I come to think that I am not
getting that, I change doctors. . while she might have
the idea that she was not getting the best care from
her doctor, she could have gotten help from another,
couldn't she? -- j
.

Lincoln infringed on every American's rights? Does that include the rights of the 3.5 million slaves in the South? (Or don't they count because they weren't American citizens?)

Ok, your antipathy - to put it mildly - towards Lincoln is clear. But then what is / would have been your solution to slavery ??

And even if she did ask for the tests she apparently did not ask for the results. Had she, it would not have been too late to do the tests. Still her responsibility IMHO.

The city is blocking it? Huh? Censorship or?

The child has cystic fibrosis. The mother had expressed concern about this particular disease, but had never been offered genetic testing of the fetus. The implication is that she would have aborted the fetus while it was early term if she had known that it was likely it would develop cystic fibrosis.

Jan

hiding in plain sight as in ALONGSIDE NIGHT, seems to be the only way to protect oneself these days. The "bank of the backyard" with buried PVC pipes is safer than the banks for sure.

This is the core of the issue. If she is due damages, then it is from people whose medical aid to her was egregiously flawed. The article states that she is suing her 'medical practitioners', so it is not quite amorphous - though I agree with term2 that it should specify 'who is responsible for the wrongdoing'.

I think that this specific case is just the mother trying to grab some bucks, but that the overall situation deserves looking at. I have talked to many people who have been 'herded' into making a particular medical decision by the doctor simply not telling them of alternatives. If they trust the doctor, they trust that they have been given all of the choices available (not just all the worst choices plus the one cherry-picked good choice that the doctor prefers).

Yes, it is the responsibility of the individual to find out what is going on and make the decision, but we rely on the presence of experts to make our society plausible. A brilliant physicist may not have a clue about medicine; he relies on his doctor to present him with a reasoned set of alternatives, the same way the doctor relies on the physicist to do physics.

We have often discussed how terrible it is for schools to teach Global Warming and Socialism as if there were no viable alternatives. Similarly, a doctor has to present all of the options he does not consider actually dangerous to his patient. Many doctors do not do this.

Jan

Yes, but only if your parents have lots of money. Otherwise, you should still sue, but someone, or anyone, else...

AKA retroactive abortion?

Lawsuits are always filed against entities that have money. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.

She wasn't concerned about it then. Later, she saw an ad on TV that she can sue and win millions, and we all know that if its on TV, it must be true; in this case, however, the TV ad just may prove to be true!

IMHO, vasectomies are better. Best thing I ever did for myself, my girlfriends and my wives.

Re: Lincoln.
Okay, so he wasn't perfect (neither was Wash-
ington or Jefferson). He was inconsistent, in using
the draft (which is a form of slavery). but please
don't tell me about states' "rights". As someone
(A.R.) once said, "There is no such thing as 'the
right to enslave.' "
People who fought in a cause, whose end re-
sult, if won, would have been the continuation
of slavery, have no business whining about the
economic damage, the loss of crops, etc. which
came out of their defeat. I have no sympathy
for that. (And this is from a Southern white).