Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
We also have some of the worst in the world. Many let their hubris and arrogance and many times pure greed, get in the way of true knowledge, fact, respect and the limits of our human abilities. Just ask Joan River's daughter.callmeslick wrote:ignore Thorne's paranoia, Sigma. The US probably has the best doctors, hospitals and ancillary health professionals(imaging, lab,etc) in the world.
What is THAT supposed to mean? Are you alluding to the fact that Joan Rivers lived to the average life expectancy of someone in the US?tunnelcat wrote:Just ask Joan River's daughter.
Human error? That's not human error. How about deliberately screwing around like stupid teenagers and NOT doing the simple, professional job you're being paid handsomely for and then having that patient die because those supposed professionals weren't paying attention, especially for an elderly high risk patient? You're also more likely to die, from a MSRA infection or a doctor's mistake, while in a hospital than dying from some accident at home. In fact, doctors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. and hospital mistakes cause more deaths than car accidents. I'll take my chances in the car.vision wrote:So because "human error" let's not explore the world around us? You should all just stay indoors because the outside is scary. BTW, staying indoors give you cancer too.
A gun is little messy for the survivors isn't it? We humans need a better solution than that. Even our beloved pets receive a better death than we allow ourselves. It think it was Spidey who said something along these lines: "It's not death I'm afraid of, it's the dying part."sigma wrote:By the way, I wonder why only four countries allowed euthanasia. If for decades in Switzerland or Belgium rush terminally ill Europeans wishing to withdraw from life, this fact shows that people want to have the right to a dignified and painless sleep forever surrounded by relatives. F*ck, not cut his wrists, hung and drown.
I've seen people die slowly and painfully of cancer. Why can not allow a person at least give the gun with one bullet, if he wants to?
First off, I'm highly skeptical of this Joan Rivers story. Second, I get a little tired of pointing out all how you and others lack critical thinking skills. Right off the bat we have a story of highly inflated and incredible "medical mistake" numbers generated by a guy who, just coincidentally I'm sure, lost his teenage son to alleged negligence. Bias? Naw. And according to his study, HOLY ★■◆●, DID YOU EVEN READ THE STUDY?, that in 2007, 210,000 "mistakes" happened out of 34.4 MILLION hospital discharges. That is a 0.6% chance you will die from something preventable when you go to the hospital. How many more times are you around automobiles than hospitals? Actually, you are probably too scared to leave the house so I guess this point is lost on you. Let's put it another way, if you are going to the hospital for surgery, unless it is voluntary, there is already something seriously wrong with you, something that will likely kill you, painfully, if untreated. So yeah, you can take your chances and get surgery -- or die 99% of the time you don't.tunnelcat wrote:Human error? That's not human error. How about deliberately screwing around like stupid teenagers and NOT doing the simple, professional job you're being paid handsomely for and then having that patient die because those supposed professionals weren't paying attention, especially for an elderly high risk patient?
Let me guess vision, you either work for the medical industry or have NEVER had a bad experience with the medical industry. Well, personally, I have, LOTS of them, so I'm biased. I'm to the point I don't trust them with my health, or life. I feel like I'm taking my life into my hands even going into any hospital. They damn near killed me with anesthetic when they could have done a simpler and cheaper nerve block to repair my broken wrist. They never even asked me what I would've preferred either. Bastards. Right now, I'd rather walk in front of a bus now than go into a hospital. Every hospital I've been in is dirty, stinks, is depressing, has staff that is either inconsiderate or overworked and tired (which leads to mistakes) and have doctors that are opinionated, dogmatic, robotic AND overworked in their interactions with patients. The system has lost it's human touch and I try to avoid it like the plague. If that opinion eventually kills me, so be it.vision wrote:First off, I'm highly skeptical of this Joan Rivers story. Second, I get a little tired of pointing out all how you and others lack critical thinking skills. Right off the bat we have a story of highly inflated and incredible "medical mistake" numbers generated by a guy who, just coincidentally I'm sure, lost his teenage son to alleged negligence. Bias? Naw. And according to his study, HOLY ****, DID YOU EVEN READ THE STUDY?, that in 2007, 210,000 "mistakes" happened out of 34.4 MILLION hospital discharges. That is a 0.6% chance you will die from something preventable when you go to the hospital. How many more times are you around automobiles than hospitals? Actually, you are probably too scared to leave the house so I guess this point is lost on you. Let's put it another way, if you are going to the hospital for surgery, unless it is voluntary, there is already something seriously wrong with you, something that will likely kill you, painfully, if untreated. So yeah, you can take your chances and get surgery -- or die 99% of the time you don't.tunnelcat wrote:Human error? That's not human error. How about deliberately screwing around like stupid teenagers and NOT doing the simple, professional job you're being paid handsomely for and then having that patient die because those supposed professionals weren't paying attention, especially for an elderly high risk patient?
I'm not confused. All fractures are not the same. All people are not the same. There are tons of variables that go into these decisions and each one comes with a risk category and probability of success or failure. Often, the reason one thing is done instead of another is rather Bayesian.tunnelcat wrote:Even he was confused as to why I had to be put under for such a short procedure.
That's cool. And if modern medicine was based on opinion that would be even better. I just wanted to explain the most likely reason why you were not given a nerve block. It wasn't because the doctor was an idiot. It was probably statistics.tunnelcat wrote:In my opinion, anesthesia is far more dangerous than a nerve block.]
Personally? Get over yourself. I just hate seeing stupid people say stupid ★■◆●, because it influences other stupid people. Bad ideas are contagious. You let your emotions guide your decisions and that's idiotic. I'm sorry you can't feel a deep connection to your doctors. Life is tough. It doesn't mean all doctors are bad and are "rarely" professional. Also, I have absolutely no connection with the medical industry, and yes, have had my fair share of bad experiences too. I got over it and moved on like a grown up.tunnelcat wrote:You didn't answer my question vision. What connection do you have to the medical industry? You seem to be taking this whole sidetracked conversation a little personally.
Right, but they don't allow themselves to paint something that is objectively positive as a negative because of bad experiences. You acknowledge your bad experiences and move on.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Grown-ups are rational. A rational person does not ignore negatives in order to paint something as positive...
You don't ignore the negatives when they seem happen all too frequently. Only a idiot is stupid enough to keep coming back for more punishment. In fact, even a child isn't that stupid. I must be very unlucky or something because I've had NOTHING but unpleasant experiences with most doctors. The same applies to my mother and husband. My mother had a whole host of bad experiences with doctors all through her life. The coup de grace was that she died too soon because a radiologist was lazy and missed a "spot". That spot was cancer, but what the heck, he thought is was her ponytail making a shadow on the X-ray and he never bothered to made a note of it. He didn't even think to look at her hair before dismissing it as an artifact. Plus, she didn't HAVE a ponytail because she had short hair. The doctors never bothered to look either because reading X-rays is not their "job" nowadays. That's up to a radiologist.That artifact killed her 2 years later by the way.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Grown-ups are rational. A rational person does not ignore negatives in order to paint something as positive...
The more likely reason for him to follow the same path as every other elected official is that it is impossible to "return the government to the people" since it never was for the people to begin with. There is this persistent romantic idea about the founding of our nation and citizens breaking away from tyranny, and it is a total lie. Instead, it was the desire of corporate interests to not pay taxes to England that led to us breaking away from the Empire. Remember, when the USA was founded, only white male landowners had a say in government. If anything, our government is more for the people today than any other time in history.tunnelcat wrote:...I think the power in Washington has definitely has gone to his head, because he's either forgotten most of his campaign promises during his run for president that benefited the common American, or he found power and corporate money to be much more intoxicating, so he fell under it's sway.
"The people" didn't start the first revolution. The people have always bowed down to corporate interests. That is how this country was founded. There is nothing Obama (or anyone else) could have done. You need to unhinge yourself from the storybook tales of early America.tunnelcat wrote:So now it's either bow down to corporate interests, or for the people to start another revolution.....again.
There is another way vision and we common slobs really don't have a choice in stopping it. It's called a Great Depression, which like to call the Great Equalizer. Once the mighty fall, we're all in the same sinking boat, destitute and in survival mode.vision wrote:"The people" didn't start the first revolution. The people have always bowed down to corporate interests. That is how this country was founded. There is nothing Obama (or anyone else) could have done. You need to unhinge yourself from the storybook tales of early America.tunnelcat wrote:So now it's either bow down to corporate interests, or for the people to start another revolution.....again.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on here, and that's saying a lot.sigma wrote:I support TC that a revolution can happen in a matter of days of trifling conflict. And you know why? Because the population in the United States does not know who the Plato, Aristotle and Thomas More. They can not understand that the educated elite is trying to make their lives better on the basis of progressive works of the classics of philosophy and sociology. They see it as a violation of their rights. Give all Americans free higher education and the revolution will not be. Educated Americans will not provoke the police and educated police stop shooting people at the slightest excuse.
We can discuss the philosophy of Rousseau in a separate topic, if you want. We already know, as has been interpreted the philosophy of Nietzsche, Kant, Leibniz, and Marx.in Nazi Germany. And what are the consequences of what happened. I just do not want that American freedom suppressed freedom of people in other countries, that's all.Top Gun wrote:#1, that the "educated elite" as a whole is interested in making anyone's lives better but themselves, and #2, that we're the ones who don't have a grasp of political philosophy. Y'know, as the country who used the principles of Locke, Rousseau, et al. to come into its very existence.
vision wrote:I'm not confused. All fractures are not the same. All people are not the same. There are tons of variables that go into these decisions and each one comes with a risk category and probability of success or failure. Often, the reason one thing is done instead of another is rather Bayesian.tunnelcat wrote:Even he was confused as to why I had to be put under for such a short procedure.
You have to realize something TC, the threat of a malpractice suit is so high that doctors cannot just act on intuition. Every examination and diagnosis is done algorithmically and decisions are made on the probability of success. It's possible the doctor thought "a local would be good here" but some variable (maybe age, gender, weight, anything really) could have just barely tipped you just on the side of general anesthetic. And you know what? Ultimately the doctor was right because you are still alive. Had you died, the would have had to prove he did everything in his power and to the best of medical science to keep you alive. That's how this ★■◆● works. Yes, we sometimes have screwballs like the doctor in you Joan Rivers story, but those clowns are the exception, not the rule.
