The New Generation of Physicians are Frauds!
N-H-P
totally unqualified to diagnose. :(
Losing the Touch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2848-2003Jun16?language=printer
"As Technology and Medical Education Change, Doctors May Lose the
Ability to Perform Physical Exams
By Jennifer Obel
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page HE01
It is 2 o'clock in the morning. So far six patients have been admitted
during my overnight shift. As the resident on call, I am expected to
take a history, perform a physical exam and review lab results and
imaging to diagnose and manage these patients' illnesses. One patient,
a 45-year-old man, complains of sharp abdominal pain. The CT scan of
his abdomen that was done in the emergency room was, as we say in
medicine, "unremarkable."
I am debating whether to perform a complete physical. What more will I
learn from examining his abdomen that the CT has not already gleaned?
While I know that he expects a full exam -- the physician's trademark
-- I am already running behind. Nurses are paging me with medication
requests for the three other patients I have yet to evaluate. I am
swamped, so I do the bare minimum: a cursory physical exam.
Like many of my fellow residents, I am little trained in the "art" of
medicine. We embarked on our medical careers during an era of dizzying
advances in technology. Unlike our more seasoned attending physicians,
we grew up in the shadow of modern medicine, where imaging has
supplanted clinical skills. An echocardiogram (not the swishing sound
we hear through a stethoscope when the heart's valves close) tells us
whether a patient has a heart murmur. An MRI (not our neurologic exam)
tells us a patient suffered a stroke. Lab tests (not the patient's
swollen, warm fingers) tell us that she has rheumatoid arthritis."
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention.
tintinet
A bit harsh, here, John. While I agree medicine ought to focus more on
draining the swamps, those in the best position to effectively provide
preventive medicine are parents, educators, and individuals practicing
upon themselves. Most physicians are left to try to battle the
alligators of fully developed disease.
Howard McCollister
At least, totally unqualified to diagnose by physical examination. Maybe
older doctors are totally unqualified to diagnose by modern imaging
techniques? Although, a relative lack of physical exam skills has been true
of resident physicians for many, many years. Those skills improve as they
move farther along in their training
It sounds more like Dr. Obel is maybe a little bit on the lazy side, and
that her medical training up to that point has some serious gaps in it. Not
universally true in my experience since the kind of whining described above
is not something we hear from residents and medical students around here.
HMc
Al Hephy
tintinet <tint...@iwon.com> wrote in message news:35f5861e.03062...@posting.google.com...
Actually not harsh enough. Those of us who are old enough observed
the gradual change in the way medicine is practiced. The most abrupt
change was abandoning the 'house call'. Never mind why, it is a milestone
in the change of attitude and emphasis in medicine to eventually reach
the point where we are now, with a primary goal of maximizing the
flow of patients through the doctor's office and the trend toward
depersonalization.
I get more personal attention when getting my car repaired!
It's NOT reasonable to expect 'everyone' in the population to learn
'preventive medicine'. When 'everyone' is responsible, then no one
is responsible.
Al
Peter Moran
"N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.03062...@posting.google.com...
> WARNING! That physician examining you may now legally be a fraud
> totally unqualified to diagnose. :(
>
> Losing the Touch
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2848-2003Jun16?language=printer
> "As Technology and Medical Education Change, Doctors May Lose the
> Ability to Perform Physical Exams
>
> By Jennifer Obel
> Special to The Washington Post
> Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page HE01
>
> It is 2 o'clock in the morning. So far six patients have been admitted
> during my overnight shift. As the resident on call, I am expected to
> take a history, perform a physical exam and review lab results and
> imaging to diagnose and manage these patients' illnesses. One patient,
> a 45-year-old man, complains of sharp abdominal pain. The CT scan of
> his abdomen that was done in the emergency room was, as we say in
> medicine, "unremarkable."
>
> I am debating whether to perform a complete physical. What more will I
> learn from examining his abdomen that the CT has not already gleaned?
> While I know that he expects a full exam -- the physician's trademark
> -- I am already running behind. Nurses are paging me with medication
> requests for the three other patients I have yet to evaluate. I am
> swamped, so I do the bare minimum: a cursory physical exam.
This is not fraud, this is either poor medical training or malpractice.
There are many causes of abdominal pain which will not show up on an
ordinary CT scan, appendicitis for one.
I otherwise agree that the trend to rely on tests is sad.
Peter Moran
N-H-P
----------------------------
> > > WARNING! That physician examining you may now legally be a fraud
> > > totally unqualified to diagnose. :(
> > > Losing the Touch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2848-2003Jun16?language=printer
> > > "As Technology and Medical Education Change, Doctors May Lose the
> > > Ability to Perform Physical Exams
> At least, totally unqualified to diagnose by physical examination. Maybe
> older doctors are totally unqualified to diagnose by modern imaging
> techniques? Although, a relative lack of physical exam skills has been true
> of resident physicians for many, many years. Those skills improve as they
> move farther along in their training
"Maybe older doctors are totally unqualified to diagnose by modern
imaging techniques?"
Let us see now.
The patient pays $1,000 for a CT scan. Then they pay $300-$500 for a
computer program to interpret the CT scan for the Modern Doctor. Then
the patient pays the Modern Doctor to be short with them.
Maybe patients should simply cut out the middle man, otherwise known
as the Modern Physician Scammer, and go straight to the CT Scanner
operator? The price of computers are falling drastically you know.
Why deal with an impersonal buffoon known as the Modern Doctor when
you can deal directly with an impersonal computer?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
N-H-P
------------------------------------
> > > WARNING! That physician examining you may now legally be a fraud
> > > totally unqualified to diagnose. :(
> > > Losing the Touch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2848-2003Jun16?language=printer
> > > "As Technology and Medical Education Change, Doctors May Lose the
> > > Ability to Perform Physical Exams
> > A bit harsh, here, John. While I agree medicine ought to focus more on
> > draining the swamps, those in the best position to effectively provide
> > preventive medicine are parents, educators, and individuals practicing
> > upon themselves. Most physicians are left to try to battle the
> > alligators of fully developed disease.
> Actually not harsh enough. Those of us who are old enough observed
> the gradual change in the way medicine is practiced. The most abrupt
> change was abandoning the 'house call'. Never mind why, it is a
> milestone
> in the change of attitude and emphasis in medicine to eventually reach
> the point where we are now, with a primary goal of maximizing the
> flow of patients through the doctor's office and the trend toward
> depersonalization.
>
> I get more personal attention when getting my car repaired!
Precisely!
We are lead to believe from the assembly line mentality of Modern
Medicine that there is a shortage of doctors, when if anything there
are clearly too many hospitals and too many physicians in the major
metropolitan areas of the US. And, that these wonderfully greedy
people are so desperate for money, eh ... help, that medical residents
routinely work 80 hours weeks. And, that patients should be grateful
for being treated by a sleep deprived person totally unqualified to
diagnose because formerly they were working 120 hour work weeks!
Impersonal treatment by Modern Medicine equates to treating Name Tags,
Medical Charts, and Computer Analyses of test results (aka treating
the diagnose) rather than treating the person standing before them.
This is precisely why there are so many medical errors committed in
hospitals, these days.
--
John Gohde,
Howard McCollister
> Medicine that there is a shortage of doctors, when if anything there
> are clearly too many hospitals and too many physicians in the major
> metropolitan areas of the US. And, that these wonderfully greedy
> people are so desperate for money, eh ... help, that medical residents
> routinely work 80 hours weeks. And, that patients should be grateful
> for being treated by a sleep deprived person totally unqualified to
> diagnose because formerly they were working 120 hour work weeks!
>
> Impersonal treatment by Modern Medicine equates to treating Name Tags,
> Medical Charts, and Computer Analyses of test results (aka treating
> the diagnose) rather than treating the person standing before them.
> This is precisely why there are so many medical errors committed in
> hospitals, these days.
Well, that's certainly one perspective. Fortunately, it appears to be in the
vast minority.
HMc
tintinet
Actually, CT scan is a highly sensitive and specific test for appendicitis.
P
Doug Brooks
>
> We are lead to believe from the assembly line mentality of Modern
> Medicine that there is a shortage of doctors, when if anything there
> are clearly too many hospitals and too many physicians in the major
> metropolitan areas of the US. And, that these wonderfully greedy
> people are so desperate for money, eh ... help, that medical residents
> routinely work 80 hours weeks. And, that patients should be grateful
> for being treated by a sleep deprived person totally unqualified to
> diagnose because formerly they were working 120 hour work weeks!
The plain and simple economic truth is that there IS a shortage of
doctors. The AMA has a de facto monopoly over the supply of doctors,
and it is a field with high barriers to entry. It takes a great
personal investment in both time and money to become a doctor. The
supply is small, and the demand is high, so doctors can charge top dollar.
In fact, these days, they have to charge top dollar as the costs of
running an office, with sky-high malpractice insurance on top of
secretaries, nurses, PA's, and highly specialized equipment is enormous.
The assembly-line nature of the business is so that you can actually
afford to get in and see a doctor when you need to.
Lawrence Foard
Doug Brooks <do...@want.spam.com> wrote:
>N-H-P wrote:
>>
>> We are lead to believe from the assembly line mentality of Modern
>> Medicine that there is a shortage of doctors, when if anything there
>> are clearly too many hospitals and too many physicians in the major
>> metropolitan areas of the US. And, that these wonderfully greedy
>> people are so desperate for money, eh ... help, that medical residents
>> routinely work 80 hours weeks. And, that patients should be grateful
>> for being treated by a sleep deprived person totally unqualified to
>> diagnose because formerly they were working 120 hour work weeks!
>
>The plain and simple economic truth is that there IS a shortage of
>doctors. The AMA has a de facto monopoly over the supply of doctors,
>and it is a field with high barriers to entry. It takes a great
>personal investment in both time and money to become a doctor. The
>supply is small, and the demand is high, so doctors can charge top dollar.
The most bizarre thing is that not long ago they wanted medical schools
to graduate less doctors claiming a glut. This alone seems like a violation
of the oath. When medical care is suffering through lack of doctors, to
try to tighten the supply even more is simply unethical.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
We are nothing but sunlight detours, in the road between fusion and eternity.
tintinet
Actually, there were, quite likely and almost certainly, MORE medical
errors in the past than there are now, decision for decision and
treatment for treatment. We are simply better at recognizing the
errors these days.
Al Hephy
Doug Brooks <do...@want.spam.com> wrote in message news:3EF707DF...@want.spam.com...
Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
Al
Doug Brooks
> Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
> Al
>
I would say the tort system is the biggest factor.
Peter Moran
Only if directly targeted on the appendix using specific techniques. Even
then, I wonder how accurate it is within average radiological practice, or
within the extraordinary range of possible pathologies that appendicitis can
.produce.
Peter Moran
Howard McCollister
> > Actually, CT scan is a highly sensitive and specific test for
> appendicitis.
> > P
>
> Only if directly targeted on the appendix using specific techniques.
Even
> then, I wonder how accurate it is within average radiological practice, or
> within the extraordinary range of possible pathologies that appendicitis
can
> .produce.
>
> Peter Moran
>
>
It's true that the optimal way to diagnose appendicitis via CT is with the
use of rectal contrast. If no such contrast is used, the radiologist must
depend on visible inflammation or edema in the tissues around the appendix
and this would lower the accuracy of the CT for diagnosis of appendicitis.
The information from the CT along with a white cell count, a physical exam
(by someone who knows what they're doing) and a good history should yield an
accuracy better than 90%, compared to the oft-quoted 75% that was considered
standard back in the old days when the diagnosis of appendicitis was made
without the help of CT.
HMc
Mike Leake
news:1056397943.951913@savina...
> > In fact, these days, they have to charge top dollar as the costs of
> > running an office, with sky-high malpractice insurance on top of
> > secretaries, nurses, PA's, and highly specialized equipment is enormous.
> > The assembly-line nature of the business is so that you can actually
> > afford to get in and see a doctor when you need to.
> >
> >
> > Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
For one thing, we live in an incredibly litigation-happy society in which
people have arrived at the curious notion that life should always be
fair--and that if anything untoward ever happens to them, someone must be
held financially responsible. Sometimes doctors do make mistakes. They're
only human after all, and they're often rushed, as previously noted. And
sometimes they're even negligent. But such errors are far from the only
reasons malpractice insurance is outrageously high.
These days people will sue at the drop of a hat. I recall reading stats
awhile back on lawyers per capita in developed nations. The US led the pack
by a longshot. Whoever was in second place had something like one-tenth the
US percentage, and whichever country was in third place was very far back of
the one in second. Many lawyers per capita means there's a lot of legal
business out there being created, and some of that is naturally geared
toward medical malpractice suits.
Mike Leake
N-H-P
> Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
Transplanting organs where the blood type does not match.
Operating on the wrong patient.
Surgeons carving initials on the bellies of female patients.
Leaving sponges and other tools inside obese patients after an
operation.
Hospital staff needlessly giving elderly patients pneumonia by
intentionally exposing them to too much air conditioning and other
drafts.
Cutting off the wrong leg, on the correct patient.
Giving a patient the WRONG medication, or the wrong dosage.
Entering the wrong coordinates in the CT scanner.
And, let us not forget physicians making the WRONG diagnoses.
Howard McCollister
"N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
>
> Transplanting organs where the blood type does not match.
>
> Operating on the wrong patient.
>
> Surgeons carving initials on the bellies of female patients.
>
> Leaving sponges and other tools inside obese patients after an
> operation.
>
> Hospital staff needlessly giving elderly patients pneumonia by
> intentionally exposing them to too much air conditioning and other
> drafts.
>
> Cutting off the wrong leg, on the correct patient.
>
> Giving a patient the WRONG medication, or the wrong dosage.
>
> Entering the wrong coordinates in the CT scanner.
>
> And, let us not forget physicians making the WRONG diagnoses.
> --
What's your point? Anyone who reads the newspaper could produce a far longer
list than that. But what you need to do is prove your assertion that these
mistakes are more common now than in the past and how that translates to
higher malpractice awards and therefore higher premiums. You can't just rail
against medical "buffoons" without backing up your claims or you just look
stupid.
HMc
Eric Bohlman
news:TUGdndrpPaV...@comcast.com:
> These days people will sue at the drop of a hat. I recall reading
> stats awhile back on lawyers per capita in developed nations. The US
> led the pack by a longshot. Whoever was in second place had something
> like one-tenth the US percentage, and whichever country was in third
> place was very far back of the one in second. Many lawyers per capita
> means there's a lot of legal business out there being created, and
> some of that is naturally geared toward medical malpractice suits.
Those figures are somewhat inflated by the fact that the US is one of the
few countries that doesn't make a distinction between barristers and
solicitors. If you just look at admissions to the bar, you'll get a
misleading picture because in most countries those who practice transaction
law rather than trial law (e.g. most corporate lawyers) aren't admitted to
the bar.
Ob-1
Howard McCollister wrote:
> When the appendix are inflamed from "external poisoning sources" it
becomes >> quite obvious as the pain is excruciating. I've been
lucky so far, but I have >> witnessed same many times. A
SWOLLEN and "ruined" ( if you will) organ
>> can easily kill. It can affect all systems as well owing to its'
location! One loses the >> Lower Bowel Lubrication factors but that can
be overcome with knowledge and care.
>> Three to five drops of castor oil (in juice) daily will suffice AND keep
the bowels >> healthy without over stressing them. Castor oil HEALS as
well. It is specific to the
>> entire LYMPHATIC system as well. The lymph system is all over the body..but
is
>> concentrated in the mid frontal area than anywhere else. Hot castor oil
packs can
>> alleviate many bowell inflamation poblems. ( SEE Edgar Cayce's readings)
>> Blessings: Trebor M..
-
>>Worlds’ largest producer of Lin Xhi (Kombucha) Synergisms
>>Homogenizing milk KILLS! Over 1 million Autopsies do not lie...
N-H-P
---------
> "N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote
---------
> > "Al Hephy" <ahe...@freewweb.invalid> wrote
---------
> > > Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
> >
> > Transplanting organs where the blood type does not match.
> >
> > Operating on the wrong patient.
I responded to Hephy's question.
> Anyone who reads the newspaper could produce a far longer
> list than that.
Yeah, the list of physician stupidity goes on for ever.
> But what you need to do is prove your assertion that these
> mistakes are more common now than in the past and how that translates to
> higher malpractice awards and therefore higher premiums.
That is what the Medical profession needs to do. :)
> You can't just rail against medical "buffoons" without backing
> up your claims or you just look stupid.
Your mind control tricks don't work on me. :)
Of course the real reason for the sharp rise in the cost of
malpractice awards is the ever increasing depersonalized medical
experience.
When you have to pay top dollar the public wont tolerate *any*
mistakes. They certainly wont put up with the really really stupid
mistakes caused by depersonalized medicine. :)
--
John Gohde,
Al Hephy
Doug Brooks <do...@want.spam.com> wrote in message news:3EF76B55...@want.spam.com...
And you would be right, of course, but would not explain
the great disparity between medical lawsuits and all
other liability cases combined. Just the numbers are a
clue for any thinking person. Clearly not enough is being
done to weed out incompetents and too much is being
done to cover up for them.
Very strong 'union' at work.
Al
Howard McCollister
"Ob-1" <S...@Grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:3EF7FC66...@Grandecom.net...
Heh. Pretty funny, Andrew.
HMc
Terri
Are doctors raising patients' expectations regarding the benefits of
screening, drugs, surgery, other medical procedures unrealistically? Do
patients believe that they will become virtually immortal and somehow
die in perfect health when they do finally die if they do everything the
doctor says?
Ob-gyns are among the most often sued physicians even though the numbers
of bad outcomes haven't increased significantly over the last 50 years.
Why do prospective parents believe they will have a "perfect" outcome?
Because they have been convinced by those same doctors that obstetric
medicine is far more reliable/scientific than it actually is and that if
you follow all of the doctor's instructions and do exactly as you are
told, your baby will be perfect? So when the result is less than perfect
you figure someone must have done something wrong and it wasn't you so
it must have been the doctor?
Gym Bob
malpractice. There is no negligence, just a practicioner doing his job
poorly.
"N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.03062...@posting.google.com...
tools
"Gym Bob" <NonA...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0c344396020f1984...@free.teranews.com...
Nana Weedkiller
"Terri" <vl-h...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3EF8456E...@erols.com...
>
> Ob-gyns are among the most often sued physicians even though the numbers
> of bad outcomes haven't increased significantly over the last 50 years.
> Why do prospective parents believe they will have a "perfect" outcome?
> Because they have been convinced by those same doctors that obstetric
> medicine is far more reliable/scientific than it actually is and that if
> you follow all of the doctor's instructions and do exactly as you are
> told, your baby will be perfect? So when the result is less than perfect
> you figure someone must have done something wrong and it wasn't you so
> it must have been the doctor?
Lawyer TV ads help promote the perception that the doctor is
the cause of anything going wrong. We get those ads a lot here in my area of
the midatlantic states.
Ob-1
Terri wrote:
> Al Hephy wrote:
> >
> > Doug Brooks <do...@want.spam.com> wrote in message news:3EF76B55...@want.spam.com...
> > > Al Hephy wrote:
> > > > Want to have a go at WHY malpractice insurance is sky-high?
> > > > Al
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would say the tort system is the biggest factor.
> >
> > And you would be right, of course, but would not explain
> > the great disparity between medical lawsuits and all
> > other liability cases combined. Just the numbers are a
> > clue for any thinking person. Clearly not enough is being
> > done to weed out incompetents and too much is being
> > done to cover up for them.
> >
> > Very strong 'union' at work.
> >
> > Al
>
> Are doctors raising patients' expectations regarding the benefits of
> screening, drugs, surgery, other medical procedures unrealistically? Do
> patients believe that they will become virtually immortal and somehow
> die in perfect health when they do finally die if they do everything the
> doctor says?
>
> Ob-gyns are among the most often sued physicians even though the numbers
> of bad outcomes haven't increased significantly over the last 50 years.
> Why do prospective parents believe they will have a "perfect" outcome?
> Because they have been convinced by those same doctors that obstetric
> medicine is far more reliably scientific than it actually is and that if
> you follow all of the doctor's instructions and do exactly as you are
> told, your body will be perfect? So when the result is less than perfect
> you figure someone must have done something wrong and it wasn't you; so
> it must have been the doctor?
Hi again: I have also noted that there is a small portion of society that
Spends much of their lives SUEING anyone that crosses their paths for one
phoney reason or another. Some ARE lejitimate...but MANY are NOT!
Admittedly, there is a large portion of medical mal-practices. I have run across
TWO such individuals and groups. Kaiser Permanente went out of BIZ
because they were very careless as a general rule. They even caused me major
stroke in the 1960's that still hangs on in the form of partial partial paralysis
brought by a STROKE caused by :liquid DYE used in the veins allegedly to
"SEE" the blood better..SAY WHAT??? What a goofy idea!
The NEWER generations just graduating SEEM to be MUCH better due the
histrionics involved over the last 20 years or more.. Prices are higher as well!
Where will it END?? Quien Sabe' Blessings! Trebor M
--
Rob Colby
> The plain and simple economic truth is that there IS a shortage of
> doctors. The AMA has a de facto monopoly over the supply of doctors,
> and it is a field with high barriers to entry. It takes a great
> personal investment in both time and money to become a doctor. The
> supply is small, and the demand is high, so doctors can charge top dollar.
>
> In fact, these days, they have to charge top dollar as the costs of
> running an office, with sky-high malpractice insurance on top of
> secretaries, nurses, PA's, and highly specialized equipment is enormous.
> The assembly-line nature of the business is so that you can actually
> afford to get in and see a doctor when you need to.
Yes, there's a shortage of doctors and yes, it's due to the AMA.
If it wasn't the case, then doctors would be like many scientists and
engineers, underemployed, facing constant age discrimination, and
declining wages. This is the reason why I'm in medical school today. I
have a BS/MS in chemical engineering and have left both the
engineering and computer fields for a stable career where I can earn
$100K/yr up until retirement. Many of my former colleagues are better
at organic chemistry and applied mathematics than 90%+ of all MDs but
unlike their medical counterparts, they have fewer if any
opportunities esp after the age of forty. In fact, many are currently
unemployed.
Al Hephy
Surely we have the right to expect a physician to be as competent
as a mid-wife! Sometimes juries decide they are not.
A curious point that tort reformers don't seem to want to discuss
is that the record shows that more than 90% of malpractice cases
never go to court -- they're settled by negotiation. Why is that?
It almost seems like pleading guilty, doesn't it.
Al
tintinet
Either that, or perhaps often it is cost effective and less stressful
to simply negotiate out of court, whether in the right or in the
wrong, rather than make lawyers richer and make one's life more
difficult.
>
> Al
N-H-P
> computer program to interpret the CT scan for the Modern Doctor. Then
> the patient pays the Modern Doctor to be short with them.
> Maybe patients should simply cut out the middle man, otherwise known
> as the Modern Physician Scammer, and go straight to the CT Scanner
> operator? The price of computers are falling drastically you know.
> Why deal with an impersonal buffoon known as the Modern Doctor when
> you can deal directly with an impersonal computer?
Maybe patients should simply cut out the middle man?
Richard Hayward, consultant neurosurgeon
VOMIT (victims of modern imaging technology)—an acronym for our times
BMJ 2003;326:1273 (7 June)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7401/1273
"It's more cost efficient to do scans on everyone who wants one—
effectively self referral whether a doctor signs the form or not—and
cut out the intermediary."
Cheers ...
--
John Gohde,
Howard McCollister
"N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > computer program to interpret the CT scan for the Modern Doctor. Then
> > the patient pays the Modern Doctor to be short with them.
>
> > Maybe patients should simply cut out the middle man, otherwise known
> > as the Modern Physician Scammer, and go straight to the CT Scanner
> > operator? The price of computers are falling drastically you know.
> > Why deal with an impersonal buffoon known as the Modern Doctor when
> > you can deal directly with an impersonal computer?
>
> Maybe patients should simply cut out the middle man?
>
> Richard Hayward, consultant neurosurgeon
> effectively self referral whether a doctor signs the form or not-and
> cut out the intermediary."
>
OK with me, as long as I'm not held liable for the computer's
(mis)interpretation of the CT, or for any of the complications the patient
might suffer from the scan (ie, anaphylactic reaction to the contrast). I'm
sure I wouldn't be, but I'll just have to make sure before I turn my
patients and my career over to a computer interpretation.
Uh...who IS going to take responsibility for the accuracy and safety of the
imaging test, John?
Say, computers have been interpreting 12 lead EKGs for at least a decade. In
our hospital today, a lot of those interpretations are wrong or incomplete.
The CT interpretation programs John refers to must be a lot better, even
though it's a markedly more complicated with a huge number of variables.
John, I can't find any of those doctor-replacing CT interpretation programs
marketed anywhere. The article you quote above has nothing to do with
automated interpretation, it's only a lone voice whining that medical
imaging is overused in the UK. Would you mind citing the articles or any of
the other info you have that has led you to the conclusion that the buffoon
middle man (doctor) can be eliminated?
HMc
N-H-P
> John, I can't find any of those doctor-replacing CT interpretation programs
> marketed anywhere. The article you quote above has nothing to do with
> automated interpretation, ...
How about ...
http://www.image-metrics.com/pages/medical_diagnostic.asp
"Image Metrics has developed a unique software platform, Optasia™,
which enables automated computer analysis and interpretation of
diagnostic images. It is the world's first software solution that
enables the analysis and detection of a range of medical conditions
from a single generic platform. Example applications include the
automated analysis of chest x-rays or CT for suspected cancerous
nodules, the detection of coronary wall strain in echocardiography, or
the detection of tumours in studies of the liver."
Or ...
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=ct+medical+image+analysis&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=computer+analysis&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
for over 1,200 hits.
--
John Gohde,
Howard McCollister
"N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
> > John, I can't find any of those doctor-replacing CT interpretation
programs
> > marketed anywhere. The article you quote above has nothing to do with
> > automated interpretation, ...
>
> How about ...
>
> http://www.image-metrics.com/pages/medical_diagnostic.asp
> which enables automated computer analysis and interpretation of
> diagnostic images. It is the world's first software solution that
> enables the analysis and detection of a range of medical conditions
> from a single generic platform. Example applications include the
> automated analysis of chest x-rays or CT for suspected cancerous
> nodules, the detection of coronary wall strain in echocardiography, or
> the detection of tumours in studies of the liver."
>
> Or ...
>
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=ct+medical+image+analysis&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=computer+analysis&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
> for over 1,200 hits.
> --
>
But John...all of those automated systems, by their own very distinct
disclaimer, are specifically designed to ASSIST the radiologist, not replace
him/her. And all of those hits, wow, but all of the systems have very
limited application. The one from Image-Metrics, for example, is designed
ONLY for the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules which is only one
reason why a physician would order a CT or chest X-ray on his/her patient,
and certainly not the most common. And I think you will find that abdominal
and pelvic CT scans are quite a bit more common than chest CTs for a
possible pulmonary nodule, and I didn't see ANY automated interpretation
software that claimed to even come close to replacing a radiologist in
radiographic intrepretation.
Maybe someday, John; it's a nice fantasy, but not in your lifetime. Looks
like the buffoons' jobs are pretty safe for the forseeable future.
Say, though...you didn't answer my question about who was going to accept
responsibility for your fantasy program's CT interpretation? Surely you have
thought that out....?
HMc
N-H-P
> But John...all of those automated systems, by their own very distinct
> disclaimer, are specifically designed to ASSIST the radiologist, not replace
> him/her.
That is called PC babble made in order to keep the Doc's happy.:)
> possible pulmonary nodule, and I didn't see ANY automated interpretation
> software that claimed to even come close to replacing a radiologist in
> radiographic intrepretation.
>
> Maybe someday, John; it's a nice fantasy, but not in your lifetime. Looks
> like the buffoons' jobs are pretty safe for the forseeable future.
So, you are saying that the *only* doctor worth going to is the
radiologist? That would indeed eliminate a few middlemen. :)
The Doctor is there to make the diagnosis. The *only* modern doctor
capable of using medical image scanning for diagnosis is the
radiologist, according to you. That would leave the treatment options
up to the empowered patient thanks to the Internet, or so BMJ tells me
so. Yes, evidence-based medicine has turned the modern physician into
a babbling idiot who spends most of their time questioning their time
honored Quackery.
> Say, though...you didn't answer my question about who was going to accept
> responsibility for your fantasy program's CT interpretation? Surely you have
> thought that out....?
Surely, you are not saying that all physicians immediately step
forward and accept full responsibility for making mistakes?
Responsibility is determined in a court of law when it passes
judgement on who is to be held responsible, if anyone. :)
--
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering De-Medicalization by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
medical.
Howard McCollister
>
> That is called PC babble made in order to keep the Doc's happy.:)
No it's not. There is simply no software that will interpret any kind of
xray and provide a complete diagnosis. The software companies know it, the
doctors know it, and the BMJ knows it. You're the only one that doesn't know
it.
> So, you are saying that the *only* doctor worth going to is the
> radiologist? That would indeed eliminate a few middlemen. The Doctor is
there to make the diagnosis. The *only* > modern doctor capable of
using medical image scanning for diagnosis is the radiologist, according to
you.
The only doctor worth going to for a radiologic diagnosis is a radiologist.
Sure, I can read a CT scan, but not as consistently well as a doctor who
does it many times a day. It's not a difficult concept, if you think about
it real hard. A family practicioner might be able to take that wart off your
nose, John, but he couldn't take out your colon. Or re-invert your mouth and
anus, for example.
:)
HMc
Muush
"Howard McCollister" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3f001601$0$99478$45be...@newscene.com...
Cosmetic surgery? :)
N-H-P
> "N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote
> > That is called PC babble made in order to keep the Doc's happy.:)
> No it's not. There is simply no software that will interpret any kind of
> xray and provide a complete diagnosis. The software companies know it, the
> doctors know it, and the BMJ knows it. You're the only one that doesn't know
> it.
Thank you for publicly agreeing with me. I knew that we would see
eye-to-eye on this matter. :)
> if you think about
> it real hard. A family practicioner might be able to take that wart off your
> nose, ...
I can do the same with duck tape. :)
"Monday, October 14, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio -- A physician at
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center has determined that a
novel way of treating warts -- duct tape -- is less expensive, less
painful and more convenient than currently used methods.
http://www.cojoweb.com/duct-tape-security-1.html
"We don't know for sure why it works, but it may involve stimulation
of the patient's immune system through local irritation," says Rick
Focht, MD, a fellow in the division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology
and Nutrition at Cincinnati Children's and the study's lead author.
The study is published in the October issue of Archives of Pediatrics
& Adolescent Medicine."
Let's hear it for Evidence-Based Medicine!!!
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Muush
> "Howard McCollister" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote
>
> > "N-H-P" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote
> > > That is called PC babble made in order to keep the Doc's happy.:)
>
> > No it's not. There is simply no software that will interpret any kind of
> > xray and provide a complete diagnosis. The software companies know it,
the
> > doctors know it, and the BMJ knows it. You're the only one that doesn't
know
> > it.
>
> Thank you for publicly agreeing with me. I knew that we would see
> eye-to-eye on this matter. :)
English is not his strong point, folks, move along now :)
> > if you think about
> > it real hard. A family practicioner might be able to take that wart off
your
> > nose, ...
>
> I can do the same with duck tape. :)
>
> "Monday, October 14, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio -- A physician at
> Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center has determined that a
> novel way of treating warts -- duct tape -- is less expensive, less
> painful and more convenient than currently used methods.
>
> http://www.cojoweb.com/duct-tape-security-1.html
> "We don't know for sure why it works, but it may involve stimulation
> of the patient's immune system through local irritation," says Rick
> Focht, MD, a fellow in the division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology
> and Nutrition at Cincinnati Children's and the study's lead author.
> The study is published in the October issue of Archives of Pediatrics
> & Adolescent Medicine."
>
> Let's hear it for Evidence-Based Medicine!!!
So how about you show some evidence for your "Vitalism force"?
Some units of measurement would help. Remember, if you can't measure it, it
doesn't exist.
~~~~~~~~
Not trying to be un-PC but you sound like the Jewish person who when greeted
with "How are you!" gives you a half hour tirade of all his illnesses.
The "take a wart of your nose" was not an invitation to evaluate procedures
to accomplish this, but a symbolic representation of all the "bread and
butter" procedures that a GP undertakes.
M00SH
>
>"Muush" <wa...@waaa.waaa> wrote in message
>news:8t5Ma.14$o74...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist?
>How do you measure your creation?
What aspect of it are you interested in? I comprises so many.