- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,048
The following is a synopsis of several months of correspondence with colleagues in the medical field. Let's start with a pair of now retired physicians, one an ER doc with 38 years practice and one a pathologist with over 40 years practice, paraphrased:
"Assume none of the reports read in newspapers, heard on TV, or otherwise broadcast publicly, regarding medically significant spider bites, are valid or credible."
To explain. A person goes to a medical provider with a suspicious injury and we end up reading about it in a tabloid or even a reputable news outlet. Consider the source. The patient, and what the patient has gleaned from what the physicians have told them. Hearsay information.
You will probably NEVER read or hear a physicians actual words. If you do actually get the info from the 'horses mouth' it will be in clinical terminology and will be immediately obvious as such..
Have you ever read a direct quote from a physician? Seen a physician interviewed in the news?
Why not? If you need to ask this, you need to read up in doctor-patient confidentiality and doctor and care facility liability. To be precise,
A physician or care facility that releases the actual clinical findings is deliberately placing themselves in severe jeopardy from law suits. The patient may request a verbal summation of their condition. They can request a copy of the clinical findings which normally requires a release of liability form that should only be signed with an attorney present. Then once they have the clinical findings in hand, it would ordinarily take another physician or other medical expert to translate and explain what the findings are.
"The doctor said it was a spider bite." Possible. If the doctor is mentally deficient and likes being dragged before a peer review and jeopardizing his or her license to practice. Otherwise the doctor will always couch their words with terms like 'indicative of' 'reminiscent' and similar. The doctor will let the clinical findings speak for him. Why? No liability.
In doc V's words, "I don't care if the patient and 20 bystanders saw the spider gnawing on the patient. That is suspicious, yes, but not a diagnosis. It's plain and simple jumping to a conclusion and is unsupported until lab and other diagnostic work has been performed. UNSUPPORTED. Very crucial word. Unsupported is an assumption without having all the facts. The spider bite, the venom, may have certain effects, but to assume those effects are the primary ailment of the patient is asinine. It's conclusion jumping. So a patient has an injury indicative of a bite. We have cardiac issues. Pulmonary issues. Shall we assume the spider bite is the cause and ignore advanced cardiovascular disease? Infectious pneumonia? We work in facts and only in facts, derived from proper diagnosis using established and proven medical procedures."
The bottom line. If you read or hear about a spider bite and there is no nearly incomprehensible technical jargon attached, it is at best a persons impressions, not facts as ascertained by proper medical procedures. As example, Child dies from recluse bite is complete (bull****) unless a pathologists report is cited.
So say the information in that news piece came from some other source. A clinical assistant, a nurse, a therapist. No reputable hospital has any employees down to the janitorial staff that hasn't signed the form that includes the general wording, "Releasing of any patient information except through proper channels is a cause for immediate employment termination".
The person who is cited in that news piece is no longer an employee of that facility and has lost his/her job because they engaged in .........?
All of the above is directly from the medical profession.
"Assume none of the reports read in newspapers, heard on TV, or otherwise broadcast publicly, regarding medically significant spider bites, are valid or credible."
To explain. A person goes to a medical provider with a suspicious injury and we end up reading about it in a tabloid or even a reputable news outlet. Consider the source. The patient, and what the patient has gleaned from what the physicians have told them. Hearsay information.
You will probably NEVER read or hear a physicians actual words. If you do actually get the info from the 'horses mouth' it will be in clinical terminology and will be immediately obvious as such..
Have you ever read a direct quote from a physician? Seen a physician interviewed in the news?
Why not? If you need to ask this, you need to read up in doctor-patient confidentiality and doctor and care facility liability. To be precise,
A physician or care facility that releases the actual clinical findings is deliberately placing themselves in severe jeopardy from law suits. The patient may request a verbal summation of their condition. They can request a copy of the clinical findings which normally requires a release of liability form that should only be signed with an attorney present. Then once they have the clinical findings in hand, it would ordinarily take another physician or other medical expert to translate and explain what the findings are.
"The doctor said it was a spider bite." Possible. If the doctor is mentally deficient and likes being dragged before a peer review and jeopardizing his or her license to practice. Otherwise the doctor will always couch their words with terms like 'indicative of' 'reminiscent' and similar. The doctor will let the clinical findings speak for him. Why? No liability.
In doc V's words, "I don't care if the patient and 20 bystanders saw the spider gnawing on the patient. That is suspicious, yes, but not a diagnosis. It's plain and simple jumping to a conclusion and is unsupported until lab and other diagnostic work has been performed. UNSUPPORTED. Very crucial word. Unsupported is an assumption without having all the facts. The spider bite, the venom, may have certain effects, but to assume those effects are the primary ailment of the patient is asinine. It's conclusion jumping. So a patient has an injury indicative of a bite. We have cardiac issues. Pulmonary issues. Shall we assume the spider bite is the cause and ignore advanced cardiovascular disease? Infectious pneumonia? We work in facts and only in facts, derived from proper diagnosis using established and proven medical procedures."
The bottom line. If you read or hear about a spider bite and there is no nearly incomprehensible technical jargon attached, it is at best a persons impressions, not facts as ascertained by proper medical procedures. As example, Child dies from recluse bite is complete (bull****) unless a pathologists report is cited.
So say the information in that news piece came from some other source. A clinical assistant, a nurse, a therapist. No reputable hospital has any employees down to the janitorial staff that hasn't signed the form that includes the general wording, "Releasing of any patient information except through proper channels is a cause for immediate employment termination".
The person who is cited in that news piece is no longer an employee of that facility and has lost his/her job because they engaged in .........?
All of the above is directly from the medical profession.
Last edited: