Pregnant Smokers and Drinkers

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
An interesting debate would be the allowance of religous practices that physically endanger children, such as snake handling or refusal of medicine.

.... and all these New Age people who in case of disease force upon their children some ineffectice treatment consisting of a diet of wheats, veggies and herbs ...... while in the meantime refusing to give their children the proper medicine.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
An interesting debate would be the allowance of religous practices that physically endanger children, such as snake handling or refusal of medicine.

I could be wrong (#1, clear this up), but can't the state take medical custody of
a child even against a parent's will/religious beliefs in the case of emergencies?

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe

.... and all these New Age people who in case of disease force upon their children some ineffectice treatment consisting of a diet of wheats, veggies and herbs ...... while in the meantime refusing to give their children the proper medicine.

At the same time. let us remember that the allopathic medical community itself is not without grave error in many instances.

My mother was diagnosed by several physicians as experiencing depression after my father's death, since her main complaint was that she was unable to eat as she normally had. They agreed that valium was a proper course of treatment. She soon stopped taking them. "I'm not happy about your father being dead, but I'm not depressed about it!" she told me. Her symptoms continued. She grew weaker until finally one doctor made the proper diagnosis - pancreatic cancer. She could not eat because the cancer was closing in around her stomach. It was physically impossible for her to do so. She did not survive long after that. I wonder if months spent assuring her that it was all in her head may have instead afforded her more time to take care of her final business before her life's end.

They really botched it. I have far less than 100% faith in allopathic practitioners.

I work in a hospital.

Originally posted by eagles54
At the same time. let us remember that the allopathic medical community itself is not without grave error in many instances.

My mother was diagnosed by several physicians as experiencing depression after my father's death, since her main complaint was that she was unable to eat as she normally had. They agreed that valium was a proper course of treatmen ...[text shortened]... tched it. I have far less than 100% faith in allopathic practitioners.

I work in a hospital.

I'm sorry to hear about your mother.

It is a well known and sad fact that if regular doctors don't know the cause of the complaints they very quickly turn to the "It Is All Between The Ears" diagnosis. In 99% of the cases this is a translation of "I Don't Have A Clue About What's Going On".

If people have the impression they are dealing with such a doctor, and that is a very difficult thing to find out and ackowledge, than there is only one thing to do and that is to dump this doctor as soon as possible and find another one.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It is a well known and sad fact that if regular doctors don't know the cause of the complaints they very quickly turn to the "It Is All Between The Ears" diagnosis. In 99% of the cases this is a translation of "I Don't Have A Clue About What's Going On".

99%? This sort of hyperbole is both ridiculous and disgusting.

The diagnosis that something is between the ears IS often a valid one.
That his mother may have been suffering from depression may have been a genuine
concern and not one I necessarily fault the doctor for. Pancreatic cancer is not
easily detected because it often lacks symptoms until it has reached an advanced
stage (and it is notoriously difficult to treat in all events).

It's easy to be critical in hindsight, and it's easy to feel guilty when stricken with
grief. But to blame a doctor for 'not having a clue' is unfair. He can only diagnosis
what he can observe and take into account the circumstances under which he observes
it.

Keep your 'well-known, sad facts' to yourself, especially when they are entirely bogus.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The diagnosis that something is between the ears [b]IS often a valid one.
That his mother may have been suffering from depression may have been a genuine
concern and not one I necessarily fault the doctor for. Pancreatic cancer is not
easily detected because it often lacks symptoms until it has reached an advanced
stage (and it is notoriously difficult to treat in all events).[/b]

I agree with you that the doctors may have had a legitimate concern that my mother was experiencing depression, but her insistence to the contrary should have tipped them off that further investigation was warranted. She had no prior experience of symptoms of depression despite living through many difficult circumstances in her life and maintaining great grace and dignity. I also agree that pancreatic cancer is tough to deal with on all fronts. I still maintain that those responsible were too quick to write prescriptions for sedatives when she gave them ample reason to explore further.

Originally posted by eagles54
I agree with you that the doctors may have had a legitimate concern that my mother was experiencing depression, but her insistence to the contrary should have tipped them off that further investigation was warranted. She had no prior experience of symptoms of depression despite living through many difficult circumstances in her life and maintaining great gr ...[text shortened]... o quick to write prescriptions for sedatives when she gave them ample reason to explore further.

I don't dispute a single one of your claims.

I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.'

And, as you may know, people with depression are often the last to recognize it, so
her insistence to the contrary may not have been as substantive as we might say in
hindsight.

I'm not arguing with you -- no one here is able to do so because we do not know the
intimate details of her life, nor do we know the circumstances under which the doctor
came to his/her conclusion.

What I am arguing is Ivanhoe's disgusting, BS claim.

My deepest sympathies for your loss.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I don't dispute a single one of your claims.

I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.'

And, as you may know, people wit ...[text shortened]... ting, BS claim.

My deepest sympathies for your loss.

Nemesio

That's the second time you've used the word "disgusting" to refer to ivanhoe's claim, not to mention "ridiculous" and "despicable".

Why such vitriol?

Clearly, if a doctor finds a physiological explanation for symptoms before he thinks of a psychological one, he would diagnose that the former was the case. If he concludes the latter, then he has most probably not been able to discover a physiological explanation.

Ivanhoe's claim that 99% of doctors who diagnose a mental cause do not really know what is happening is almost certainly hyperbole (I am reminded of the "The Pope has condemned millions to death in Africa" claim in another thread). It could very well be ridiculous. But despicable and disgusting?

Is it disgusting because it questions the ability of doctors? Because it questions their integrity?

Or is it disgusting because it is ivanhoe making the claim?

Just wondering.

LH

Originally posted by Nemesio
I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.'...

Nemesio

That is a misrepresentation of what Ivanhoe said. He said that when doctors can't figure out what's wrong with a patient, they generally diagnose the problem as mental. You have turned that around completely.

Originally posted by Coletti
That is a misrepresentation of what Ivanhoe said. He said that when doctors can't figure out what's wrong with a patient, they generally diagnose the problem as mental. You have turned that around completely.

Please read his comment in his own words:

Ivanhoe wrote:
It is a well known and sad fact that if regular doctors don't know the cause of the complaints they very quickly turn to the "It Is All Between The Ears" diagnosis. In 99% of the cases this is a translation of "I Don't Have A Clue About What's Going On".

This statement is utter crap. It minimizes the great good that doctors
do, it undermines their humanity (as if they should be able diagnose
all things at all times), and it discredits their accurate mental
health diagnoses.

Doctors do NOT generally diagnose unknown problems as 'mental;'
this is not some 'well-known fact.' And, often, when they do, the
diagnosis is in some cases correct.

I take his statement as an affront to the medical profession (in which
I have several family members), as well as a tacit minimization of
mental health diagnoses which may or may not have been intended.
Many mental health diagnoses are appropriate (and correct) guesses
in circumstances described by Eagles and, given that NONE of us (but
Eagles) has any detailed information upon which that doctor made his
EXPERT and INFORMED opinion.

That Ivanhoe said it is immaterial. It was an outlandish and
slanderous claim made in a sincere fashion and I won't stand for it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I don't dispute a single one of your claims.

I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.'

And, as you may know, people with depression are often the last to recognize it, so
her insistence to the contrary may not have been as substantive as ...[text shortened]... m arguing is Ivanhoe's disgusting, BS claim.

My deepest sympathies for your loss.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.' ... "

A typical case of strawmanreasoning. Reread carefully what I said. You are catching the "scratch out the eyes first and ask questions later" attitude.

Originally posted by Coletti
That is a misrepresentation of what Ivanhoe said. He said that when doctors can't figure out what's wrong with a patient, they generally diagnose the problem as mental. You have turned that around completely.

Nemesio indeed made a mess of my words.

Wrong diagnosis I must say. Next thing he will be advising me to look for a good therapist and take some effective medicin ....... oh well ..... 😀


EDIT: I love the following Nemesio wrote:
"Doctors do NOT generally diagnose unknown problems as 'mental;'
this is not some 'well-known fact.' And, often, when they do, the
diagnosis is in some cases correct."

" often ..... the diagnosis is in some cases correct"

ROTFLMSO

The sheep are flocking.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.' ... "

A typical case of strawmanreasoning. Reread carefully what I said. You are catching the "scratch out the eyes first and ask questions later" attitude.

Ivanhoe wrote:
It is a well known and sad fact that if regular doctors don't know the cause of the complaints they very quickly turn to the "It Is All Between The Ears" diagnosis. In 99% of the cases this is a translation of "I Don't Have A Clue About What's Going On".

Nemesio wrote:
I dispute Ivanhoe's despicable claim that his 'sad and well-known fact' that 99% of
mental diagnoses are a result of a doctor's 'not having a clue.'

Where is the strawman, Ivanhoe? You like to fling out 'debate-sounding words' but you
often misapply them.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
EDIT: I love the following Nemesio wrote:
"Doctors do NOT generally diagnose unknown problems as 'mental;'
this is not some 'well-known fact.' And, often, when they do, the
diagnosis is in some cases correct."

" often ..... the diagnosis is in some cases correct"

ROTFLMSO

There are two separate statements:

1) I dispute the absurd claim that doctors turn to a 'between-the-ears' diagnosis when
they do not understand what is going on (where's your proof for this claim?);

2) And when they do decide to offer a 'between-the-ears' diagnosis (however frequently
or infrequently that may be), they are often correct.

I'll accept your apology for misunderstanding my already clear sentence in advance.

Nemesio