To argue devil's advocate, how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science and how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Not really devil's advocate, your point makes a lot of sense. What I found strange is that he pretended that the "wishes" of the doctor matter at all. It's supposed to be the wishes of the patient that matter.
I’ve been to Psychiatrists their DeEpLy ScIeNtIfIc process is to look at the back of whichever medication flyer they want to prescribe and verbally do a Cosmo quiz style Q & A which determines if the pill is for you.
LOL as if fucking Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax is routinely questioned by these geniuses.
how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science
None of them, or they wouldn't be lowly GPs.
how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Every one of them that I've ever interacted with.
Every time I see a GP, it takes a multiple appointments that consist of me repeating myself and waiting for them to reach the same conclusion my googling lead me to months ago.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why.
They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why. They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Careful, it has been repeatedly shown that the smarter an AI is and the more data it gets to analyse, the more racist it becomes. Something about not having the human sensibilities to pretend certain inconvenient truths weren't so.
I recently went to one who failed at the first step of the flowchart :
"Is the patient a woman."
The answer was no, but she prescribed a useless medication for a condition I didn't have, and didn't adress the actual problem.
Conceiling power level, but it was, to pick a comparable example, as silly as insisting it's breast cancer when your patient is a male, complaining about chest pain, and the tissue samples are not cancerous.
"Yo, likely have [condition]. I'd prefer to be perscribed [medication] for it. Take a look to confirm my suspicions or if you think something else would be better off for it" is really the most you need to interact with scrip-pushers.
Hypochondriacs would have an issue with that method of interaction, but for most people, it's probably sufficient. "Ear hurts, it burns about eardrum-in depth, probably infected. Gimme a z-pack and I'll be off."
Once again, the apparent argument from the left that the children belong to them, you just pay for it all.
I'm all for holding the parents responsible when they screw up, but this is presumptively asserting that a child's parents get to look after their own children only if they've good and do as they're told by the state.
To argue devil's advocate, how many standard GPs are at cutting edge of the science and how many follow a flowchart of if condition A, prescribe drug B?
Not really devil's advocate, your point makes a lot of sense. What I found strange is that he pretended that the "wishes" of the doctor matter at all. It's supposed to be the wishes of the patient that matter.
In a perfect world, your Doctor would act with your best medical interests at heart and would be the preferred authority on matters medical.
But we do not live in such a world.
I’ve been to Psychiatrists their DeEpLy ScIeNtIfIc process is to look at the back of whichever medication flyer they want to prescribe and verbally do a Cosmo quiz style Q & A which determines if the pill is for you.
LOL as if fucking Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax is routinely questioned by these geniuses.
Psychiatry is the easiest field of medicine to get into. So makes sense.
None of them, or they wouldn't be lowly GPs.
Every one of them that I've ever interacted with.
Every time I see a GP, it takes a multiple appointments that consist of me repeating myself and waiting for them to reach the same conclusion my googling lead me to months ago.
Growing up, my dad called GP's Quacks. Now I know why. They could probably be replaced by AI tomorrow and we'd be better off.
Careful, it has been repeatedly shown that the smarter an AI is and the more data it gets to analyse, the more racist it becomes. Something about not having the human sensibilities to pretend certain inconvenient truths weren't so.
I recently went to one who failed at the first step of the flowchart :
"Is the patient a woman."
The answer was no, but she prescribed a useless medication for a condition I didn't have, and didn't adress the actual problem.
Conceiling power level, but it was, to pick a comparable example, as silly as insisting it's breast cancer when your patient is a male, complaining about chest pain, and the tissue samples are not cancerous.
Some GPs make extremely stupid mistakes.
"Yo, likely have [condition]. I'd prefer to be perscribed [medication] for it. Take a look to confirm my suspicions or if you think something else would be better off for it" is really the most you need to interact with scrip-pushers.
Hypochondriacs would have an issue with that method of interaction, but for most people, it's probably sufficient. "Ear hurts, it burns about eardrum-in depth, probably infected. Gimme a z-pack and I'll be off."
Once again, the apparent argument from the left that the children belong to them, you just pay for it all.
I'm all for holding the parents responsible when they screw up, but this is presumptively asserting that a child's parents get to look after their own children only if they've good and do as they're told by the state.
Kindly piss off.
"Kindly"? Fuck that. "Eat shit and die"