There are signs up in hospitals instructing patients to ask their doctors, nurses, and caregivers if they have washed their hands. It makes a huge difference in the spread of disease and is being encouraged by the medical community. No one needs to be demeaned, just ask politely. Also, quite frankly, if a doctor is that put off by a simple inquiry, then he/she shouldn't be dealing with the public in general on any level. People need to be willing to reasonably question medical professionals and most medical professionals encourage it. My PCP specifically asks patients to write out a list of questions before they come in for a visit so that they don't forget anything they wanted to ask about.
Every doc I know practices regular handwashing, and I will admit that policing that is an issue and that even those who do it need to do it more often. I fully agree with the right to reasonably question a medical professional and I myself (and people who have been in the profession for decades, like my grandfather) likewise encourage it. However, the issue comes with when the patient isn't willing to trust their doctor when he or she provides an answer like "I washed them at the station outside," or "I used hand sanitizer, I'm going to glove up, it's fine." Distrust by patients is the warning sign, and it isn't a fault of the doctors, but rather the lack of tort reforms and the proliferation of frivolous malpractice suits in the US that fosters paranoia in doctors about patients issuing them "orders," as that article would have it.
I've talked to multiple docs about that subject, and they all agree that little demands like that are not themselves the problem. Most I know make it a habit to immediately wash their hands or use hand sanitizer after entering the room. Fair questions, regarding side effects, alternate choices in medication or treatment, the risk/benefit of waiting on a test or procedure, etc. aren't really a problem either. The problem comes when questions or demands prevent a doctor from doing his job properly, because someone could then attempt to sue him out of house and home for something completely trivial, or, in certain cases, something lacking merit altogether.
Anxiety about questions and requests isn't the doctor's fault; it's the result of a rather nasty system that fosters both a massive distrust in some patients of an individual with 12+ years of training in his field, as well as a (rightfully) defensive nature of said individual, which prevents him from adequately working with the vast majority of patients, who don't actually distrust the doctor and are really just confused, scared, or worried, as is normal.
When I worked in hospitals, it wasn't the doctors that worried me so much as the nurses and on-floor clerical workers, particularly considering how many of them wore either artificial or very long painted fingernails, both of which are akin to festering bacteria mines.
I was fastidious in my hand sanitization, especially when I was anywhere near the infant wards, ORs, or ICUs.
I based that opinion upon the fact that it's not that hard to fabricate either form of evidence.
The real problem with the HeLa case is that it represents a gross violation of trust between patients and the medical community.
It does indeed. That is however a topic where little actual things can be discussed (unless you dare brave the seas against Apreche). Shame on the assholes for just throwing the medical information of this woman out there. Not much else to say about that if you ask me, so I went on with stating my opinion about patenting genes. Saying this now because some people can't discern opinionated statements from factual statements. The latter being more likely written by Churba, than by me, or being more than a single paragraph long.
Implying I was saying that patenting sequences should actually be allowed.
I implied nothing about what you said. I just ran with your comment and used it to prop up the searchlight so I could shine light where I wanted it, and the discussion, to go. So I could hear opinions of other people.
I'm going to have to ask for some evidence for that claim.
Are you fucking insane? Teach me how to provide evidence for off-hand comments made based upon opinion and I'll give it to you. Safe for a single example my post contained no facts, mere opinionated statements, what made you think the last off-hand comment that was added AFTER posting it was anything but another opinion? Till you have teached me how I can provide evidence for a fucking opinion, I'm going to think you're smoking pot. And yes, I have run a PCR. In biology class in high school, because we're cool like that. It was fun.
Teach me how to provide evidence for off-hand comments made based upon opinion and I'll give it to you.
Explain the facts you've used to draw that conclusion. What reading have you done? What do you know about molecular evidence-gathering techniques? What specific items do you think are "useless?"
I based that opinion upon the fact that it's not that hard to fabricate either form of evidence.
And again I ask: how do you know that? What lead you to that conclusion?
Explain the facts you've used to draw that conclusion.
That's no evidence for an opinion. Merely support, which doesn't factualize said opinion. You cannot proof an opinion. Regardless, a response. I never said "useless" for one. The witness that was on the other side of a building can be useful, it depends on the specific situation. Same goes for other forms of evidence (degrees vary of course). Secondly, I've just come across a few too many people and media outlets (I don't have recordings, sorry for not being that paranoid) that show blinding fanaticism in hard evidence when it's already been proven practically that fingerprints are quite easy to fake if you have a specific person's fingerprints. Again, not that hard to get depending on the person. It's a slightly contrarian opinion and was merely a small comment made resulting from a stream of consciousness, nothing more.
Merely support, which doesn't factualize said opinion.
I'm not asking to factualize the opinion; the "support" you're talking about is exactly what I'm after.
And while you can't "proof" an opinion, I can most certainly challenge any conclusion you draw and give it the degree of regard necessitated by its level of support.
I never said "useless" for one.
Oh come on, that's weasly. It's plainly obvious what the intent of that statement was.
But you do bring up a good point about the way evidence is considered in the media. I deal with this a lot as a scientist, and it's one of the reasons I fucking hate the term "DNA fingerprinting." There is this colloquial knowledge that fingerprints are de-facto proof of culpability, and that is so wrong it's not even laughable anymore. Fingerprints, even when they're useful, are still only a small piece of evidence in a pile of larger evidence. And fingerprints absent other evidence are useless.
Similarly, when I, say, PFGE type two organisms - one from a patient and one from a food - and I find that their PFGE types match, that is not necessarily evidence of a causal relationship. We still have to show that the patient ate the food.
There is a huge misconception in the populace about what "hard" evidence actually means.
It's plainly obvious what the intent of that statement was.
The intent was that it's not the end-all be-all. Anything else is of your own imagining, though I can see how it's my usual vagueness. It's one line after all.
Comments
I've talked to multiple docs about that subject, and they all agree that little demands like that are not themselves the problem. Most I know make it a habit to immediately wash their hands or use hand sanitizer after entering the room. Fair questions, regarding side effects, alternate choices in medication or treatment, the risk/benefit of waiting on a test or procedure, etc. aren't really a problem either. The problem comes when questions or demands prevent a doctor from doing his job properly, because someone could then attempt to sue him out of house and home for something completely trivial, or, in certain cases, something lacking merit altogether.
Anxiety about questions and requests isn't the doctor's fault; it's the result of a rather nasty system that fosters both a massive distrust in some patients of an individual with 12+ years of training in his field, as well as a (rightfully) defensive nature of said individual, which prevents him from adequately working with the vast majority of patients, who don't actually distrust the doctor and are really just confused, scared, or worried, as is normal.
I was fastidious in my hand sanitization, especially when I was anywhere near the infant wards, ORs, or ICUs.
EDIT: Btw WUB, you're starting to bloat.
And while you can't "proof" an opinion, I can most certainly challenge any conclusion you draw and give it the degree of regard necessitated by its level of support. Oh come on, that's weasly. It's plainly obvious what the intent of that statement was.
But you do bring up a good point about the way evidence is considered in the media. I deal with this a lot as a scientist, and it's one of the reasons I fucking hate the term "DNA fingerprinting." There is this colloquial knowledge that fingerprints are de-facto proof of culpability, and that is so wrong it's not even laughable anymore. Fingerprints, even when they're useful, are still only a small piece of evidence in a pile of larger evidence. And fingerprints absent other evidence are useless.
Similarly, when I, say, PFGE type two organisms - one from a patient and one from a food - and I find that their PFGE types match, that is not necessarily evidence of a causal relationship. We still have to show that the patient ate the food.
There is a huge misconception in the populace about what "hard" evidence actually means.