That there’s a tension between the competing goals of having a triage system that’s cautious and having a triage system that is not easily manipulated by fakers/drug seekers.
Then I have no idea what it is you imagine we disagree about, or why you are under the mistaken impression that I ever said anything to the contrary.
Here’s what you said before:
To me, that means that a faker/drug seeker should get to see the doctor ahead of other patients. Because you can’t know for a fact that the person is a faker/drug seeker until the doctor has seen them.
Sounds like you were fortunate, lee. Similar thing happened to a friend of mine (friend of a friend, really) but she woke up to find herself in a hotel bathtub filled with ice, missing a kidney. Happened to her twice, in fact.
Well, I guess we have to wait for KellyM’s version.
If it matches yours, well, your lucky day. Welcome to Millionairesville.
If not, then welcome to Youlostcredibilityville.
Well I’m only in control of what I write. I can’t control if it means something else “to you” that I did not write. You’ll notice that the words “ahead of other patients” is conspicuously absent from my sentence.
I don’t know what the relevance of this sentence is supposed to be.
Perhaps an extreme example would help:
You are an emergency room triage nurse. You have 9 patients, all of whom have serious and legitimate medical conditions that require prompt attention but can probably wait a bit if needs be. You have 1 patient, Dick the Druggie, who is rolling around on the floor, screaming in apparent pain. Dick has been coming to the hospital every day for the last month, rolling around on the floor, screaming in pain. Each time it has happened, the doctor found nothing wrong with him, except that Dick kept asking for percocets to be prescribed for his “pain.” In fact, Dick showed all the signs of a faker.
As triage nurse, you have a pretty good idea that Dick is up to his old tricks, but of course you don’t know it for a fact.
Does Dick the Druggie get to see the doctor ahead of the other patients?
Instead of arguing as usual, you could try explaining what you meant by “err[ing] on the side of caution.”
Just trying to be helpful.
Oh god, Lute. How long do you plan on stalking me around the boards? I can’t post anything around here without you following me around.
I would assume you do triage and decide which case needs attention first, if a choice needs to be made. For the third time, I never suggested otherwise.
:rolleyes:
Dude. I have nearly 17,000 posts. Does the word “coincidence” mean anything to you? Or are you simply trying to get me riled up by taking over where Contrapuntal left off?
And my suggestion still stands: instead of arguing as usual, you could try explaining what you meant by “err[ing] on the side of caution.”
Of course that’s what you do. But in doing triage, do you assume that Dick’s apparent major major pain is legitimate?
I’m trying to get you riled up? You have posted in several different threads now with veiled implications that I’m trolling, or comments about what I’m “usually like” and such. Please stop it. Leave the baggage at home.
Look, I don’t think we disagree, and it obviously gives Lute Lowbrasswatcher great delight when I get in an argument with someone, so I am going to decline to go back and forth with you on this any more.
Suit yourself, but since you won’t answer a simple question, I will answer it for you:
Under your approach, you don’t “know for a fact” that Dick is faking it. Therefore, you must “err on the side of caution” and let Dick see the doctor before anyone else.
And that’s the problem with your approach – it allows fakers/drug seekers to easily manipulate the system. I’m not sure what the solution is, but it’s not reasonable to always err on the side of caution. Sometimes it’s necessary to take risks.
I don’t know all the facts of the Rodriguez situation, but some of the coverage indicated that she had been seen twice at the same hospital either that same day or the day before, that she was in trouble with the law, and that she died with methamphetamines in her system. So it’s possible that she’s a boy who cried wolf.
Even drug addicts deserve to live.
Sure, but should their claims be taken just as seriously as other peoples’? Particularly if they have a long history of lying and wasting lots of scarce public resources with their lies?
I am sure that they rely on such perceptions so they can get away with beating up people. I have had occasions to overhear security guards at that hospital brag to each other about “roughing up” various people. It seems to be a major source of personal and job satisfaction.
What they did to me was in far excess of what was needed to restrain and not particularly aimed at restraint. They threw punches at my belly, sides, and chest, and left bruises that took quite a while to fade. I also am at a loss to explain why a half dozen guards would be sent to intimidate one woman in a wheel chair in maternity, who at that point was causing no one grief, or why they failed to leave when the nurses asked them to until the floor supervisor ordered them off her floor. I wonder if they were concerned that they might have chosen the wrong victim, not the usual drunk. I had enough fighting for my baby and my life and health, fighting the hospital which I was seeking help from was not in me. Their maternity ward is excellent, even though their security guards are bullies. I did end up choosing another hospital to give birth in because I did not want to funnel money into a facility that employed such people as security guards.
The point in this is that there are those who delight in exercising power over others, and even people who are supposed to be providing help or keeping the peace may instead use their positions and status afforded due to such positions to inflict or extend pain and suffering rather than prevent or ameliorate it, as evinced by what happened to me, by what happened to this woman, and others, including the bartender in Chicago who made news when an off duty police officer beat her.
Yeah, how about that. If one asshole cop punching a bartender raised such an outcry, you’d think six uniformed sadists pummeling a pregnant woman in a wheelchair would be the Story of the Century. What did the police say about all this, when you and your witness(es) went to file a report and showed them your bruises? Or were they “in on it” too?
Sorry, but so far this tale couldn’t be any less plausible if Tony Snow himself were vouching for you.
[QUOTE=lee]
I also am at a loss to explain why a half dozen guards would be sent to intimidate one woman in a wheel chair in maternity, who at that point was causing no one grief . . .[/quote[
I’m so at a loss to explain it that I flat out don’t believe you, and I’ve never been so rude as to tell someone that in this forum (and so, yes, I do know that it’s rude). In fact, I’ll be even ruder: I think you’re full of shit.