Michael

http://keepmebusy.com/?p=3&id=674

Very phunny stough here! Such insider-talk remids me of what a congressman said in 1898: Some twenty years ago, as I was sitting in the House of Representatives of the Illinois legislature, watching its closing hours, a member who had never spoken during the entire session arose to address the House. . . . He said: ". . . I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages--the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."

To learn whether she answers questions differently in his absence.

Perhaps too rapidly?

So, Brock, what's happening with our patient? I've been worrying about her... (I know, I know, I get too attached).

Kaiser Wilhelm was notoriously reluctant to talk about his ailments, and he grouchily dismissed one doctor after another for asking him "too many questions." When the latest promising young candidate, fresh out of medical school and celebrated as brilliant, was presented, he disappointed the Kaiser as had all the others, by first asking "What seems to be the problem?" "That's what I hired you to find out!" the Kaiser thundered. "Oh, would you rather not tell me what's bothering you?" "That's right! It's your job to know!" "Then there's a special kind of doctor you should be seeing..." "Oh?" "Who knows how to diagnose and treat his patients without interviewing them..." "Now that's the kind of doctor I need! What kind is he?" "His title is 'Veterinarian'."

Avoid sweets. Yeah, I know, that violates all the ads we see; the truth does that sometimes. No, I don't have a biochemical 'splanation; I just invite you to try it for a few days. Same goes for meat.

I don't know what this is all about, but does this link help anyone?

A noodle-boggler with an august pedigree.

To quote from an earlier thread (is this plagiarism?): >Before the Hippocratic Oath's prohibition against harming the patient, doctors were regarded with fear as well as awe because they were in charge of sorcery as well as healing; a house-call might mean your days were numbered. So "Doctor" was once ambiguous, then, as a result of professional housecleaning rather than new terminology, climbed, and has now been slipping again and could slip still further.<

Hmm... Will there a be slot in the PCR to record that as a patient's final request, creatively translated into an RMA? Not my cup of hemlock, thanks.

I resorted to laminating my replacement card after the ink on the original had transferred to its transparent plastic holder.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060705/wl_mi...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

A realist, hammerpcp offers a scientific prognosis of illusory thinking.

A post on another thread today claimed, with elegant and arresting brevity, that "Stupid Should Hurt." I tend to agree, and reading it prompted me to post a Big Question I've been kicking around a while, in order to learn what others here think. If, as the formula above claims, folly predictably and usefully results in pain, to what extent do you think the reverse holds true, namely that suffering is itself an educator? We can clearly trace certain pains to the exercise of poor judgment, eg disrespecting the laws of nutrition or hygiene causes or contributes to obesity, heart disease, tooth decay, poor complexion, and other ailments. The appalling consequences of reckless driving we know about. On the other hand, injury and even illness sometimes arise from good actions, such as incurring harm in the course of sacrificing one's safety or comfort to someone else, whether acutely or long-term. My question: Setting aside moral condemnation, setting aside "blaming the victim," and certainly setting aside any thought of deliberately inflicting pain in order to teach someone else a lesson (First, do no harm), as you go about your duties as healthcare providers, do you carry in the back of your mind the belief that a) all; some; or c) no suffering offers, in a broad sense, to educate the patient? Is pain always simply an inconvenient evil to be eradicated? Or is it (also?) always in some sense a "wake-up call" to change your life? An ancient Greek playwright said that "Suffering brings wisdom." Are there exceptions? I know EMS providers are not there to pronounce judgment on what we see. But we are also human, and therefore necessarily a little or a lot contemplative. My own outlook, realizing I know very little about the circumstances behind the events I meet, is first to bring, unconditionally, compassion to those affected at the scenes I find. But at leisure I cannot help asking myself, What use might the wounds I encounter, which I have been fortunate to be spared, hold for their victim? This question (asked silently) is, I must emphasize, not akin to passing the judgment that the person I meet "deserves" the pain received; that assessment lies outside my moral scope of practice. It is more by way of inwardly aligning myself with the strength of the person to meet a mishap, a person who, if affected at all by my attitude during our brief encounter, should sense -- secondary, of course, to the rendering of technical aid -- kind interest, support for the burden he or she carries, and a hope that the crisis prove ultimately rewarding in some, often initially veiled, way. Any one else wonder about this? Or would such concerns distract your attention from doing your job? Your thoughts, please.

Q.: How many Teamsters does it take to change a lightbulb? A.: 18. You got a problem wi' dat?

...a reminder to be skeptical.

Couldn't view, don't know why. Others are great - keep 'em coming!

Perhaps someone more familiar than I can add to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics >Dianetics has been highly controversial since its introduction. The scientific community has never recognized Hubbard's "Modern Science of Mental Health" as a bona fide scientific theory, and it has repeatedly been dismissed in print as pseudoscience or quackery by scientists, medical doctors and science historians. The troubled histories of the organizations established to promote Dianetics have added to the controversy surrounding it.< >Hubbard's original book on Dianetics attracted highly critical reviews from science and medical writers and organisations.[20] The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 1950 calling "attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations." [21] See Scientific method. Subsequently, Dianetics has achieved no general acceptance as a bona fide scientific theory. [22] Many scientifically informed voices have criticized Dianetics as a classic example of pseudoscience.[23]< Don't want to offend anyone's beliefs; just pointing to the controversy.

= He is accompanied by his annoying young son?

My take was just that his 11-year-old's imagination had been exploring his powers of invention, and that he knew from the outset it was a fantasy. Also that he was exploring his powers of persuasion, his friend's gullibility, and maybe the degree of his own subsequent credibility. A fifth-grader's cosmos is pregnant with possibilities, and what's he's nourishing within him can survive great boluses of under-chewed imagery.

Good question! I probably should, and I probably wouldn't have. I try not to answer questions that haven't been asked. Although I know we have a special obligation to kids, I'm not adept enough to have intervened tactfully, without offending. They were strangers, after all. Don't know how I'd have handled "I wasn't talkn' to you, Mister." I like to build trust before intruding, and I don't know if there's a Good Samaritan law for social malpractice!

Today I happened to overhear two boys whom I don't know, about eleven years old, chatting. One said, "You know, if a woman who's pregnant doesn't chew her food right, she can kill her baby! Know why? 'Cuz the food can get stuck in the umbilical cord and then the baby starves!" There was a little pause while his friend (and I) digested this information. Then the boy added: "Know what? I just lied!" Had to share it with y'all.

Funny! You had me there a moment. But only a moment, mind you, only a moment.

Maybe one of you snopes experts can get to the truth about this, and whether we should, uh, take in the story.