Protecting You From Your Doctor

[WillNever]

I read it and you are WRONG.

It does NOT say Children from 1 to 10.

It says Children FROM 10 ONWARD.

Big difference.

Of course you want to leave out the children less than 10 since that's where so many of the medical deaths occur.

Arthur

Correct. 10 onward. Most deaths from 1-9 are caused by accidents as well, however. It is in the "less than 1" age group where deaths occur primarily due to complications of labor and delivery. Again, all reinforces my statements. In most children, accidents are the single highest cause of death. You can continue the cite the CDC as much as you want. I have the professional literature to back me up, however, and it draws out of the CDC in many cases. Your belief that you have conflicting data is a failure of interpretation on your part.

You're using an internet site here, adoucette. I am using professional literature that is considered "scientific consensus," and it draws on many more academic sources than the CDC (which supports me anyway). You can't win this.

You need to learn to read the tables.

The number of ACCIDENTS is NOT 2,500, it is just 1,588 which covers codes (V01–X59,Y85–Y86)

Accidents include MVAs. That is how 2500 is arrived at. You need to go back and check your addition.

simply posted a link showing that the rate of suicide is going up, which seems counter to your claim that increasing confrontation is having a positive impact on suicide rates.

That is incorrect. A generalized increase in suicide takes more into account than intervention effectiveness alone. The overall increase is due to other factors. Please learn how to interpret research.

Quotation: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of establishing a therapeutic relationship with the patient and asking about possible suicidal feelings. This is the single most important assessment (and intervention), yet health care professionals report a surprisingly small amount of probing.

Quotation: The evaluation of a suicide plan is extremely important in determining the degree of suicidal risk. Three main elements must be considered when evaluating lethality. (1) Specific plan (2) Lethality (3) Access to the planned method. When a proposed method is avaliable, the situation is more serious.

Again, all of this is proven by research. Everything posted within these sources is academic, peer reviewed, and evidence-based.

Oh, and my wife was very intelligent.

Then why do the two of you live in a mobile home?

 

[WillNever]

By the way, you tend to use caps lock button a lot when typing. In internet etiquette, using all caps typically means you are trying to shout something or you are attention-seeking. Could this have any bearing on you?

 

[adoucette]

Correct. 10 onward. Most deaths from 1-9 are caused by accidents as well, however. It is in the "less than 1" age group where deaths occur primarily due to complications of labor and delivery. Again, all reinforces my statements. In most children, accidents are the single highest cause of death.

Oh, and I agree, if you lump all accidents together then YES, they are the highest SINGLE cause of death,

But, that is NOT what you originally asserted now was it?

You said: the #1 cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of diseases, by a factor of about 7.

Diseases.

You did NOT claim that Accidents are higher than any specific disease.

You ALSO claimed that accidents were higher then diseases by a factor of 7.

Again, this is so wrong as to be laughable.

You can continue the cite the CDC as much as you want. I have the professional literature to back me up, however, and it draws out of the CDC in many cases. Your belief that you have conflicting data is a failure of interpretation on your part.

The CDC has the most extensive set of data on cause of death in the US then any other source. You think you have better detail data on causes of death, broken down to the level the CDC does, then present it.

You're using an internet site here, adoucette. I am using professional literature that is considered "scientific consensus," and it draws on many more academic sources than the CDC (which supports me anyway). You can't win this.

I've already won it by posting the CDC data that shows your original assertion, that accidents caused 7 times as many deaths as diseases in kids is pure unadulterated BS and now you are back peddling like crazy, trying to pretend you are right by changing the argument.

Most adults would simply admit they made an error but instead you show a complete lack of class by resorting to ad hominums about my recently deceased wife.

Accidents include MVAs. That is how 2500 is arrived at. You need to go back and check your addition.

Again, it is your addition that is wrong.

Accidents (unintentional injuries)...(V01–X59,Y85–Y86) in the 1-4 age range is listed as 1,588 and that includes ALL Accidents.

The math works like this:

All Accidents (ages 1-4) = 1,588 = Transport Accidents 581 + Non Transport Accidents 1,007

You said it was 2,500 but you can only get that by adding in Non-Transport Accidents (1,007) to the Total Accidents (1,588) but Total Accidents already includes the Non Transport Accidents. So you are adding in the 1,007 a second time.

It's pretty easy Will, try looking at the indents in the columns a little more carefully this time.

That is incorrect. A generalized increase in suicide takes more into account than intervention effectiveness alone. The overall increase is due to other factors. Please learn how to interpret research.

And again you present no data to support your assertion that this intervention technique is having a postitive impact on suicide rates. I'm not saying it isn't, but you again have not actually supported your assertion that it does work.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

Oh, and I agree, if you lump all accidents together then YES, they are the highest SINGLE cause of death,
But, that is NOT what you originally asserted now was it?
You said:the #1 cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of diseases, by a factor of about 7.
You did NOT claim that Accidents are higher than any specific disease.
You ALSO claimed that accidents were higher then diseases by a factor of 7.
Again, this is so wrong as to be laughable.

That isn't true, adoucette. The number one cause of death in children is accidents. No single cause of death comes close to reaching its number. What I said doesn't matter as much as the fact that accidents remain the single largest contributor to children's deaths. If you don't agree, then take it up with the textual documentation that I provided.

The CDC has the most extensive set of data on cause of death in the US then any other source. You think you have better detail data on causes of death, broken down to the level the CDC does, then present it.

I did. My sources are professional, academic texts that pull from the CDC (and other sources). The CDC's tables reinforce my statements here.

I've already won it by posting the CDC data that shows your original assertion, that accidents caused 7 times as many deaths as diseases in kids is pure unadulterated BS and now you are back peddling like crazy, trying to pretend you are right by changing the argument.

This isn't a contest, adoucette. You're focusing on single statements in order to avoid confronting the issue wholly.

Most adults would simply admit they made an error but instead you show a complete lack of class by resorting to ad hominums about my recently deceased wife.

You made an error? Aww.

And again you present no data to support your assertion that this intervention technique is having a postitive impact on suicide rates. I'm not saying it isn't, but you again have not actually supported your assertion that it does work.

Yes, I did. Read the post in which it states that *evidence-based practice* has shown that the above quoted guidelines have led to the best outcomes. Everyone contained within that paragraphs is sourced, else it would not be included within that text. You not liking it doesn't change that. Neither does posting text in various colors, styles, and sizes.

 

[adoucette]

That isn't true, adoucette. The number one cause of death in children is accidents. No single cause of death comes close to reaching its number.

But that was never been the issue that I called you on.

What I said doesn't matter

Ah, yes, in a discussion forum what you write DOES in fact matter, because I argued only with what you actually wrote.

So I take it you are ready to take back your assertion that the #1 cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of diseases, by a factor of about 7. ?

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

But that was never been the issue that I called you on.

That isn't my concern. The issue here is whether or not pediatricians ( or other physicians ) are warranted in asking about safety issues. The fact that accidents are the number one cause of death in children and the fact that 40% of parents with children don't secure their firearms properly signifies an issue that needs to be addressed. If you want to spend your energy in a noble way, then take issue with where the problems lie. Do not try to make the forum into an arena.

Ah, yes, in a discussion forum what you write DOES in fact matter, because I argued only with what you actually wrote.

You aren't arguing within the spirit of the issue. The issue is that accidents are the primary cause of death in children.

So I take it you are ready to take back your assertion that the #1 cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of diseases, by a factor of about 7. ?

Arthur

No. Because what I said is true. You are interpreting "diseases" in an unnatural way, by interpreting it as an aggregate of all diseases instead of looking at them as separate causes of death (which they are). To make it more reader-friendly, interpret it as "the number one cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of any sort of disease, by a factor of about 7 (or more)."

 

[adoucette]

You're focusing on single statements in order to avoid confronting the issue wholly.

No, that was your KEY statement in your arguement.

You said:

Right now, pediatricians ask whether parents own a gun in order to promote safety (suggesting ammunition and the gun be separately locked in two places rather than one, etc). The reason they do this is because the #1 cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of diseases, by a factor of about 7.

So you were clearly saying that Accidents cause seven times as many deaths to the kids that pediatricians treat than diseases do.

But as the CDC data shows that is simply not true.

Not even close to being true.

More to the point, you were using the argument that GUN Accidents were so prevalent to support your assertion as to why Pediatricans ask about guns, but in the 0-14 year age group that goes to a Pediatrician there were but 65 accidental deaths from guns, putting them at bottom of the risk factors for their patients. (to put this number in perspective, given the ~58,000 pediatricians in the US, a doctor would expect to have a patient die by a gun accident occur approx every 900 years of practice)

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

No. Because what I said is true. You are interpreting "diseases" in an unnatural way, by interpreting it as an aggregate of all diseases instead of looking at them as separate causes of death (which they are). To make it more reader-friendly, interpret it as "the number one cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of any sort of disease, by a factor of about 7 (or more)."

BS, you are lumping all accidents together and there are many types of accidents as well, so why not Diseases?

 

[WillNever]

No, that was your KEY statement in your arguement.

You said:



So you were clearly saying that Accidents cause seven times as many deaths to the kids that pediatricians treat than diseases do.

But as the CDC data shows that is simply not true.

Not even close to being true.

Sure it does. Check my mathematics above. As I said, you are interpreting "diseases" in an unnatural way, by interpreting it as an aggregate of all diseases instead of looking at them as separate causes of death (which they are). To make it more reader-friendly, interpret it as "the number one cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of any sort of disease, by a factor of about 7 (or more)." That you misunderstood it or that I didn't phrase in the most readable way is irrelevant to the fact that that what I was mean.

More to the point, you were using the argument that GUN Accidents were so prevalent to support your assertion as to why Pediatricans ask about guns, but in the 0-14 year age group that goes to a Pediatrician there were but 65 accidental deaths from guns, putting them at bottom of the risk factors for their patients.

All accidents are the concern of pediatricians. No one seems to care if pediatricians educate about seat belts, pool fences, and such... so why about gun security? Well...?

 

[quadraphonics]

But Florida Republicans resent the idea that a doctor should know about risk factors in your life. That's why the state legislature has passed as bill that would send a doctor to prison for five years as a punishment for even asking whether a patient owns a gun.

On the one hand, I don't see why a doctor would need to ask about such, outside of certain specific contexts.

On the other hand, I don't see any need for a law dealing with this - if you don't like the questions your doctor is asking, decline to answer them, or find a different doctor. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head here. And the punishment there - 5 years in prison - is way over the top.

 

[WillNever]

It's part of a general survey of assessing all patients, quad.

 

[quadraphonics]

It's part of a general survey of assessing all patients, quad.

And is there some reason patients can't simply decline to answer it?

 

[adoucette]

Sure it does. Check my mathematics above. As I said, you are interpreting "diseases" in an unnatural way, by interpreting it as an aggregate of all diseases instead of looking at them as separate causes of death (which they are). To make it more reader-friendly, interpret it as "the number one cause of death in children is due to accidents instead of any sort of disease, by a factor of about 7 (or more)." That you misunderstood it or that I didn't phrase in the most readable way is irrelevant to the fact that that what I was mean.

Yet you lump all accidents together even though they are also separate causes of death.

But it makes no sense to do so.

By the same token we could break the poisonings down by the poison used and then claim that no one poison was that bad for kids.
We could break down the drownings by beach, lake, tub, pool etc and thus make it appear that drowning wasn't so bad.

It's Diseases vs Accidents that makes sense, not the lop sided specific disease compared against all forms of Accidents.
Indeed, the CDC breaks diseases down to page after page of specific diseases, yet has only a handful of Accidents.

All accidents are the concern of pediatricians. No one seems to care if pediatricians educate about seat belts, pool fences, and such... so why about gun security? Well...?

Different issue.

My Doctor can tell me anything he wants to.
Should he only warn me about drowning if I have a pool?
The issue of asking if I have a gun is not his concern because even if I don't have one today, I can stop by Walmart on the way home and buy one, so it doesn't matter if I have one today or not.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

And is there some reason patients can't simply decline to answer it?

No, but Doctors tend to be authority figures and people tend to tell them what they ask when there is no medical reason for them to ask this question.

I agree, a jail sentence is kinda over the top, but I think the legislators made their point, that this shouldn't be the kind of data being gathered and added into medical databases.

Arthur

 

[quadraphonics]

No, but Doctors tend to be authority figures and people tend to tell them what they ask when there is no medical reason for them to ask this question.

I tend to err on the side of letting doctors and other healthcare professionals determine what is and is not medically relevant information.

While I, again, don't see much reason in particular to ask about this, I see even less reason that doctors would bother asking about anything they didn't think was relevant. What is the implication, exactly? That doctors and hospitals are assembling a database of gun owners for some nefarious purpose? That beggars belief a lot more than the premise that gun ownership is more medically relevant than is immediately apparent to us.

I agree, a jail sentence is kinda over the top, but I think the legislators made their point, that this shouldn't be the kind of data being gathered and added into medical databases.

I don't see where it's particularly up to legislators to dictate such matters, to begin with. And it's more than "over the top" to threaten doctors with considerable jail sentences without even a suggestion that they are misbehaving or harming anyone.

Could have been handled by simply posting some signs and tv commercials reminding people that they are free to decline to answer whatever questions they don't want to answer.

The whole thing only works if you start from some paranoid conspiratorial mindset wherein the mere disclosure of who owns guns represents some terrible danger - some set of government databases, to be employed to oppressive ends, apparently. Is the premise that the only thing standing between freedom and tyrrany that healthcare providers don't know who has which guns, or what?

 

[WillNever]

And is there some reason patients can't simply decline to answer it?

I don't see why they couldn't, no.

 

[WillNever]

No, but Doctors tend to be authority figures and people tend to tell them what they ask when there is no medical reason for them to ask this question.

Arthur

For what reason? Questions about alcohol consumption, caffeine intake, spirituality, how many meals you cook, your hobbies, and way more are included in the general survey. All somehow relate to a person's health, even on just a psychosocial basis. Again, no one minds answering these questions. Why the issue with guns?

 

[WillNever]

Yet you lump all accidents together even though they are also separate causes of death.

But it makes no sense to do so.

.

Arthur

It makes sense because if it's logical to ask about the risk assessment of one source of accidents (like drowning or MVAs), then why isn't it logical to assess the risk of firearms accidents?

 

[adoucette]

I tend to err on the side of letting doctors and other healthcare professionals determine what is and is not medically relevant information.

While I, again, don't see much reason in particular to ask about this, I see even less reason that doctors would bother asking about anything they didn't think was relevant. What is the implication, exactly? That doctors and hospitals are assembling a database of gun owners for some nefarious purpose?

If the question of gun ownership becomes part of the standard protocol as Will suggests it should be and then soon after we get the National DB of medical records as per ObamaCare and funded by the Stimulus, then yes, you will fairly quickly have the first ever national gun registry.

But gathered for NO MEDICAL REASON.

That beggars belief a lot more than the premise that gun ownership is more medically relevant than is immediately apparent to us.

Of course it's not immediately apparent.

http://www.constitutionalrepublicparty.org/2011/04/14/gun-control-obamacare/

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Why the issue with guns?

It's not medically relevant.

Arthur