Protecting You From Your Doctor

[adoucette]

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?

Your answer has NOTHING to do with the point I was making.

Try again.

You want us to treat diseases by each separate disease to make your bogus statistics work by comparing them to the sum of all accidents, even though they are also separate causes of death.

But it makes no sense to do so to just the Diseases and not the Accidents as well.

If we broke accidents down then 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 location beach, lake, tub, pool etc and thus make it appear that drowning wasn't so bad.

We could break Motor vehicle down by being hit by a car vs being in a car, by not wearing seat belt etc

It's TOTAL Diseases vs TOTAL Accidents that makes sense, not the lop sided specific disease compared against all forms of Accidents.

Done logically it shows your claim that Accidents are 7 times as common as disease to be totally BOGUS.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

It's not medically relevant.

Arthur

Sure it is. Gun ownership is a demographic correlated with a higher risk of certain injuries and illnesses. This isn't any different from asking about other lifestyle habits which contribute to such outcomes.

 

[WillNever]

It's TOTAL Diseases vs TOTAL Accidents that makes sense, not the lop sided specific disease compared against all forms of Accidents.
Arthur

That's not how risk assessment works, sorry. That's the comparison I'm using. Total accidents vs. total disease is a rather meaningless comparison. The comparison isn't that important to begin with. The fact that accidents is a contributor to child death is all that is important. That you want to minimize childhood death seems odd and is suggestive of you being a teenaged loser troll who uses caps lock too much.

 

[adoucette]

The fact that accidents are the number one cause of death in children

And that is not true.

Disease is the number one cause of death in children (up to age 14).

Accidents are second.

Only if you break down Disease into much smaller catagories by TYPE of disease can you claim that one type of accident exceeds the single highest type of disease.

In that case, Motor Vehicle Accidents claim 1,960 vs Malignant Neoplasms which claim 1,395. (but still FAR from your X 7 assertion)

BUT to put the number of deaths from Disease in proper perspective, in the CDC numbers under Diseases that aren't classified or labeled as Other, but are STILL deaths due to Disease, that equals 6,776 which is far higher than the SUM of all Accidents, 5,067.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

And that is not true.

Accidents are the number one cause of death. No single disease comes closer. According to my source, 71% of all childhood deaths result from accidents. "Diseases" is not a single cause of death but even if it were, according to the CDC, non labor and delivery deaths in childres still pale in number as compared to accidents.

Case closed, sorry.

Behaviors fall as much into the scope of healthcare as physical assessment. It's logical to ask about the risk assessment of other sources of accidents (like drowning or MVAs) and no one complains about that, so why isn't it logical to assess the risk of firearms accidents?

 

[adoucette]

That's not how risk assessment works, sorry. That's the comparison I'm using. Total accidents vs. total disease is a rather meaningless comparison.

No it isn't.

You have repeatedly made the false claim that Accidents kill more kids than disease and that false data can't help in risk assessment.

Indeed you make it sound like taking your kid to the doctor isn't that important since you keep implying that kids don't die that often from disease.

But they do.

Far more often then in accidents.

The comparison isn't that important to begin with. The fact that accidents is a contributor to child death is all that is important. That you want to minimize childhood death seems odd is suggestive of being a teenaged loser troll who uses caps lock too much.

I've done nothing at all to minimize childhood death.
Indeed, you are doing so by continuing to assert that disease kills less than accidents.

Disease kills far more kids by the age of 14 than accidents.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Case closed, sorry.

NOPE

Already been through this one already and debunked it.

That statistic is only for kids from TEN Onward.

That's not the same as the death from diseases for kids up to the age of 14, which is over two to one greater from disease than from accidents.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

NOPE

Already been through this one already and debunked it.

That statistic is only for kids from TEN Onward.

That's not the same as the death from diseases for kids up to the age of 14, which is over two to one greater from disease than from accidents.

That is because you are including figures related to death during childbirth. Read where it says complications related to labor and delivery. This thread is about living children who survived survived childbirth.

Below: a graphical representation based upon documentation from the CDC:

So.... yeah.

 

[WillNever]

No it isn't.
You have repeatedly made the false claim that Accidents kill more kids than disease and that false data can't help in risk assessment.
Indeed you make it sound like taking your kid to the doctor isn't that important since you keep implying that kids don't die that often from disease.
But they do.
Far more often then in accidents. I've done nothing at all to minimize childhood death.
Indeed, you are doing so by continuing to assert that disease kills less than accidents.
Disease kills far more kids by the age of 14 than accidents.
Arthur

Accidents kill more children than any single disease. You keep using caps lock. Are you trying to shout?

 

[adoucette]

That is because you are including figures related to death during childbirth. Read where it says complications related to labor and delivery. This thread is about living children who survived survived childbirth.

Below: a graphical representation based upon documentation from the CDC:

So.... yeah.

Except that graph only shows a few diseases, not all of them, so NO, that doesn't prove anything except that Motor Vehicle Accidents are the highest individual cause of death that CDC tracks

BUT

If you add up ALL the deaths by disease you get over twice as many deaths from disease in kids up to 14 then you get from accidents.

So.....NO.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

Except that graph only shows a few diseases, not all of them, so NO, that doesn't prove anything except that Motor Vehicle Accidents are the highest individual cause of death that CDC tracks

BUT

If you add up ALL the deaths by disease you get over twice as many deaths from disease in kids up to 14 then you get from accidents.

So.....NO.

Arthur

MVAs are accidents. Firearms are accidents well. Combined, that is the highest number of deaths. Sorry.

The point isn't that firearms lead to the most deaths. The point is that accidents do... and since MVAs fall within the scope of pediatric risk assessment, then why shouldn't firearms? Both are significant contributes to injury.

I'm unsure as to why you are resentful of the announcement of the fact that firearms contribute to childhood death. To what end..? Do you support childhood death due to firearms? You haven't voiced the rationale behind why you support the banning of asking questions.

 

[adoucette]

Accidents kill more children than any single disease.

And I have never disputed that way of slicing the statistics.

Lumping all accidents together and comparing that sum to individual types of disease, of course the SUM of all accidents willl be greater than any ONE disease.

But the fact remains that diseases kill far more kids up to the age of 14 than accidents do.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

And I have never disputed that way of slicing the statistics.

Lumping all accidents together and comparing that sum to individual types of disease, of course the SUM of all accidents willl be greater than any ONE disease.

But the fact remains that diseases kill far more kids up to the age of 14 than accidents do.

Arthur

Accidents cause more death than any single disease. The point isn't that firearms lead to the most deaths. The point is that accidents do... and since MVAs fall within the scope of pediatric risk assessment, then why shouldn't firearms? Both are significant contributors to injury. You seem to focus on a "numbers" game in which accidents result in significant death either way. Is that because you support increased childhood deaths?

 

[adoucette]

MVAs are accidents. Firearms are second. Combined, that is the highest number of deaths. Sorry.

Again you choose to play statistical games.

Now it's not Firearm Accidents, but just Firearms, so now you included deaths by Firearm by Homicide and Suicide.

But still, in kids up to the age of 14, even if you do it that way, disease still kills over twice as many kids as accidents plus deaths from firearms from homicide and suicide because that only adds an additional 317 deaths.

Homicide by firearm 264
Suicide by firearm 53

I'm unsure as to why you are resentful of the announcement of the fact that firearms contribute to childhood death. To what end..? Do you support childhood death due to firearms?

I'm not at all resentful.
I do think it is important to know what the correct figures are and they are quite clear.
Disease kills more than twice as many kids up to the age of 14 than does accidents.
Of the accidents that kill kids up to the age of 14 the key accidents are Motor Vehicles followed by Drowning, Fire, Poison and Falls.

You haven't voiced the rationale behind why you support the banning of asking questions.

I have.
Because it is not medically relevant and I don't want that data collected into a defacto gun registry.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Accidents cause more death than any single disease.

So what?

You keep repeating this as if it has any meaning at all.

I took my kids to the doctor for checkups and because of their medical conditions because disease causes more than twice as many deaths as accidents do and, unlike the doctor, I was actually able to do something significant about the risk my kids faced from accidents.

 

[WillNever]

Disease kills more than twice as many kids up to the age of 14 than does accidents.
Of the accidents that kill kids up to the age of 14 the key accidents are Motor Vehicles followed by Drowning, Fire, Poison and Falls.

71% of deaths 10 onward are caused by accidents. MVAs and firearm discharge are included in this.

If preventing "drowning, fire, poison, and falls"are in the scope of risk assessment (as they surely are) in pediatrics, then why aren't guns? Having a gun in the house makes it more likely an firearm related accident will occur.

Because it is not medically relevant

Arthur

Gunshot wounds are medically relevant. All risk factors related to injury and illness are medically relevant. Even your race is medically relevant, as race is a risk factor for disease.

Because it is not medically relevant and I don't want that data collected into a defact gun registry.

Arthur

What gun registry? Are you experiencing delusions? You can decline to answer.

 

[adoucette]

71% of deaths 10 onward are caused by accidents. MVAs and firearm discharge are included in this.

NO

That is not what your own data shows. Homicide and Suicide are not accidents, but are included in the 71%.
The next issue is what age is meant by 10 onward?
Looking at the CDC stats it's pretty clear, to get that high of a number (71%) they included all the way to 24 years old, far older than anyone would consider a kid, so all you are really seeing is the numbers skewed by the high number of deaths from drugs and gangs, in young adults.

If preventing "drowning, fire, poison, and falls"are in the scope of risk assessment (as they surely are) in pediatrics, then why aren't guns? Having a gun in the house makes it more likely an firearm related accident will occur.

And so the doctor can present information about those, but the issue of my ownership of a gun at the time of the appointment is not relevant. Indeed, I could buy a gun on the way home at Walmart.

I'm not against the doctor providing info.
I'm against the doctor collecting info.

What gun registry? Are you experiencing delusions? You can decline to answer.

If the question of gun ownership becomes part of the standard protocol, as you are indeed suggesting it should be, and since we are now creating a national medical DB, then via a simple set of DB Queries one will be able to produce a national gun registry.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

NO

That is not what your own data shows. Homicide and Suicide are not accidents, but are included in the 71%.
The next issue is what age is meant by 10 onward?
Looking at the CDC stats it's pretty clear, to get that high of a number (71%) they included all the way to 24 years old, far older than anyone would consider a kid, so all you are really seeing is the numbers skewed by the high number of deaths from drugs and gangs, in young adults.

Homicide and suicide are uncommon causes of death, but when they occur in children, they are often considered accidents. Especially when caused by other children. None of this takes away from the fact that firearms contribute significantly to death in children.

And so the doctor can present information about those, but the issue of my ownership of a gun at the time of the appointment is not relevant. Indeed, I could buy a gun on the way home at Walmart.

I'm not against the doctor providing info.
I'm against the doctor collecting info.

Then why not refuse to answer the question? There isn't a reason to ban speech. By the way, why do you go to walmart? Do you live in a trailer?

If the question of gun ownership becomes part of the standard protocol, as you are indeed suggesting it should be, and since we are now creating a national medical DB, then via a simple set of DB Queries one will be able to produce a national gun registry.

Arthur

What evidence is there of a plan to create a national gun registry? What would a registry matter at all?

 

[adoucette]

Gunshot wounds are medically relevant.

Well yeah they are, but even in this extreme case, whose gun the patient got shot with isn't relevant to the medical treatment of the wound.

The fact is you haven't provided a single example of why or how a doctor would treat me differently if I answered YES to owning a gun.

Unless you can come up with a differential treatment that is based on gun ownership it is not medically relevant.

If you say, "what if I'm suicidal and might hurt myself?" even then gun ownership at the time of treatment still means nothing since I can buy a rifle and ammo on the way home at the nearest Walmart while I get my prescription filled.

The only difference is there is no waiting for the rifle and ammo.

Arthur

 

[WillNever]

Well yeah they are, but even in this extreme case, whose gun the patient got shot with isn't relevant to the medical treatment of the wound.

Who the gun belongs to is relevant. Who committed the crime and the events leading up to it are also relevant. All of this data is gathered in order to obtain a history and then guide the course of treatment based on that. You seem to think medical field includes only blood and tissue. Psychosocial well-being and injury prevention are in its scope as well. I'm sorry that you aren't exposed to this reality.

The fact is you haven't provided a single example of why or how a doctor would treat me differently if I answered YES to owning a gun.
Unless you can come up with a differential treatment that is based on gun ownership it is not medically relevant.

"Medically relevant" isn't defined in the way you are using it. Medically relevant does not mean "it will alter the course of treatment." It pertains to more than just you. You're thinking of things overspecifically and in terms of how one person is affected instead of how the group is affected.

Walmart while I get my prescription filled.

You go to walmart..? Are you a welfare case?