|
Trabisnikof posted:Because preventing medical malpractice and improving awards for victims of medical malpractice aren't single subject enough for you? 46 also makes mandatory the CURES anti-doctor-shopping database, which was the original intent of this proposition before the campaign came to a head and added in the non-economic malpractice cap lifting and the overreaching drug testing. Or did you forget that? Pack has been working on that database for years, and to be fair it sounds like it's a good thing and probably does need mandatory use in order to be effective. But then they added in all that other stuff and pissed off various groups and now it's probably the most controversial proposition on the ballot.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:46 also makes mandatory the CURES anti-doctor-shopping database, which was the original intent of this proposition before the campaign came to a head and added in the non-economic malpractice cap lifting and the overreaching drug testing. That's part of preventing malpractice, doctors have had a resource and have been failing to use it. Once again, you're mistaken. Lifting the malpractice cap was in there from the beginning: quote:A 1975 law caps at $250,000 the amount a plaintiff can recover for so-called noneconomic damages -- those not involving medical bills or loss of wages -- in medical malpractice cases. That's the sum the Packs were able to recover for each of their children's lives. And in many other cases, Bob Pack said, the cost of hiring attorneys and expert witnesses often mean that grieving families receive only a fraction of that. Also, you ignored my question. Are those other propositions too broad too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's part of preventing malpractice, doctors have had a resource and have been failing to use it. I answered your question, and you're being facile. Here, have another quote from Pack, the guy who wrote the proposition: Since that tragedy, Troy and Alana's father, Bob Pack, has been fighting to block so-called "doctor shoppers" like Barreto from obtaining prescription drugs from numerous physicians at the same time. Pack has been working on several initiatives, including helping the state build an electronic database that catalogs narcotic prescriptions issued to California patients. Created in 2009, the system allows doctors to check a patient's prescription history before giving out pain meds. While the database — called the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System, or CURES — could go a long way in limiting unnecessary and dangerous prescriptions, only about 8 percent of doctors in California use it, according to Pack. Proposition 46, one of the most controversial statewide ballot initiatives this year, would change that by requiring all doctors sign up for CURES and check the database before prescribing some of the most addictive narcotics. "I'm concerned about innocent people like my children being killed by a doctor shopper," said Pack, who authored Prop 46. "This would have a huge impact on cutting down doctor shopping and reckless prescribing." CURES is probably a good thing and mandatory use is probably needed to make it work. But then the AG got ahold of it and now it has a bunch of other poo poo in it and misleading language, which is par for the course for her office: The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board also took issue with Harris’ title and summary. The board stated, “Voters should not be fooled by the title and summary put together by Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office that focuses on the testing as if it were the centerpiece of the measure. It is not. (Harris has been a less-than-stellar steward of ballot titles and summaries throughout her term, often skewing them with loaded language for political effect. Her descriptions of everything from pension reforms to tax increases have been so egregiously unfair that they raise the question of whether the responsibility should rest with a less-partisan officeholder. We’ll save elaboration on that issue for another day.)” H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Once again, you're mistaken. Also, I should probably point out that your apparent need to be correct is undermining your ability to have a cogent discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
how is it possible that in 2014 there are SA posters who think a mandatory, statewide prescription drug database is a good idea? surely it won't be simultaneously abused and completely worthless when it comes to actually stopping prescription drug abuse. not to mention the fantastic sales pitch it has, literally "think of the children", it's not like that line is almost exclusively used to sell terrible things to voters or anything
semper wifi fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
If you are a civil libertarian, drug testing doctors (or any other hyper-privileged group) is a fantastic thing. They have the resources (money, lobbies, etc.) to fight those laws and win. Until then, it is what pilots, construction workers and plenty of other professions have to deal with regularly. Plus, and more realistically, the DA ain't gonna go after Doctors unless there is a real solid case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
See my problem with that argument is that it echoes of accelerationism. Surely by adding a new requirement of mandatory drug testing we will manage to actually reduce the amount of mandatory drug testing! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
I'm just worried about potential brain drain. If something like this passed and I was entering the medical field, you better believe I'd be looking for positions in other states more seriously. People have made some really good points about the medical malpractice stuff, but I just can't bring myself to vote for drug test laws. Yes it's lovely that this kind of thing happens to other professionals - and if there were a proposition to remove those testing laws I'd vote yes in a heartbeat - but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue to expand it to another profession. Maybe I'm going to catch flak for this, but despite the power of their lobby or size of some of their salaries, physicians are people too and I think it's lovely to throw them under the bus to fix California's malpractice laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
When did using irresponsibly become a leftist cause? Sorry Dr. Surgeon, you can't have a 4 martini lunch and then cut someone open an hour later. That's not left vs. right to me. I'm pretty much in favor of full legalization or decriminalization, but implicit in that is responsible usage. If you harm someone else and you're found to be inebriated, you should have the book thrown at you. So I guess I'm fully on board with mandatory screening after someone is harmed. I'd be ok if the randomized screening was dropped, but again, why are doctors getting special treatment compared to other professions where lives are at stake?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Family Values posted:When did using irresponsibly become a leftist cause? Sorry Dr. Surgeon, you can't have a 4 martini lunch and then cut someone open an hour later. That's not left vs. right to me. The problem is that the choice isn't "random screening" or "just mandatory screening after harming someone", it's all or nothing. I don't trust random screening to be rolled back after it's in place, so I intend to vote against it because I oppose this specific issue being bundled with the other (good) regulations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Family Values posted:When did using irresponsibly become a leftist cause? Sorry Dr. Surgeon, you can't have a 4 martini lunch and then cut someone open an hour later. That's not left vs. right to me. No profession requires you to not drink for 12 hours after your shift ends when you do not have another shift for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The problem is that the choice isn't "random screening" or "just mandatory screening after harming someone", it's all or nothing. Yeah i'm for raising the medical malpractice judgement but it was the classic bundling trick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Family Values posted:If you harm someone else and you're found to be inebriated, you should have the book thrown at you. I agree 100%, but they've also bundled random testing into that which is, always has been, and always will be complete and total garbage. If the prop only had drug testing after a patient develops an adverse condition and there is reasonable suspicion of a breach of conduct, I'd be voting yes. Unfortunately though it goes too far over the line for me. Family Values posted:why are doctors getting special treatment compared to other professions where lives are at stake? Again, what I'm saying is that I think it's bullshit that the other professions have to put up with it too. Therefore I think adding another profession to that list is a step backwards, and so I'm against it. It's not just doctors - I'd be against random drug testing regardless of the profession.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No profession requires you to not drink for 12 hours after your shift ends when you do not have another shift for quite some time. Neither would this proposition. Unless you think most doctors on most days fail to follow the appropriate standard of care, in which yes, it might not be wise to get drunk after you accidentally kill or disable someone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Neither would this proposition. Unless you think most doctors on most days fail to follow the appropriate standard of care, in which yes, it might not be wise to get drunk after you accidentally kill or disable someone. Aahahaha boy howdy I sure hope they didn't do something foolish like go home and have a glass of wine in the tub after seeing the death of a patient under their care if the circumstances surrounding that mortality weren't entirely cut and dry like medicine always is! But according to your logic since it's not most doctors on most days that means that this proposition just doesn't do that. Whew!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Neither would this proposition. Unless you think most doctors on most days fail to follow the appropriate standard of care, in which yes, it might not be wise to get drunk after you accidentally kill or disable someone. Doctors in some specialties and areas literally see people die daily. Think ICUs. They can do everything one hundred percent correctly and still there will be a grieving patient's family that will want to lash out. And if that family is hooked up with an attorney...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Doctors in some specialties and areas literally see people die daily. Think ICUs. They can do everything one hundred percent correctly and still there will be a grieving patient's family that will want to lash out. And if that family is hooked up with an attorney... Yes, and as long as the hospital and their peers think everyone followed the appropriate standard of care and that you weren't on drugs/booze, then you won't get tested. The proposition doesn't just let any lawyer force pee tests or else just because.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
So why exactly aren't nursing staff included in this drug testing initiative?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Because doctors are ultimately the responsible party. In a past life, I had to deal with a lot of doctors and I can assure you they crave the respect of being the "person in charge". That respect also comes with responsibilities. As for the other testing, meh, if the doctor has a glass of wine I'm not worried. Again, the DA and hospital ain't gonna go for that poo poo. Insurance companies might. Trial lawyers probably will. So what? Hell, poo poo like this is why we have trial by jury. If a doctor fucks up, goes out and has a bender because of it, they should be able to prove that to a jury. They've got the financial resources for it. As for a brain-drain, hahahahahaha. Where would they go?  The kind of person who makes their career decisions based on financial compensation or . . . jesus loving christ, their drug use, is gonna find the US makes a pretty compelling case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, and as long as the hospital and their peers think everyone followed the appropriate standard of care and that you weren't on drugs/booze, then you won't get tested. I just took a look at the proposed law myself and you are incorrect. In fact, the very section you quoted actually works against your claim (strictly speaking). The law as worded requires tests under three separate circumstances: 1. At random (no time constraint applies here so presumably the "on holiday" issue doesn't arise here. 2. Immediately (i.e. less than 12 hours after learning of, so someone in the Sierras without cell phone access to learn of the event would have a longer period of time than 12 hours in practice) after an adverse event that occurs while the doctor is treating a patient OR in a 24 hour period after treating or prescribing medication for a patient. 3. If a board so requests while acting on a referral under section 2350.20 The random testing provision is pretty straightforward so let's focus on the latter two provisions. Provision 2 explicitly depends on the occurrence of an "adverse event" as defined under section 1279.1 of the Health and Safety Code. For reference, that means a doctor is tested after "surgical events, including... surgery performed on the wrong patient... [and] death during or up to 24 hours after induction of anesthesia after surgery of a normal, healthy patient..., product or device events, including... patient death... associated with the use of a contaminated drug..., patient protection events, including... patient death... associated with patient disappearance for more than four hours..., care management events, including... a patient death... associated with a medication error..., environmental events..., criminal events..., [and] an adverse event or series of adverse events that the death... of a patient, personnel, or visitor." Under this definition, any old death would not qualify, but the problem is that that's up to a court to decide if it's adverse. There is no room for a "standard of care." Now granted it will likely be fairly restricted to real malpractice but it's still worth considering that "standard of care" has no role here. Provision 3 is where the "standard of care" comes in, as the board referral is made (as defined in the proposition) when a physician (who is bound to do so by law) reports that a fellow physician has been either abusing drugs on duty or failed to uphold the standard of care when an adverse event occurred. So it's not quite as bad as others claim (not just any death will qualify) but it's not purely a standard of care case either if a death can conceivably be argued in court to be an adverse event. EDIT: The fun thing is that a strict reading of provision 2 means that if you discharge a patient and then the patient is readmitted AND involved in an adverse effect during that readmission within 24 hours of that discharge, you have to be tested, even if the adverse effect happened solely due to the quality of care offered by the team which readmitted the patient. Oh, and presumably since the adverse effect (like patient disappearance) could be a result of the nursing staff and not you... Well I hope you have a good nursing staff if you want to go out for a drink with your wife after work. Now of course these are strict readings and do require a combination of events that are relatively unlikely to leave a tested physician not liable under malpractice provisions anyway (I mean it's entirely probable that there is some culpability on the part of the physician for not making sure nurses dispense the right drug to their patient) but it does raise some concerning flags that maybe (just maybe!) these drug testing provisions hadn't been thought through all the way before being shoehorned into the bill. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
I voted against Prop 46 but I think you are a tremendous idiot if you became a physician thinking your profession was not facing huge increases in regulation over the next generation. The writing has been on the wall for some time. Should have stuck with creating apps or consulting or something that pays well but the government doesn't give a gently caress about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:If you don't like being looked down upon for supporting monstrous policies lobbied by malpractice lawyers that negatively affect a noble field like medicine, then don't post in support of it. H.P. Hovercraft posted:Your reticence to discuss the unprecedented far-reaching effects of this drug testing proposition is quite telling. Especially when you discount the criticism coming from inside the affected field. Demonizing physicians is something you usually see coming from the likes of the right wing. The noble field of medicine. The noble field of law enforcment. The noble field of finance. All should obviously be given special protections from scrutiny because in every case it has been good for the public and good for America!  Leperflesh posted:You know what's "monstrous"? People who have been crippled for life by a medical fuckup being unable to get any compensation, because their lost earnings potential is too low for a lawyer to bother with, given the cap on pain and suffering damages. H.P. Hovercraft posted:Because that's clearly a minor issue of this prop compared to tort reform or the exact mechanism of cap increases. I mean gosh those trial lawyers must a greater interest in the public's well-being compared to physicians Sue them all until they die in poverty or modern medicine attracts people interested in health instead of business. http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals quote:It seems that every time researchers estimate how often a medical mistake contributes to a hospital patient’s death, the numbers come out worse. Slobjob Zizek posted:I voted against Prop 46 but I think you are a tremendous idiot if you became a physician thinking your profession was not facing huge increases in regulation over the next generation. The writing has been on the wall for some time. Should have stuck with creating apps or consulting or something that pays well but the government doesn't give a gently caress about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The noble field of medicine. Lolling p hard at all of the people who seem to hate doctors in this thread. You should probably know that referring to medicine as a "noble profession" or "noble calling" isn't something that I just made up - it's been called that for quite some time (pre-WW2). Because they, you know, save lives. Oooh they make six figure salaries after 7-10 years of the most rigorous educational requirements of any profession for a job with hellish hours that's literally saving people's lives. It's straightup crab mentality bullshit. Reminder: Prop 46 doesn't cover clinic/private practice doctors. Only the ones in hospitals. H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The noble field of medicine. Maybe you should address 24+ hour shifts first. Knowing conditions some doctors work in, not having modafinil in their system should be malpractice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Maybe you should address 24+ hour shifts first. Knowing conditions some doctors work in, not having modafinil in their system should be malpractice. They funny thing is that people seem to think that some significant percentage of physicians are "in it for the money." Even ignoring that med school grads currently begin residency (that pays ~$50k salary) with an average loan amount of $275k, you would have to be out of your mind to think that becoming a doctor is a good way to make a quick buck. There are far, far easier and faster ways to make a shitload of money than going through med school/residency and essentially giving up your life until your late 30s before you even start earning. Here's the one that always gets trotted out:  Which if I recall this chart is from 15 years ago, and loans have only gotten worse at all stages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
When you lasted posted that chart I pointed out that its illegal for a professional driver to work MD hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:When you lasted posted that chart I pointed out that its illegal for a professional driver to work MD hours. Oh yeah. Lots of them are unionized too, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Maybe you should address 24+ hour shifts first. Knowing conditions some doctors work in, not having modafinil in their system should be malpractice. While 24 hour shifts are way too long, and something needs to be done about this if this is actually a common occurrence, this is sort of a situation doctors themselves have created. Their unions (sorry, "professional associations") have artificially limited the supply of doctors by limiting the number of people admitted to medical school. I think to some extent that it is good that they do this (who wants to go to school for a long time only to find at the end that there is no job for them?) but I think that if they allowed for more people to get admitted into medical schools, they wouldn't have to work for such long hours. It may mean that they may not get paid as much though . . . H.P. Hovercraft posted:They funny thing is that people seem to think that some significant percentage of physicians are "in it for the money." Even ignoring that med school grads currently begin residency (that pays ~$50k salary) with an average loan amount of $275k, you would have to be out of your mind to think that becoming a doctor is a good way to make a quick buck. The thing with being a doctor is that they have set up the system so that once you get into medical school, you are basically guaranteed to have a high paying job for life. I can't think of any other high paying jobs which have that kind of job security. I think that to some extent it is good to set up the system like this, but because of this fact, I really find it hard to shed a tear for the financial well-being of doctors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Their unions (sorry, "professional associations") have artificially limited the supply of doctors by limiting the number of people admitted to medical school. Sure, the AMA was scummy about what they perceived to be an overproduction of doctorin in the 90s, and new medical schools haven't been being opened anywhere close to like how new law schools have been poppin up thus producing single digit acceptance rates to med school. But the actual bottleneck is for residency programs, the funding of which is tied to Medicaid. So lol if that ever gets bumped up. When you're about to graduate medical school, you need to match with a residency program so that you can go on and complete it and become a licensed practitioner. 80% of med students match every year. Granted, it's a crazy hosed up system, but funding for it hasn't been touched in 20 years, and salaries for residents haven't really been increased since the 70s. So it's not uncommon for residents to think nothing of paying 4/5 of their take-home into rent, because why not? 80+ hour weeks and eating at the hospital cafeteria means when would you spend money anywhere else? Yeah, you pretty much need some family money to overcome the initial hurdles for entry to med school. But the worse bottleneck is residencies, and I really don't see that changing unless the public suddenly gets all warm and fuzzy about Medicaid funding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:The thing with being a doctor is that they have set up the system so that once you get into medical school, you are basically guaranteed to have a high paying job for life. I can't think of any other high paying jobs which have that kind of job security. I think that to some extent it is good to set up the system like this, but because of this fact, I really find it hard to shed a tear for the financial well-being of doctors. Also, this is true in the same way that it's true for nursing and for veterinarians. Sure, your skills are in demand. But where do above average wage earners want to live? The cities. All of the demand is for rural practice, practice in the midwest, practice in the rust belt, practice in the south, practice away from major cities. Oh, and the big bucks? Those are all in specialties that have their own rates of demand which are also over-met locally/regionally. Unless you're in the top portion of your cohort, you're likely to be moving out to a rural Alabama regional hospital for that guaranteed job with the sweet sweet $95-125k salary that general practitioners and family medicine earns. Hope you didn't break $300k in loans! That you "find it hard to shed a tear" for this kind of thing is classic crab mentality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Lol, it's not the "crab mentality" because physicians are managers/professionals, not workers. You wonder why regulation treats nurses differently than physicians? Because nurses are workers! Edit: That's not to say that physician satisfaction is not important - it absolutely is, but the US needs cheap care for a ton of increasingly older people. And, it has to keep them happy (as in the case of malpractice). So, a spotlight is now being shone on your profession, because an increasing proportion of Americans are patients (as America gets older and sicker). Patients vote, so you're kind of screwed, sorry. Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Lol, it's not the "crab mentality" because physicians are managers/professionals, not workers. You wonder why regulation treats nurses differently than physicians? Because nurses are workers! Employee class has nothing to do with what crab mentality is or how it's applied. Regardless, physicians are not administration/management, so even by your own tenets that statement makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:That you "find it hard to shed a tear" for this kind of thing is classic crab mentality. Right now, since a lot of your initial claims regarding Proposition 46 have been pointed out as wrong, you have kind of moved on to generally complaining about the financial welfare of doctors. I'm not jealous of how much money doctors make, but because they are doing very well, it is hard for me to take their claims of being not paid enough for their work seriously. H.P. Hovercraft posted:Unless you're in the top portion of your cohort, you're likely to be moving out to a rural Alabama regional hospital for that guaranteed job with the sweet sweet $95-125k salary that general practitioners and family medicine earns. I guess you don't agree, but this kind of money, guaranteed for the rest of your career after entering medical school, is a lot, especially in a rural area. I can't think of any other profession where you are guaranteed this kind of money by virtue of getting into school. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Employee class has nothing to do with what crab mentality is or how it's applied. Regardless, physicians are not administration/management, so even by your own tenets that statement makes no sense. Listen, if physicians want to relinquish their ability to diagnose and treat and instead only follow standard protocol, they can become workers and unionize. Until then, they will be regulated as professionals. Does being a professional kind of suck? Yes, at least workers and capitalists are singular in their goals to make money. Professionals must balance professionals ideals as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Right now, since a lot of your initial claims regarding Proposition 46 have been pointed out as wrong, you have kind of moved on to generally complaining about the financial welfare of doctors. No, I'm derisively responding to the people in this thread who have dragged in these weird negative attitudes about doctors. If you do not like the direction that this has taken, then perhaps you should be addressing the posters who came in here calling doctors "quacks" and claiming that they're all money-grubbing fuckups who need to be dealt with by the stern hand of government for their transgressions and how if you disagree then clearly you're a paid AMA shill. And then there's the posters like you who seem to feel this need to "win" and concentrate on minutiae of the legal interpretation of Prop 46, to the exclusion of actually having a discussion of its merits. But here, if you'd really like to sperg about it, this is the post you're looking for that shows that at best, I may have been inaccurate about some nuance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I guess you don't agree, but this kind of money, guaranteed for the rest of your career after entering medical school, is a lot, especially in a rural area. I can't think of any other profession where you are guaranteed this kind of money by virtue of getting into school. It's by virtue of successfully completing literally the most rigorous education in the country over a minimum of 7 years, in order to perform a job that is, again, literally saving lives for 80+ hour workweeks that frequently involve 36 hour shifts. But yeah, they probably have it too good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Maybe you should address 24+ hour shifts first. Knowing conditions some doctors work in, not having modafinil in their system should be malpractice. None of this actually matters. it's a red herring. Working as a doctor could be like going to the spa or it could be like working in a mine, the working conditions of medical professionals don't excuse them from not loving maiming/killing patients because they're drunk or high. Pilots work long hours too but I still expect the pilot for my 14 hour flight to Hong Kong to be sober. If you want to see their working conditions improved, campaign for that instead of dragging it into this debate and acting like you think that excuses them from acting responsibly; it doesn't and long hours are not a reason to vote against Prop 46.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Family Values posted:None of this actually matters. it's a red herring. Working as a doctor could be like going to the spa or it could be like working in a mine, the working conditions of medical professionals don't excuse them from not loving maiming/killing patients because they're drunk or high. Pilots work long hours too but I still expect the pilot for my 14 hour flight to Hong Kong to be sober. No, the red herring is that physicians performing while drunk/high just isn't a major problem, at least in the state of California. quote:The Prop 46 backers contend that there is an epidemic of doctors practicing while high, citing a fourteen-year-old report from the California Medical Board, which said — based on a study of the board's diversion program for physicians with substance abuse problems — that 18 percent of California doctors will abuse alcohol or drugs in their lifetime. The proponents also cite a recent USA Today investigation that found that more than 100,000 medical professionals struggle with drug abuse or addiction in a given year — a problem made worse by the stealing of prescription drugs from work facilities for personal use. Pack also referenced a recent paper from Johns Hopkins Medicine, which argued that random drug tests of physicians at hospitals would improve patient safety and that medicine is under-regulated compared with other industries. Note that in California there are over 100,000 licensed physicians. Sure, increasing the "pain and suffering" cap on malpractice could help with this due to the greater financial risks of negligence. But if you're really interested in reducing substance abuse rates, we've known for a long time now that random drug testing isn't really the way to go. H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:No, the red herring is that physicians performing while drunk/high just isn't a major problem, at least in the state of California. Yeah, maybe abuse is low among doctors, although I'd remind you of your own words: H.P. Hovercraft posted:
Another possibility, though, is that there's low enforcement and instead of being reprimanded they're being diverted into confidential treatment programs. quote:“The California Highway Patrol (CHP), 60 Minutes, the Center for Public Interest Law, and five separate state audits found that the diversion program let substance-abusing doctors off the hook for failing to comply with rehabilitation terms and failed to monitor substance abusers,”
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Family Values posted:Yeah, maybe abuse is low among doctors, although I'd remind you of your own words: Yes, and? People who drink, even above average amounts, don't necessarily do it while on the job. You sound like someone straight out of the temperance movement with that conflation. So what it sounds like you're trying to say is that you'd rather support oldschool drug war thinking - randomized testing that has been shown to be ineffective and invasive, instead of anonymous treatment programs. Fortunately, the polling on this seems to imply that people are fed up with this kind of thinking, which is where most of the opposition is coming from, after all. Hell, I'd argue that having an average of two days off every two weeks (averaged over 4 weeks) strongly lends itself to binge drinking behavior. Physician wellness programs are definitely needed, but not because they're killing people left and right due to flasks in the labcoat or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:37
|
|