|
Dik Hz posted:40% of the people that a doctor treats every day think that Trump is a good president. What do you think of their ability to evaluate their doctor? I don't think all doctors are as bad as Trump.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Dik Hz posted:To actually answer your question, I said that patients are often unreliable narrators about the expertise of their doctor. I really didn't anticipate that being a controversial statement. If I told you that black people are treated poorly by police, and you respond that "arrestees are often unreliable narrators about the circumstances of the arrest"... then you're implying that black people are not treated poorly by police. You didn't just choose to make a non-sequitur out of the blue, you are contributing to a conversation, and contributing by downplaying experiences *and research* about treatment of minorities in a racist country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Devor posted:If I told you that black people are treated poorly by police, and you respond that "arrestees are often unreliable narrators about the circumstances of the arrest"... Also, if you insist that I'm contributing to a conversation, go back and refer to my original post. I'm responding to someone who asserts that the only reason a doctor and patient would disagree is due to systemic racist, ableism, or misogyny. Dik Hz fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:40% of the people that a doctor treats every day think that Trump is a good president. What do you think of their ability to evaluate their doctor? Am I missing a big joke here or are you trolling for shits and grins? Because I would love to see the methodology for the poll that segments out "Trump Approval Rating of People Who Have Been Treated By A Doctor." Near as I can tell, you're using the general national approval numbers for Trump. So with that, these numbers would of course include doctors, right? So it would follow that 40% of doctors think that Trump is a good president. What do you think of their ability to evaluate their patients? Dik Hz posted:To actually answer your question, I said that patients are often unreliable narrators about the expertise of their doctor. I really didn't anticipate that being a controversial statement. You said: Dik Hz posted:Why not both? Some patients are unreliable narrators for what their doctors tell them. Some doctors are dismissive of people that don't look like them. Both can be true at the same time. And it'd be hard to differentiate between the two if you didn't know the person complaining. This statement is controversial because it completely and utterly ignores the (again) very real and well-studied phenomenon of doctors not adequately treating women and people of color. Are patients perfect? No, of course not. Yes, you're technically correct, but to throw up your hands and say "well doctors aren't perfect and neither are patients so  " is a completely meaningless statement that glosses over the underlying issues.Doctors are really loving smart. I have a few in my extended family. They are not infallible. But the data shows that there is a systemic problem in how doctors (in general) evaluate certain segments of our nation's population. Whether it was intentional or not, your statement minimizes this very real problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
This is the dumbest loving derail. Dude used the example that a lot of the time when a doctor says they haven't found the cause of something or that it is psychological or psychosomatic that people take that to mean "it's all in your head," and decide the doctor doesn't believe them and is therefore a bad doctor. This was an analogy for how sometimes lawyers have to tell a client that the law doesn't work like they think it does and the client often thinks they are a bad lawyer when it is just that there is no case or that pursuing that case makes no economic sense. That's all it was. Why are we still in sociology class?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
. therobit summed it up better than my response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
therobit posted:This is the dumbest loving derail. Dude used the example that a lot of the time when a doctor says they haven't found the cause of something or that it is psychological or psychosomatic that people take that to mean "it's all in your head," and decide the doctor doesn't believe them and is therefore a bad doctor. This was an analogy for how sometimes lawyers have to tell a client that the law doesn't work like they think it does and the client often thinks they are a bad lawyer when it is just that there is no case or that pursuing that case makes no economic sense. That's all it was. Why are we still in sociology class? OK, but if that's the case then it's a garbage analogy because doctors are, in fact, proven to be biased against certain segments of the population. So I wouldn't hang my hat on that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:This statement is controversial because it completely and utterly ignores the (again) very real and well-studied phenomenon of doctors not adequately treating women and people of color. Dik Hz posted:Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:The phenomenon that you quote me as completely and utterly ignoring is something that I acknowledged as real in my post that you quoted. right, the "all lives matter" or the "not all men" argument I mentioned earlier. Vaguely acknowledging something as theoretically possible is not the same as stating that a thing happens as a matter of course and that it must be fixed. If you can't see the parallels between your "yes this thing happens sometimes but also sometimes it doesn't" argument and literally everything happening in the US today, then I don't know what else to tell you. You are, in essence, acknowledging the injustice and simultaneously allowing its recurrence. Your argument, if you can call it that, is one of acquiescence. Your argument refuses to make right, rather it permits continuance of the acknowledged injustice. I can see this argument in certain circumstances, such as the ACTUAL refusal of a client in light of legal realities (e.g. it'll cost you $50k in legal fees to recover your $20k in damages). But again, the core assumption here is that it there is zero bias from the get go, which has been proven to be incorrect in the field of medicine, and thus the "doctor" analogy is indefensible and must be immediately thrown in the trash. Whether it's been studied in the legal field is beyond me, but I suspect these biases are seen there (along with pretty much everywhere else). To be sure, this is not a personal attack. It is a recognition that unconscious biases exist in everyone, and that these biases affect equal access to professional services, be they medical, legal, or technical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:right, the "all lives matter" or the "not all men" argument I mentioned earlier. He's talking about a different thing that actually happens and not the thing you are talking about which also actually happens but you seem to be conflatingthe two. You're the one who brought up the at this point very well known bias in medicine of ignoring the pain of women and POC. He was talking about when pain is acknowledged but doctors are either unable to determine a medical cause or it appears to be psychological or neurological and not an injury or disease. They are two different things. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
Loving the new systemic-bigotry-in-health-care thread Lots of  to readSome might even say too many But not me E: Dik Hz posted:40% of the people that a doctor treats every day think that Trump is a good president. What do you think of their ability to evaluate their doctor? 
GlobglogGroAbgalab fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
therobit posted:He's talking about a different thing that actually happens and not the thing you are talking about which also actually happens but you seem to be conflatingthe two. You're the one who brought up the at this point very well known bias in medicine of ignoring the pain of women and POC. He was talking about when pain is acknowledged but doctors are either unable to determine a medical cause or it appears to be psychological or neurological and not an injury or disease. They are two different things. HTH. Maybe I'm missing something, but that absolutely does not follow. This is the initial statement: Dead Reckoning posted:I think this idea that doctors "don't believe patients" is based on a misunderstanding of what it is that doctors do. If a doctor tells a patient that they can't identify an etiology of their pain, the doctor isn't telling the patient that they shouldn't be in pain or that they don't believe the patient is in pain. Without some kind of underlying etiology to guide therapeutic interventions, a doctor can't ethically embark on a course of treatment beyond management of symptoms, and what tools they have within their specialty may be inadequate or inappropriate to achieve the results the patient wants. None the less, I see a lot of people insist that a doctor said "it's all in your head" when told that an issue is possibly neurological in nature, or that none of the diagnostic studies done so far have uncovered a cause for their symptoms. Summarized: "Doctors never ignore the root cause of pain because they think it's fake, Doctors only ignore the root cause of pain when they cannot determine a properly vetted medical origin, and patients who disagree simply don't understand medicine." Absolutist, but accurate by my reading. That is directly at odds with: Leperflesh posted:Except one is a rampant centuries-long gross culture of racist- and sexist-based incompetence that kills people, and the other is just patient psychology that every doctor needs to be trained to deal with. Well-studied data that shows that, in medicine, there is a proven bias against women and minorities. You're trying to separate ideas that are inseparable. Yes, some doctors are truly unbiased and are unable to determine root cause. Yes, some doctors are bigoted asshats who are trying to refuse treatment without getting their license revoked. But there's a spectrum of doctors in between who have an unconscious bias that inhibits their ability to treat some of their patients. This is true everywhere. Unconscious bias is real, and it is pervasive whether you like it or not. Making statements that ignore this fact are incredibly damaging. It needs to be acknowledged, and not just in a "well it happens sometimes so " way. Maybe it's a subtle difference, but stating it that way is dismissive and allows the problem to continue, rather than trying to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
This seems like an issue of (statistical) facts which makes it irrelevant to law. Law doesn't care about facts and in fact deliberately avoids facts a a matter of fact. Stop posting for fact's sake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
I bet tree surgeons don't have to deal with this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Recent surveys of medical students showed that a significant number still believe the wildly false and racist idea that black people just don't feel pain as much, and/or have thicker skin. That black Americans have negative disparities in health outcomes is well documented and needs to be addressed, but evidence that these disparities are attributable to widespread racist behavior among health care providers is not nearly as strong as you're claiming it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:the experimenters presented the possible answers as: "1 = Definitely untrue, 2 = Probably untrue, 3 = Possibly untrue, 4 = Possibly true, 5 = Probably true, 6 = Definitely true" with no "I don't know" option, and counted any score of 4 or greater as an endorsement. What. If anything, “possibly untrue” is closer to an endorsement than “possibly true”. For the former, the null hypothesis is that it is true, but there is the potential that it is actually untrue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, we can't rule out that BwaBD has 1080p footage of a man, who believes that anything more than minimum coverage is for suckers, brutally running over BwaBD's family in his fully paid off Hummer towing his fully paid off power boat named "Ne$$$t Egg" while backing out of the driveway of his fully paid off second home. This is honestly likely to not be that far from the truth. Maybe the guy is smart and has a poo poo ton of coverage or maybe the guy is an idiot and is in the process of running a business left to him by his parents into the ground and the only reason he's been able to stay above water is because the land they left him is free and clear. Or maybe it's past that stage and is no longer free and clear because Tom Selleck convinced him to get a reverse mortgage. We just don't know at this point. There are definitely grievous injuries and 1080p footage though, check out the rear dash cam: Dash Cam Footage
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:26
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I bet tree surgeons don't have to deal with this. In this Canadian study...
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:17
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:right, the "all lives matter" or the "not all men" argument I mentioned earlier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Anecdotes are evidence so your formulation is redundant The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. I was trying to clarify that some of this is stuff that we have studies on, and some of it is stuff patients have said which may or may not be provable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
Who can I sue to change the topic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
Me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 13:27
|
|
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MR. NICE! PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO:____________ NICE PIECE OF FISH DEFENDANT __________________/ COMPLAINT
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 13:38
|
|
|
tinytort posted:The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. I was trying to clarify that some of this is stuff that we have studies on, and some of it is stuff patients have said which may or may not be provable. Anecdotes are evidence in this thread 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:
I proffer with no duty or guarantee of completion a change of subject matter in the thread: "Legal Questions: You Asking These Questions Here Is Worrisome" on the Something Awful Forums owned by SomethingAwful LLC to be realized by and to the best of my ability limitied to within reasonable scope of my ability, in exchange for voluntary dismissal or relinquishment with no fault or cost implied of any and all actual, fictional, derivative or implied claims, suits or rights. Offer valid for 1 - one - hour after time of posting not including any time beyond 59 minutes 59 seconds of time of visual receipt of post, whereupon it may no longer be considered in any way binding nor communicated in any form to the respective court or legal venue of actuality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
No no, this is great, keep going
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I proffer with no duty or guarantee of completion a change of subject matter in the thread: "Legal Questions: You Asking These Questions Here Is Worrisome" on the Something Awful Forums owned by SomethingAwful LLC to be realized by and to the best of my ability limitied to within reasonable scope of my ability, in exchange for voluntary dismissal or relinquishment with no fault or cost implied of any and all actual, fictional, derivative or implied claims, suits or rights. but what about 00:59:59:001?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No no, this is great, keep going Hey blarzgh what are the coolest and dumbest quirks of Texas property law respectively? What should I know if I want to buy 1000 acres of land in west Texas for a hunting retreat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
therobit posted:Hey blarzgh what are the coolest and dumbest quirks of Texas property law respectively? You should know that a hunting lease in Texas should be registered with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. There's nothing particularly "cool" about property law, but some interesting things: As with many states, in Texas, the right to drill for oil and gas supersedes the right to use the surface. When a landowner buys a 10x10 acre of land, they get the surface, and the mineral estate. That means they own everything from the dirt they stand on (the surface), down all the way theoretically to the earth's core (the mineral). This also means you can sever those interest, keep the surface, and sell the mineral estate to someone else. I presume this is pretty standard across most states. Traditional common law across the US holds that the Mineral Estate is the "dominant" estate. That means, basically, that if I own the minerals, and you own the surface, and I need to stick a ginormous oil rig through your backyard to get to them, I take priority. Enjoy your 50ft tall drilling rig off your back porch. However Texas, of all places, was the first to say, "Hey lets chill the gently caress out." There was a case called Getty Oil in the 1970s where the Texas Supreme Court created the "Accommodation Doctrine." This basically said, "If there are multiple ways to drill for oil, and one of them is less invasive, and interferes less with the surface owner's use of the property, you have to use the less invasive method." As far as I know, most Oil and Gas states have adopted some form of the Accommodation Doctrine - you wouldn't think it, but Texas was the leading force behind restoring rights to landowners in cases against Big Oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Another fun Oil and Gas Fact: Texas doesn't have an administrative agency specifically dedicated to regulating Oil and Gas production. The agency responsible for permitting, platting, regulating, data collecting, penning legislation, fining and enforcing Oil and Gas regulations is: The Texas Railroad Commission.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Traditional common law across the US holds that the Mineral Estate is the "dominant" estate. That means, basically, that if I own the minerals, and you own the surface, and I need to stick a ginormous oil rig through your backyard to get to them, I take priority. Enjoy your 50ft tall drilling rig off your back porch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Another fun Oil and Gas Fact: Texas doesn't have an administrative agency specifically dedicated to regulating Oil and Gas production. The agency responsible for permitting, platting, regulating, data collecting, penning legislation, fining and enforcing Oil and Gas regulations is: What it doesn't regulate is railroads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Another fun Oil and Gas Fact: Texas doesn't have an administrative agency specifically dedicated to regulating Oil and Gas production. The agency responsible for permitting, platting, regulating, data collecting, penning legislation, fining and enforcing Oil and Gas regulations is: That is stupid and utterly ridiculous but since it's America I have no reason to doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What happens if the drill rig off the porch is the least invasive method, but mineral rights owner paints 'BITCH' on the side of it in 5 foot high, 10 foot long, bright orange letters facing the home? Then I get a really fun call from their lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
The idea of “private property” is a white supremacist myth used to enforce caste systems . It doesn’t exist . All land is cut up many ways and there is no such thing really as “fee simple” The state can condemn your land at anytime as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Outrail posted:That is stupid and utterly ridiculous but since it's America I have no reason to doubt it. It is true. You can even use the Geographic Information Systems map to see every well thats ever been drilled in Texas: https://gis.rrc.texas.gov/GISViewer/ Here is a picture of all the oil and gas wells drilled in an area north of Midland, Texas:   (Note: the black lines are the wellbore from surface to the "downholes" - the wells were drilled anywhere from 3,000 to 11,000 feet, at an angle.) For reference, here is about the size of the area you were looking at: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It is true. Have a mining background so that's not super surprising, unless that's not an isolated occurrence and the whole state looks like an acne outbreak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It is true. People in glasscocks shouldn't something something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Have a mining background so that's not super surprising, unless that's not an isolated occurrence and the whole state looks like an acne outbreak. Drilling activity follows the oil/gas formations:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Drilling activity follows the oil/gas formations: Wow. That is... quite a lot of wells in residential areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:52
|
|