No crime to lying about it yet............There are an awful lot of people on INGO whose underpants are too tight! The only doctors I can imagine asking this question are pediatricians and family practice docs seeing children. They're just doing what they've been indoctrinated to do. And, unfortunately, they have documentation requirements they have to meet in order to get paid and a lot of that documentation has no relationship to the care being given. That being said, relax, and just lie. There's no crime in lying to the doctor. I get lied to all the time. In the ED the only time I ask about guns, or weapons in general, is when someone is being seen for mental illness and suicide/homicide risk needs to be assessed. Most, the vast majority, of doctors are interested in helping people. Again, take a big breath, relax, and lie. You have a doctor's permission.
As I said, a mad man.
Do not listen to him, INGO.
There are an awful lot of people on INGO whose underpants are too tight! The only doctors I can imagine asking this question are pediatricians and family practice docs seeing children. They're just doing what they've been indoctrinated to do. And, unfortunately, they have documentation requirements they have to meet in order to get paid and a lot of that documentation has no relationship to the care being given. That being said, relax, and just lie. There's no crime in lying to the doctor. I get lied to all the time. In the ED the only time I ask about guns, or weapons in general, is when someone is being seen for mental illness and suicide/homicide risk needs to be assessed. Most, the vast majority, of doctors are interested in helping people. Again, take a big breath, relax, and lie. You have a doctor's permission.
Point one: Given his and your comments and my own experience in medicine, I'd listen to both of you. Having done so, I'll weigh both before making an informed decision. The decision at which I arrived, having done that, is that his advice is worth consideration. Yours, not so much.
Point two: Re-read your first line quoted above. Now, consider the site rule about insulting other members. If you cannot confine your comments to the subject matter rather than the person speaking, do not comment. This will serve as the in-thread warning of the same.
Blessings,
Bill
Point one: Given my own experience in medicine and what I've read from either one of them, I wouldn't listen to either one of them.
Point two: I wish there was more consistency with regard to such, as other more severe instances, don't seem to merit such intervention.
I said I'd listen to both. I make my best decisions with more, not less information.
If you see instances that you think should be addressed, just click "report post". That lets the whole mod team know something needs attention. Sometimes, we see it for ourselves (like a "new member" a couple of days ago that I noticed, whose name referred to IC 35-41-1-9(1), but we get a couple thousand posts a day on a slow day, and there's no way nine of us, plus Fenway, can read every post. There are a few members who help us out by bringing stuff to our attention, and we appreciate it.
Blessings,
Bill
Do patients have zero responsibility for their choices? Are we not to hold them accountable for any of their consent?
I will be the first to admit that there is a gross lack of true informed consent in the medical field. But I don't naively believe that doctors exist for the sole purpose of prolonging my life or making it better. They offer a service. Nothing more. If I cannot be discriminating enough to figure out a way to evaluate that service, then I have no one to blame but myself if I accept that service and in my ignorance find out that it was subpar.
There is no excuse in this day and age for not getting more information, for not becoming the expert before moving ahead with decisions. Moving forward without doing this necessarily means accepting the risk of doing so. That includes accepting the risk that the medical care provider doesn't know any more than you do.
I had guns but they were all lost in an unfortunate boating accident.
I do know what you said, and I understand your rationale for doing it. Please understand though, as I do try to cut through the extraneous in order to come to making an informed decision, that I generally don't listen to those:
- with far leaning radical views,
- persons as known liars,
- individuals that continue to spout the same misinformation in the face of authoritative and credible sources that advocate otherwise,
- or those that could be best described as being the Village Idiot.
How do you define these?