- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Defeat the Nurse Practitioner scope of practice expansion - Louisiana SB 187
Posted on 5/22/16 at 11:44 pm to LATigerdoc
Posted on 5/22/16 at 11:44 pm to LATigerdoc
quote:
Y'all are already claiming u can't get in to see one
You're confusing me with someone else. I was the guy championing the algorithm doctor taking the place of primary care.
Either way, your lack of compassion for those who can't get access to healthcare is staggering. And you should really reconsider your oaths before campaigning for profit over accessibility.
Posted on 5/22/16 at 11:56 pm to LucasP
Ok I meant the comment generically to the thread crowd across on the other side of the volleyball net from me.
Accessibility is usually a word that implies having a prepositional phrase after it with an object to that preposition, so my question to you is... What's the object ? Accessibility to what
I assume you will say care. But the question that follows is --- is it safe? Will the patient potentially be harmed?
And the oath part is the whole reason we have this thread - namely, to keep the patients safe
The first rule... The very first rule - is do not harm the patient. No matter the situation, even if you have no idea what to do with the patient - you do not harm the patient.
It logically follows, that if we think this bill is not safe - which we certainly do feel that way- then we must oppose it - because we took an oath to do no harm.
Accessibility is usually a word that implies having a prepositional phrase after it with an object to that preposition, so my question to you is... What's the object ? Accessibility to what
I assume you will say care. But the question that follows is --- is it safe? Will the patient potentially be harmed?
And the oath part is the whole reason we have this thread - namely, to keep the patients safe
The first rule... The very first rule - is do not harm the patient. No matter the situation, even if you have no idea what to do with the patient - you do not harm the patient.
It logically follows, that if we think this bill is not safe - which we certainly do feel that way- then we must oppose it - because we took an oath to do no harm.
This post was edited on 5/23/16 at 12:02 am
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:02 am to LATigerdoc
And then there's your problem with robots too. Where will you get the ethical/moral aspect to the robot?
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:04 am to LucasP
And then I'll say it one more time because I think you're new to the thread.
I
Am
Not
In
Primary
Care.
The profit thing might affect someone in primary care but I think hopeful doc on here has refuted that point like 6 times too
I
Am
Not
In
Primary
Care.
The profit thing might affect someone in primary care but I think hopeful doc on here has refuted that point like 6 times too
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:22 am to LATigerdoc
quote:
Am
Not
In
Primary
Care
I haven't seen anyone say you were. Not sure what your obsession is.
But seriously, even if you're a specialist then your job is pretty easily handled by an NP who can refer more complex cases to a doc when necessary.
And unless you're a surgeon, your profession should phased out by computers in the next decade anyway. It's a matter of public safety that we shouldn't allow flawed humans making bad diagnoses.
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:26 am to LATigerdoc
quote:
And then there's your problem with robots too. Where will you get the ethical/moral aspect to the robot?
That's a retarded question from such a (supposedly) learned man. There's no question of ethics in an algorithm, only the most optimal solution to a problem.
As I said earlier, you're either ignorant or in denial about your own profession's future. So do the research and learn or find more compelling arguments to support your ignorance.
This post was edited on 5/23/16 at 12:31 am
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:47 am to LucasP
I inform you I am not in primary care because that's what the bill is about. So it affects primary doctors.
I have yet to meet an NP who has any interest or knowledge of eyes sufficient to handle a clinic for a day. They typically have no involvement in my field so I think you're confused
I have yet to meet an NP who has any interest or knowledge of eyes sufficient to handle a clinic for a day. They typically have no involvement in my field so I think you're confused
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:50 am to LucasP
Wait now you want family doctors to make referrals to specialist NPs? Typically referrals are placed in a scenario where the person you refer to has deeper knowledge/training than your own for the question at hand
Unless... You want to have primary NPs refer to specialist NPs and then I guess you have a society there without doctors. I'm fairly sure the life expectancy of all the patients would shorten under those circumstances - sounds like a bad plan to me
Unless... You want to have primary NPs refer to specialist NPs and then I guess you have a society there without doctors. I'm fairly sure the life expectancy of all the patients would shorten under those circumstances - sounds like a bad plan to me
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:51 am to LucasP
Ok so what if the patient wants hospice and your robot says keep them around for 10000 years in a vegetable state
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:52 am to LATigerdoc
So you're not a surgeon? Do you perform any physical duties or is it simply diagnosis and prescription?
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:53 am to LucasP
My education next to yours would look like Yao Ming standing next to a wizard of oz munchkin
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:53 am to LucasP
I just work at the pizza pit remember
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:55 am to LATigerdoc
quote:
. You want to have primary NPs refer to specialist NPs
Yeah naturally. I don't see why that would be out of the question.
quote:
then I guess you have a society there without doctors
No, not at all. And I think you understand how disingenuous that leap in logic is. A specialized NP can refer to an MD pretty easily, could they not? Am I missing something here?
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:57 am to LATigerdoc
quote:
My education next to yours would look like Yao Ming standing next to a wizard of oz munchkin
I'm aware. You've brought up your education more than a few times. But the simple fact is that a human brain can't retain and utilize that information as well as a computer. So if that's your thing, then you're likely to go the way of the matinee ticket seller and the toll booth attendee soon.
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:57 am to LucasP
Why does a specialist need to refer? Too many referrals
Posted on 5/23/16 at 12:58 am to LATigerdoc
Specialist should know the answer unless it's really rare / narrow field with supersubspecialist
This post was edited on 5/23/16 at 1:01 am
Posted on 5/23/16 at 1:00 am to LucasP
I feel like you are downplaying your intellect when it is deep down very impressive and you may be playing devils advocate though you are on our side in order to help this thread get to 100 pages
Posted on 5/23/16 at 1:02 am to LucasP
And it's not an obsession - more a passion for patient safety, defense of medicine, and a sense of the importance of advocacy --- and an appreciation of the danger of this bill
Posted on 5/23/16 at 1:02 am to LATigerdoc
quote:
Yes surgery
Congrats
What will be replaceable is your ability to determine if surgery is necessary. So you will still get to help people, but not have to rely on possible human error to determine its necessity.
But since you only care about helping patients, and not your bottom line, this should make you happy. Right?
Popular
Back to top


2


