Don't Ask Rambi Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (25283)	5/21/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) of 71178

Well, it's either #2 or #3. I prefer #2 in this special case. 1)The patient was a lawyer and obviously had the gumption to make real his promises. 2) The doctor in this case was awesomely negligent. They both knew it. In this light, inconveniencing the doctor was a small step in leveling that playing field. I'm assuming that the triage person dropped the ball too. I mean, the part in this story that Doesn't Add Up imho is how the treatment station could have in good conscience signed off on such orders from the doctor. Under more general circumstances, I'm hoping that the on-call medical person (doctor or RN) would not be so glib about "two aspirin and call me in the morning". I'd imagine that whoever was in the hotseat would at least want to check for something cardiovascular. That doesn't take anything more high-tech than a quickie cardiogram.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next