UK: Patients forced to live in agony

[Political Junky]

You are such a Troll....

Isn't the Telegraph a respected newspaper?

I've been attacked by cons for citing the Telegraph. Don't cons hate everything "foreign"?

 

[Emma]

Check this out.



BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Petition urges smear test age cut

Screening for Cervical Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale

Good information. From your link:

Indirect evidence suggests most of the benefit can be obtained by beginning screening within 3 years of onset of sexual activity or age 21 (whichever comes first) and screening at least every 3 years

I wonder why the UK would restrict it to 25 years and above? Now the citizens have to sign a petition to get the government to provide for this.

What seems to be the key point in the link I posted is sexual activity; perhaps in the UK it averages later than in the US. That would be my guess.

[ Although there is little value in screening women who have never been sexually active, many U.S. organizations recommend routine screening by age 18 or 21 for all women, based on the generally high prevalence of sexual activity by that age in the U.S. and concerns that clinicians may not always obtain accurate sexual histories.]

 

[WillowTree]

The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

A spokesman for NICE said its guidance did not recommend that injections were stopped for all patients, but only for those who had been in pain for less than a year, where the cause was not known.

In response, NICE chairman Professor Sir Michael Rawlins expressed outrage over the vote that forced Dr Watson from his position, describing the actions of the society as "shameful". He accused pain specialists of refusing to accept that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support their practices.

----------

Now, I'd have to go on a search for trials to find out what he's talking about BUT even without doing that, the restriction on steroid injections where the cause is unknown makes perfect sense. While complications may be uncommon, they're not unheard of and some are pretty significant. I certainly wouldn't want my doc doing such an invasive procedure without knowing the cause of my pain. Pain is the body's way of telling you something is wrong. To simply mask the pain without knowing why it's there is stupid.

Sounds like another case of good medicine that is shamelessly being distorted and pimped to scare people about socialized medicine.

IMO, too often "chronic pain" is continually treated without trying to correct the underlying condition. If the condition is something like SCA, then you can't do anything for it other than provide narcs. However, if it's back pain, too often patients just want a pain pill and refuse physical therapy. Again, IMO, it just becomes an outlet for people who have inadvertantly become addicted to opiates to get their fix. They might not even have real pain. The pain they expericence is from opium withdrawal.

For this, I've never heard of any doctor injecting steroids into someone's back for pain management of an unknown etiology. That would bother me quite a bit.

I'm fading fast here, so I'm hoping this makes sense ...

No doc worth a damn is going to prescribe a treatment without first knowing what he's treating and that the treatment prescribed is appropriate for the condition. And certainly not one that is invasive and carries the risk of complications and side effects such as this.

Bottom line, it plainly states "when the cause is not known". That is completely reasonable and good practice.

bullshit,, they do it all the time the proper term is "empirical" honey

 

[WillowTree]

You are such a Troll....

Isn't the Telegraph a respected newspaper?

I've been attacked by cons for citing the Telegraph. Don't cons hate everything "foreign"?

I don't know. Do they DUmmie?

 

[geauxtohell]

Sounds like another case of good medicine that is shamelessly being distorted and pimped to scare people about socialized medicine.

IMO, too often "chronic pain" is continually treated without trying to correct the underlying condition. If the condition is something like SCA, then you can't do anything for it other than provide narcs. However, if it's back pain, too often patients just want a pain pill and refuse physical therapy. Again, IMO, it just becomes an outlet for people who have inadvertantly become addicted to opiates to get their fix. They might not even have real pain. The pain they expericence is from opium withdrawal.

For this, I've never heard of any doctor injecting steroids into someone's back for pain management of an unknown etiology. That would bother me quite a bit.

I'm fading fast here, so I'm hoping this makes sense ...

No doc worth a damn is going to prescribe a treatment without first knowing what he's treating and that the treatment prescribed is appropriate for the condition. And certainly not one that is invasive and carries the risk of complications and side effects such as this.

Bottom line, it plainly states "when the cause is not known". That is completely reasonable and good practice.

bullshit,, they do it all the time the proper term is "empirical" honey

How is injecting someone's back with steroids "empiric therapy"?

 

[Dr Grump]

You are such a Troll....

Isn't the Telegraph a respected newspaper?

Not my point. This "socialised medicine doesn't work" crap it getting old. you don't think I can't find example after example where the US health system has committed fuck up after fuck up? Thousands of lawyers spend their whole lives in court on such issues. Ask Kerry's running mate...

 

[WillowTree]

I'm fading fast here, so I'm hoping this makes sense ...

No doc worth a damn is going to prescribe a treatment without first knowing what he's treating and that the treatment prescribed is appropriate for the condition. And certainly not one that is invasive and carries the risk of complications and side effects such as this.

Bottom line, it plainly states "when the cause is not known". That is completely reasonable and good practice.

bullshit,, they do it all the time the proper term is "empirical" honey

How is injecting someone's back with steroids "empiric therapy"?

nothing else seems to work, so you give it a try.. see if it works and provides relief,, that "empirical" honey

 

[WillowTree]

You are such a Troll....

Isn't the Telegraph a respected newspaper?

Not my point. This "socialised medicine doesn't work" crap it getting old. you don't think I can't find example and example where the US health system has committed fuck up after fuck up? Thousands of lawyers spend their whole lives in court on such issues. Ask Kerry's running mate...

just look at Mass. is it working? or are the going the fuck broke???

 

[geauxtohell]

nothing else seems to work, so you give it a try.. see if it works and provides relief,, that "empirical" honey

LMAO.

Wrong, honey.

 

[WillowTree]

nothing else seems to work, so you give it a try.. see if it works and provides relief,, that "empirical" honey

LMAO.

Wrong, honey.

then tell us your version honey! oh yes, you let them suffer needlessly..got it.

 

[Emma]

Sounds like another case of good medicine that is shamelessly being distorted and pimped to scare people about socialized medicine.

IMO, too often "chronic pain" is continually treated without trying to correct the underlying condition. If the condition is something like SCA, then you can't do anything for it other than provide narcs. However, if it's back pain, too often patients just want a pain pill and refuse physical therapy. Again, IMO, it just becomes an outlet for people who have inadvertantly become addicted to opiates to get their fix. They might not even have real pain. The pain they expericence is from opium withdrawal.

For this, I've never heard of any doctor injecting steroids into someone's back for pain management of an unknown etiology. That would bother me quite a bit.

I'm fading fast here, so I'm hoping this makes sense ...

No doc worth a damn is going to prescribe a treatment without first knowing what he's treating and that the treatment prescribed is appropriate for the condition. And certainly not one that is invasive and carries the risk of complications and side effects such as this.

Bottom line, it plainly states "when the cause is not known". That is completely reasonable and good practice.

bullshit,, they do it all the time the proper term is "empirical" honey

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm fading fast here, so I'm hoping this makes sense ...

No doc worth a damn is going to prescribe a treatment without first knowing what he's treating and that the treatment prescribed is appropriate for the condition. And certainly not one that is invasive and carries the risk of complications and side effects such as this.

Bottom line, it plainly states "when the cause is not known". That is completely reasonable and good practice.

bullshit,, they do it all the time the proper term is "empirical" honey

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.

so tell us

 

[Emma]

bullshit,, they do it all the time the proper term is "empirical" honey

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.

so tell us

Quit while you're behind

 

[Dr Grump]

just look at Mass. is it working? or are the going the fuck broke???

Name a state where it's working....

 

[WillowTree]

just look at Mass. is it working? or are the going the fuck broke???

Name a state where it's working....

there isn't one that I know of.

 

[WillowTree]

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.

so tell us

Quit while you're behind

so now you have proved to everyone that you are indeed a dishonest fuck.. twice today you have said we/I was wrong but unable to say why! that's a dishonest fuck

 

[Emma]

so tell us

Quit while you're behind

so now you have proved to everyone that you are indeed a dishonest fuck.. twice today you have said we/I was wrong but unable to say why! that's a dishonest fuck

You make shit up out of thin air and then have the nerve to call someone else "dishonest".

 

[WillowTree]

Quit while you're behind

so now you have proved to everyone that you are indeed a dishonest fuck.. twice today you have said we/I was wrong but unable to say why! that's a dishonest fuck

You make shit up out of thin air and then have the nerve to call someone else "dishonest".

so tell me where I'm wrong,,

 

[geauxtohell]

so tell me where I'm wrong,,

I've never heard the term "empiric treatment" used outside the context of antibiotics. In the term of antibiotics, empiric treatment is when someone presents with symptoms, and you start them on a broad course that covers a lot of bugs before you have positively stained something and narrow the spectrum.

I yet to hear someone incorporate the term "empiric" in the treatment of back pain.

Perhaps I am wrong, now the onus is on you to show me that I am.

I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong on something.

 

[Diuretic]

You are such a Troll....

Isn't the Telegraph a respected newspaper?

No.

From the BBC TV comedy series "Yes Minister"

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.