Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
We got...hahaha...the...hahaha...FB....hahaha....A..h ahaha....report....hahaha
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 385359" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>I would be wondering if she actually gave a similar verbal report to the principal, who told her she had better modify it to what the principal would accept.</p><p></p><p>I had a specialist once that I was referred to for an opinion on a lump I had in a delicate place. This doctor decided that what I had was sexually transmitted and required surgery. He told me he had a new and expensive surgical tool and I would be the first patient it would be used on. The entire surgery was based on the pathology report, which I was told confirmed the specialist's preliminary finding (which upset me - how could I have anything sexually transmitted?).</p><p></p><p>So after going on a search of how I could have got something sexually transmitted, after deciding to get other opinions as to diagnosis (because I didn't like the sound of what this specialist was planning for me with his shiny new gadget) I finally was told that there was no such sexually transmitted infection. So I said, "What about that pathology report confirming it?"</p><p>The new doctor (Sydney Sexual Health Clinic - I sat there with junkies and hookers) said, "ring the pathologist."</p><p></p><p>I rang the pathologist. He said, "I never said you had the sexually transmitted condition. Your specialist said he definitely saw it in gross findings. The biopsy sample did not show it though. That's why I said, 'findings not inconsistent with...' the sexually transmitted disease the doctor said you had. And I only wrote that because he wasn't happy that my first report said I couldn't find anything."</p><p>" said, "Hang on - FIRST report? Second report?"</p><p></p><p>What had happened, was my specialist had wanted so badly to 'play' with his new toy, that he had bullied the pathologist into giving him another report he could twist to get his own way, and then not told me of the ambiguity in diagnosis. I could have sued. I probably should have. </p><p></p><p>So these days when a verbal report seems very different to a written one, I don't trust it.</p><p></p><p>And any report commissioned by Organisation A that seems to support the aims, ideals and actions of Organisation A, I also never trust. That's why medical research has to be independently verified and then scrutinised to pass muster for publication in peer-reviewed journals, before anyone trusts it.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 385359, member: 1991"] I would be wondering if she actually gave a similar verbal report to the principal, who told her she had better modify it to what the principal would accept. I had a specialist once that I was referred to for an opinion on a lump I had in a delicate place. This doctor decided that what I had was sexually transmitted and required surgery. He told me he had a new and expensive surgical tool and I would be the first patient it would be used on. The entire surgery was based on the pathology report, which I was told confirmed the specialist's preliminary finding (which upset me - how could I have anything sexually transmitted?). So after going on a search of how I could have got something sexually transmitted, after deciding to get other opinions as to diagnosis (because I didn't like the sound of what this specialist was planning for me with his shiny new gadget) I finally was told that there was no such sexually transmitted infection. So I said, "What about that pathology report confirming it?" The new doctor (Sydney Sexual Health Clinic - I sat there with junkies and hookers) said, "ring the pathologist." I rang the pathologist. He said, "I never said you had the sexually transmitted condition. Your specialist said he definitely saw it in gross findings. The biopsy sample did not show it though. That's why I said, 'findings not inconsistent with...' the sexually transmitted disease the doctor said you had. And I only wrote that because he wasn't happy that my first report said I couldn't find anything." " said, "Hang on - FIRST report? Second report?" What had happened, was my specialist had wanted so badly to 'play' with his new toy, that he had bullied the pathologist into giving him another report he could twist to get his own way, and then not told me of the ambiguity in diagnosis. I could have sued. I probably should have. So these days when a verbal report seems very different to a written one, I don't trust it. And any report commissioned by Organisation A that seems to support the aims, ideals and actions of Organisation A, I also never trust. That's why medical research has to be independently verified and then scrutinised to pass muster for publication in peer-reviewed journals, before anyone trusts it. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
We got...hahaha...the...hahaha...FB....hahaha....A..h ahaha....report....hahaha
Top