IT is the Opposite of Doctors
-
@JaredBusch said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
Also, "trained to let you die"... one could argue that they are humane.
The hardest question I've been asked is "if she survives, she will likely be a vegetable. She will never breathe or eat on her own. Do you think she would want that quality of life? If the answer is no, you should allow us to let her die." All I could say was, "I'll never say not to save my mom."
There are too many variables in the analogy to not only make a comparison, but speak to blame vs. survival. I likely won't continue commenting on this, but you're entitled to your opinion.
But what are you "saving"?
When you're 28 and on the verge of losing the last of your parents, you're saving the last little bit of a grandparent that your unborn kids haven't met yet.
But, we chose not to save that last little bit as it's not what she would have wanted. So my unborn kids just won't get to know what it's like to have grandparents.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
Not everyone cares who is blamed. Some only care about the chance of survival, nothing more. Last month, we were told our mom had a 5% chance to survive the night after we were told she had an infection following surgery. It was sepsis.
If she survived the night, of that 5% percent chance of survival, she had a 5% chance to ever have a functioning life style. To the doctor, a functioning life style would be the ability to sit up in a bed and knowing who we all were.
Our single mother of six didn't survive, and I don't care if the doctor couldn't save her. All we wanted, and were focused on, was for her to survive.
So, though you're entitled to your opinion, some of us only care about survival, and do not give a fuck about who is to blame.
But how does that relate to the situation? Did the doctor override a situation and take a huge risk that could easily have landed them in a malpractice suit in order to get that chance to survive? If not, I'm confused why this is brought up?
And unless YOU are the doctor, that you don't care who is to blame isn't relevant, it's who the doctors, their bosses and the lawyers want to blame. You as a person receiving care are not part of the equation.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
Also, "trained to let you die"... one could argue that they are humane.
The hardest question I've been asked is "if she survives, she will likely be a vegetable. She will never breathe or eat on her own. Do you think she would want that quality of life? If the answer is no, you should allow us to let her die." All I could say was, "I'll never say not to save my mom."
There are too many variables in the analogy to not only make a comparison, but speak to blame vs. survival. I likely won't continue commenting on this, but you're entitled to your opinion.
I think you've misunderstood because this doesn't apply. Unless you are stating that the US doesn't have malpractice suits and use them and that doctors aren't trained (and required) to avoid them... I'm not sure what you are saying about the situation.
I feel like you are thinking that you are the doctor in these examples. I'm unclear how your own decision about risk relates to the comparison.
-
The point was, in IT we take risks to lose many patients to save the most patients (money.)
Doctors have to take the best chance to save an individual patient while not being at fault for killing them.
Your statements are toned as if they disagree, but the things you state as examples either support my example or are tangential and I can't find anything that correlates them to the discussion.
-
@scottalanmiller said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
The point was, in IT we take risks to lose many patients to save the most patients (money.)
Doctors have to take the best chance to save an individual patient while not being at fault for killing them.
Your statements are toned as if they disagree, but the things you state as examples either support my example or are tangential and I can't find anything that correlates them to the discussion.
If they appear as supporting statements, then take them that way. To me they don't seem like supporting statements, but to each their own.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
@scottalanmiller said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
The point was, in IT we take risks to lose many patients to save the most patients (money.)
Doctors have to take the best chance to save an individual patient while not being at fault for killing them.
Your statements are toned as if they disagree, but the things you state as examples either support my example or are tangential and I can't find anything that correlates them to the discussion.
If they appear as supporting statements, then take them that way. To me they don't seem like supporting statements, but to each their own.
Because you are not replying in context. You are injecting a personal experience that is not relevant to the discussion.
You experience and response is a perfectly valid discussion, as I feel I replied to it appropriately.
But it is not relevant to the point of Scott's thread.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
@scottalanmiller said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
The point was, in IT we take risks to lose many patients to save the most patients (money.)
Doctors have to take the best chance to save an individual patient while not being at fault for killing them.
Your statements are toned as if they disagree, but the things you state as examples either support my example or are tangential and I can't find anything that correlates them to the discussion.
If they appear as supporting statements, then take them that way. To me they don't seem like supporting statements, but to each their own.
I'm not even clear what they were referring to. Was it something that I had said? If so, what?
-
@scottalanmiller said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
@scottalanmiller said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
The point was, in IT we take risks to lose many patients to save the most patients (money.)
Doctors have to take the best chance to save an individual patient while not being at fault for killing them.
Your statements are toned as if they disagree, but the things you state as examples either support my example or are tangential and I can't find anything that correlates them to the discussion.
If they appear as supporting statements, then take them that way. To me they don't seem like supporting statements, but to each their own.
I'm not even clear what they were referring to. Was it something that I had said? If so, what?
It was the part where you said "we don't care about the overall chance of survival". I took the "we" as the patient's family. The reason I said I don't agree with that is because the chance of survival is all you have when the person is dying. During that time, you're just saying "please, save them", because you can't yourself save them. Afterward, all you have is blame because you're going through the 5 steps of grieving. Blame is stemmed from denial and anger, obviously 2 hard steps to get through during the grieving process.
So the lack of care for chance of survival vs. blame are at two different points. One is during the process of dying, the other is after death.
Just my opinion though.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
It was the part where you said "we don't care about the overall chance of survival". I took the "we" as the patient's family.
No, the "we" in that case is the doctors, lawyers, accreditation boards, medical professionals or the medical industry. And it's absolutely true, no question. The medical profession cares about "how" someone dies, not overall chances of survival. They are required, for all intents and purposes by law and by creed "do no harm", to try to save people WITHOUT killing them.
What "we" as patients or patients families, which were never part of the discussion here, want is not relevant as we are not customers of doctors. We aren't a factor.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
The reason I said I don't agree with that is because the chance of survival is all you have when the person is dying.
Sadly, this is not true. People say that, but then they sue doctors who accidentally kill patients while trying to save them. It is what it is, but malpractice suits are real and as long as they are a threat to doctors who want to do the right thing, we don't only have that one thing. You can blame "other" patients' families for this if you like, but unfortunately it has fed into a system where doctors don't get the freedom to go after overall survival rates.
Bottom line, there is no question, doctors have to "avoid killing patients" above all else.
-
@BBigford said in IT is the Opposite of Doctors:
So the lack of care for chance of survival vs. blame are at two different points. One is during the process of dying, the other is after death.
Just my opinion though.
I see what you are saying, but as professionals, this isn't related. Doctors have requirements that they must follow and what patients want isn't related to that and totally not part of this discussion.
This discussion is how IT (like most engineering) is tasked with "greatest average career success" and doctors are tasked with "absolute failure avoidance."
They are fundamental to both jobs, intrinsic to how they are treated and approached.
