3 ms·
Exactly. And what's funny is that people seem to think that physicians make accurate judgements all the time and don't make mistakes. And that there are not a
by gist 8y ago
Exactly. And what's funny is that people seem to think that physicians make accurate judgements all the time and don't make mistakes. And that there are not a host of gray areas which are taken into consideration.
Maybe a similar example is with a dog bite. If you say 'no it was my dog and they are not rabid' then doctor says 'ok no rabies shot needed'. If you say 'it's a wild dog (or friends dog)' and you don't know if it's rabid doctor thinks 'rabies shot needed'. Even if the actual chance of rabies (in your friends dog) is quite small (if the friend doesn't know if the dog has shots I mean).
More info is not only not always helpful but comes with risks as well. If not we would monitor things more frequently than we do and the simple scale would lower the cost.
- manicdee 8y agoWould you say that, on the whole, physicians will make judgements that are approximately as accurate given new data about paroxysmal a-fib as they did before having this new data? Are they already condemning people to unnecessary treatment on the off-chance that treatment is helpful? Is there scope here for the AMA to refine procedures to suggest holding off on medication when a condition is only discovered by a persistent monitoring system such as Apple Watch? Even if the over-medication issue increases, are the live saved via early detection of equal value to the lives damaged by unnecessary medication? If there are more lives saved than damaged, is there a net benefit to society, or are we only interested in the lives lost through action and not at all concerned about the lives lost through inaction?