3 ms·

The modern method seems a bit irresponsible to me. It puts the burden on the patient to prove his claim leaving the doctor only well prepared for the most stan

by Fuxy 12y ago

The modern method seems a bit irresponsible to me. It puts the burden on the patient to prove his claim leaving the doctor only well prepared for the most standard of cases. I just makes me wonder how many people died of real heart attacks because the doctor felt the need to 'leave them with their thoughts' in a time where every second could make the difference between life and death. I don't doubt there are people that confuse heart attacks with panic attacks and people who are perfectly fine but feign illness in a desperate attempt to seek attention. There are all kinds of people however that still doesn't justify ignoring people. You should be doing anything and everything possible to determine if he is really having a heart attack as he claims and once you determine there is no danger with 99.9% certainty and all the tools at your disposal you can ignore him. This psychoanalysis and profiling bullshit is the last thing you should have to deal with when you honestly believe your life is in danger.

DanBC 12y ago
It's really easy to tell the differnece between someone having a heart attack and someone having a panic attack. > There are all kinds of people however that still doesn't justify ignoring people. You are not ignoring them. You are avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful diagnostics and treatments, and providing effective appropriate treatment. You are improving the quality of care.
angersock 12y ago
It's not ignoring them, it's providing a more useful and very cheap diagnostic test to handle the likely case where the patient is suffering from something which can respond better to time and patience than poking and prodding. If the patient was old, morbidly obese, had a history of heart attacks, was scratching at an tingly left arm, or something like this, I'm sure the doc would go ahead with the other tests. If the patient is young (as stated in the hypothetical) and otherwise in good shape, giving them a second to baseline is completely reasonable and better for them.

by Fuxy 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

It's really easy to tell the differnece between someone having a heart attack and someone having a panic attack. > There are all kinds of people however that still doesn't justify ignoring people. You are not ignoring them. You are avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful diagnostics and treatments, and providing effective appropriate treatment. You are improving the quality of care.

angersock 12y ago

It's not ignoring them, it's providing a more useful and very cheap diagnostic test to handle the likely case where the patient is suffering from something which can respond better to time and patience than poking and prodding. If the patient was old, morbidly obese, had a history of heart attacks, was scratching at an tingly left arm, or something like this, I'm sure the doc would go ahead with the other tests. If the patient is young (as stated in the hypothetical) and otherwise in good shape, giving them a second to baseline is completely reasonable and better for them.