Comments on: Healthcare Update 10-26-2009

By: elmo

elmo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:44:11 +0000

Do you even know what a strawman is Max?
We do not practice medicine based on case reports. Guidelines are not written based on case-reports? If you had given prospective lessor so, retrospective studies (like fryerdoc) showing an inherent increase in injuries by tasers or systemic lack of training by officers leading to increased injuries….different story. But you didn’t. Is any of this making sense max?

By: Fyrdoc

Fyrdoc — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:53:44 +0000

As a physician tasked to a SWAT team, I respectfully disagree for the reasons outlined above. That said, I’m certain we would disagree regarding the role of law enforcement in general.

By: Dr. Sourbutt

Dr. Sourbutt — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:25:48 +0000

As I outlined before in EPM Letters (“The Dr. Ho Doeth Protest”) TASERS have no role in law enforcement for use against the citizens of a democratic society…

By: Fyrdoc

Fyrdoc — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:45:36 +0000

No QED – there has been no proof of your premise. The argument started with your asinine comment “It seems you don’t know much about taser usage. Cops routinely use them in lieu of even approaching suspects, even little old ladies and people hogtied on the ground.” A patently untrue statement. Cops do not “routinely” misuse them, all police officers equipped with them are trained in their use and do recognize them as weapons. After I thoroughly schooled you on the realities you now claim “My point is: TASERs aren’t “safe.” They’re “less dangerous” than many other methods.” – no sir. That is my point. Your point was not defensible so you abandoned it. Nice try counselor, but if you do this for a living I really hope you are better at it in person…

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:13:46 +0000

elmo -

Eric’s blog is great.

You’re attacking a straw man as well. My point is: TASERs aren’t “safe.” They’re “less dangerous” than many other methods.

But they’re still dangerous weapons; that point can be proven by a single case report.

QED.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:10:51 +0000

You forget, I argue for a living; it doesn’t piss me off, it invigorates me.

I think we agree more than we disagree.

PS – re: Satan, at the moment I represent more doctors (1) than I’m suing (0).

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:07:53 +0000

I don’t see a reason to “limit” them. My default position is to believe in the free market; of course, health insurance is anything but a free market given antitrust exemptions, regulatory capture, etc.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:39:18 +0000

Let’s pick a number, just like you want us to do for the injured victims of malpractice, and cap everyone, including physicians, at that amount. I mean, if we’re being fair and all.

Or, since physicians are always wanting other countries’ malpractice systems, let’s adopt their whole healthcare systems, including what they pay their docs.

Why do you guys only want to do these things piecemeal? Surely not your own financial self interest?

By: Doc99

Doc99 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:23:11 +0000

Congressional Pay Raises Topped Health Insurers' Profits. I'm not holding my breath for the media outrage.

By: Fyrdoc

Fyrdoc — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:35:13 +0000

I agree the device can be misused. But, on the whole, it is a net positive. Even the “don’t taze me, bro” incident isn’t that clear cut. The reality is officers are trained to use the device when a situation has escalated to a point where the officer would (without the device) use physical force against a subject. Use of physical force often ends in significant injury to subjects (and officers). The famous “don’t taze me bro” incident, had TASERS not been there, would have resulted in the officers physically removing the individual from the auditorium. As it sits, he was not injured. Could we say the same if a physical fight ensued to remove him? Remember, when these devices were first deployed they were only used when lethal force was called for. Now they are deployed instead of physical force (a much lower threshold) because even at that lower level, they help prevent serious injury.