roundtable: Re: I actually agree with Gingrich

roundtable: Re: I actually agree with Gingrich

Re: I actually agree with Gingrich

Daniel Downey (ddowney@u.washington.edu)
Sat, 4 Feb 1995 10:25:54 -0800 (PST) 

Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 10:25:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Downey <ddowney@u.washington.edu>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: I actually agree with Gingrich
In-Reply-To: <v01510101ab5788fe8b48@[204.29.16.10]>
Message-Id: <Pine.A32.3.91c.950204101314.36589A-100000@homer15.u.washington.edu>


Au contraire, Mike! I love to have my wired Boeing and university-type 
patients who come in clutching dumps of Medlines - The central part of 
the current paradigm in medicine is participation by the patient in 
decision making - what's hard for any person is parsing and weighing the 
significance "new" treatments - many of which are either case reports of 
preliminary information on treatment protocols. Much of the time there's 
not yet enough statistical power in the numbers of patients participating 
in the study do say if a new drug is really better. But I digress - 
Newt's assertion is right. But to sneak in a generalization ("I've 
heard...A disturbingly high number...") about your opinion of how well 
read doctors are about their body of literature is unfounded. All 
physicians must satisfy increasingly rigorous continuing medical 
education requirements on a regular basis. Most specialties like surgery 
require a recertification exam (which is harder than the original board 
exam, believe me!) which assays a doctor's knowledge of what's current 
in their specialty.


+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Dan Downey MD             |         Virginia Mason Clinic Plastic Surgery  |
| ddowney@u.washington.edu  | Plastic, Reconstructive, and Cosmetic Surgery  |
| pladld@vmmc.org           |              (206)223-6831  Fax:(206)223-6816  |
+ finger for PGP pubkey ----+------------------------------------------------+


On Sat, 4 Feb 1995, Mike W. Perry wrote:
> 
> >GINGRICH ON INTERNET AND HEALTH
> >U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says:  "There's no reason, in the age
> >of the Internet, that if you have a disease you can't access the
> >information personally, you can't learn about it personally -- I'm
> >going to tell you, I've had several friends die of pancreatic and liver
> >cancer. And several friends whose children were born with very unusual
> >problems. The sophisticated ones ... learn an immense amount on their
> >own... That will cause a revolution and will lower the cost of health
> >care." (New York Times 1/31/95 A8)  EDUPAGE 1/31/95
> 
> 
> Yes, I've heard of people who were getting nothing but grief from their
> MDs. They got on Compuserve and rambled through medical databases and 
> came up with better treatments/diagnosis. A disturbingly high percentage 
> of the profession doesn't keep up with the literature.
> 
> A few years ago someone followed around some world-class cancer 
> specialists asking questions about why they made certain decisions. He 
> then constructed a 'smart system' with a 200-question decision tree that 
> could make virtually the same decisions as the far-more expensive 
> specialists.
> 
> --Mike Perry
> 
>     Mike Perry, 11537 34th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 365-1624
>     <discover@halcyon.com>
> * * * *
> Man is but a reed, the weakest thing in nature. But he is a thinking reed.
> It is not necessary, in order to crush him, that the entire universe should
> take up arms: a mist, a drop of water, will suffice to kill him. But even
> if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his
> destroyer, because he would know himself to be dying, and he would know in
> what respect the universe is mightier than he; but of these things the
> universe knows nothing whatsoever.--BLAISE PASCAL, Pensees
> * * * *

[CNI Home Page]