|
the coverage of health issues on television, particularly the cable news channels infuriates me.
First of all (actually I typed "Frist of all", which was an unintended double-entendre), since no one on TV has examined the patient or the corpse or the remains, statements concerning the condition of same are entirely specious and without merit. For example: when Sen. Johnson took ill, there was a nearly universal presumptive diagnosis of stroke. Fellows such as Dr. Gupta on CNN were careful to say that they hadn't blah blah blah BUT IF IT WERE A STROKE THEN blah blah blah. Before long, stroke links were up and running on CNN and MSNBC, followed by the rhetorical equivalent of funereal dirges for which the Soviets were famous. Did anyone postulate: low blood sugar, exhaustion, or...A-V malformation? If they did, it wasn't prominent. Now even if it were a stroke or cerebro-vascular accident, no one, and I mean NO ONE knows anything at all whatsoever without patient contact and diagnosis via the objective tests given to these victims. You just don't know. Period. No amount of hypothesizing will give you a correct answer - even if you were proven right, it would be classified as a 'lucky guess' and when I was in school, that wasn't good enough for the attending.
Second, what makes anyone think that they're being told the truth about the results of any tests or evaluations? If you are of the mind that "they" wouldn't lie about that, think Wareen Commission Autopsy results, or consider the terrific job "they" did more recently letting you know of the complete safety of the WTC site. They never lie about 'health matters'. :sarcasm: The fact that a man of the VP's health was put on a partially depressurized airplane for 25000 miles of travel during a time of extreme stress is...well, it's just brilliant medically. Does anyone else here recall when Nixon travelled with phlebitis? They said he must have been suicidal to do so. Here they say that he just developed symptoms. Sure about that?
Third, what the networks should do when health issues are paramount is to pre-empt fools like Wolfie and Tucker and their ilk, and get a real physician with significant academic and clinical credentials to manage the verbiage - have the docs discuss the news and put it in perspective as though the audience were the family of the patient. docs I know have no problem saying, "I have no idea - we'll have to wait." If a family member insists upon ridiculous protocols, the doc just walks away. Anyone who has ever dealt with competent health care professionals knows that there is no percentage for them in hypothesis when no objective facts are known. It's just counter-intuitive.
In sum, my problem with the coverage is that you have the blind, deaf, and dumb, leading the masses and in this case, as with any other academic endeavor, you can't fake or feign competence. These media types have no knowledge of anything substantive - we know that from observation - so what would qualify them to lead a discussion about pathology, circulation, cancer, Warfarin therapy, cardiovascular disease, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis...or in my case, even tooth decay? Answer is: they can't.
|