Predictive Risk Assessment and Preventative Care.

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
lingualpsych
Offline
Joined: 13-12-17
Dec 13 2017 12:44
Predictive Risk Assessment and Preventative Care.

Has anyone traced the epidemiology around Australia? The Occupational Health and Safety as well as Risk Assessments of all kinds is very dangerous. For example, Transsexuals are at risk of suicide and so current theories support the physiological medical swap so as to prevent suicide. This is bad practice all in the name of risk assessment. Anyhow there needs to be a crackdown on this, it is harmful to people, tracing epidemiology shows us where the medical system is faulty for we have a disease based system, suicide being a mental health issue is categorized under disease most likely and if not very close to it.

What needs to happen is a complete mess up on their data based predictive strategies by instead of making people become accustomed to child friendly hospitals as children and life long patients and dependent on the GP's medicine treadmill, what needs to happen I think is people need to get sick and quickly cured as if they had a cold or something. Then the visits to the GP can have the GP's be taxed were people treating GP's as a friendly business with fast service and GP's lose out and specialized doctors would be having to depend on a privatized model for their reputation for what Government profession offers superior service to the private consultants? Only overpaid doctors proclaim such that we have the most superior health system and so forth showing off their specialized surgical skills like we show off our latest Army Jets whilst the rest of the health care system fails with multiple cover ups.

We need to put a stop to the over cautious safety models made to protect doctors, for example my childhood GP made the wrong assessment that I could have TB and sent me around to other doctors everywhere instead of getting a simple test done and another GP gave me drugs upon an illness without even doing an assessment and then gave me more drugs to prevent something from the first set of drugs happening. This latter doctor took no chances for himself being wrong and was wrong for my health however the safety precautions of the hospital kept him safe. The former doctor made the correct procedure in telling us what he thought though didn't know for sure, he took a risk that he might be wrong though did what was in my best safety though he failed as a doctor in sending me around to other doctor mates of me so as a off handed deal with them so as they'd return the favor and he'd get more clients in future, that's my presumption. Anyhow these doctors are dangerous, once doctors had individual say and that is the first doctors method I described, now doctors work as a team which is the second doctor, both have either too much authority so as to make medical errors like the former or are protected by safety models like the latter.

Thereby what needs to happen I think is now that staff must work as a team under safety precautions and the disease model reins supreme is that something needs to be done to cause doctors to fall into business of curing common cold ailments except not as in more unusual stuff thereby making GP's taxable for lack of lifelong ailments being their main criteria, for long term ailments is what the pharmaceutical industry is currently making a profit on..For the move to this safety based model isn't making us safer it is giving the Medical Industry and Pharmacy more power and Big Pharma is doing a merger with Monsanto, this is very dangerous.Therefore we need to trash these ObamaCare like ideologies and privatize health for those who can afford private health care and tax what overpaid healthcare professionals we can, that would be my ideal.

All in all we need to trash I think this Health, Safety and Predictive Risk Assessment and Preventative Care models.

sherbu-kteer
Offline
Joined: 19-08-17
Jan 28 2018 04:45

I'm struggling to understand your post. If doctors knew how to cure things instantly they would be doing so already. I don't know why you're targeting Risk Assessments and Preventative Care models, you don't clearly explain why.

Quote:
What needs to happen is a complete mess up on their data based predictive strategies by instead of making people become accustomed to child friendly hospitals as children and life long patients and dependent on the GP's medicine treadmill, what needs to happen I think is people need to get sick and quickly cured as if they had a cold or something. Then the visits to the GP can have the GP's be taxed were people treating GP's as a friendly business with fast service and GP's lose out and specialized doctors would be having to depend on a privatized model for their reputation for what Government profession offers superior service to the private consultants?

I would appreciate if you rewrote this paragraph so people could actually respond to you. Right now it makes zero sense

Chancy Gardener's picture
Chancy Gardener
Offline
Joined: 28-07-16
Feb 16 2018 08:49

At the beginning of February, The Guardian published this story about the intention of creating a child with 3 parents: “Doctors in Newcastle have been granted permission to create Britain’s first “three-person babies” for two women who are at risk of passing on devastating and incurable genetic diseases to their children…”.
"THE DOUBLE-HELIXIR OF LIFE" is

Quote:
"a critique focused on the whole notion of predictive medicine – ie the accelerating growth of scientific ideology that claims to be able to predict potential “devastating and incurable genetic diseases” and its social function. Whilst genetic medicine is, to a certain extent, capable of predicting monogenetic diseases with a greater or lesser certainty of their transmission through generations, this is used by the propagandists of genetic medicine, which is concerned with all diseases, including those with only a small or even non-existent hereditary component, to parade their ideological science as a potential cure-all...Saying what we are has never been an easy task, but the so-called sciences of life have now been able to specialize their language and methods to the point where one has to be a graduate to be officially entitled to try saying what we are. The different aspects of our bodies, our minds and the bridges we build between them, are increasingly concentrated in the hands of laboratory technicians – the only graduates to master them, or to claim they can. With the birth of molecular genetics, as well as neuroscience a few decades later, this dispossession has only accelerated. First by becoming more and more monstrous in their details, then by penetrating hidden recesses of ourselves that previously seemed unreachable. Today, everyone is supposed to know that love, intelligence, attention, aggressiveness and a good many other of the innermost depths of human beings are just entities that correspond to this or that part of the brain, this or that flow of molecules, this or that gene. And the scientists themselves know that the “corresponding connections” in question correspond in fact only to the need to organize the stew of vocabulary of the computer technicians, biologists and behaviorists who write the lexicon of the sciences of life. The crude popularization that aims to make science digestible for general consumption can be amusing, and the ridiculous naivety of its content is almost touching. Because the drive, so assiduously studied and exploited by journalists, to simplify what is fundamentally complex, is shared by almost all people. Among the few things that today’s proles still share is the feeling that the earth is no longer under our feet. Even the largest of illusions last no more than one season. The slightest idea that we manage to create no longer holds true as soon as it is drenched in the cold light of day. As uncertainty grows, the comfort of easy certainties becomes a valuable commodity. The most accessible are the answers of those who busy themselves with asking questions. We ask questions that we have been taught to ask and we get the answers we deserve. Scientific communication is good for this purpose and one feels almost consoled to know that if one is clumsy, it is because we lack a little dopamine to oil the synapses where the brain deals with such sensorimotor functions. It’s always good to know that someone is taking care of us…"