Wow. We have a similar story at the DMV. After moving to WA, Renee' and I went
to get our temporary plates. There was a couple there, the female of which was
pacing around ranting about how long she'd been there and was being stonewalled
by the clerks. She kept jumping up to the counter before the person with the
just-called number could get there, demanding they finish whatever process
they'd started. We waited about 3 hours before we were served. My guess is had
she not been interfering so much, we would have waited more like 2 hours. Her
partner just sat there with his face in his hands most of the time.
To be clear, I also suffered from the bureaucracy. I got a ticket, during those
3 hours, for having an expired Oregon plate, while my truck was parked IN THE
DMV parking lot. [sigh] But I just mailed the payment like a normal cuckold
peasant, rather than storming around compounding everyone's misery.
On 12/27/21 10:55, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Here's a story that didn't involve an emergency that triggers my rage.
I'm sitting at a urology clinic waiting for someone. Everyone is sitting
quietly. Some are elderly and look unwell. The people with them, some also
older spouses, are doing their best to get them through what may involve a
whole sequence of treatments. They whisper. One could imagine some of the
situations could be humiliating.
Now a guy a little older than me comes in. By comparison to the others, he is
relatively healthy and young. I count my blessings I am not him. I guess he
is a basket case for reasons I can't explain. He starts talking and proves it.
Turns out this guy -- thoughtful enough to talk loud enough to be heard 100
feet away -- was frustrated by his inability to empty his bladder. He went to
an urgent care where they installed a catheter. (I wonder who goes to an
urgent care for such a procedure?) Now a day has passed. He decides he hates
the thing. He arrives at this specialized urology clinic -- one that schedules
appointments months in advance -- without an appointment.
He proceeds to be abusive to the desk staff and nurses and wants to talk to a doctor.
He carries on for 15 minutes at least and works through different people to try to get
the answer he wants. He will only use the name of a person (by now four of them) when
it is someone that doesn't push back on his demands. They get names like "Miss
Whatever." Eventually they consent to check the catheter, etc. to ensure it is
properly installed but otherwise he must follow the guidance of his original urgent care
doctor and wait for the scheduled removal. The rest of the patients, including the
person I am with, just had their appointments delayed.
It was very hard not to volunteer to help him with that catheter.
Marcus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen
<geprope...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, December 27, 2021 11:23 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] bad covid story
What process do we use to vet the "ministers"?
Do we need policies and procedures for things like "aura massage"?
Do you remove the ventilator to give them the pill?
How much does "whatever that method may be" cost? And who will pay for it?
How much should doctors' and nurses' and finance staff *practice* their proper
scripts for what they can and can't say to patients? 10 hours per week? Just in
med school?
How many edge cases should doctors have to *calculate* through to handle wackos
like anti-maskers? What about, say, Christian Scientists? How complex do the
logic diagrams need to be?
How do we set the standard for *when* to tell family members the patient died?
Who sets that standard? What committee?
Should the doctor wear body armor or have a body guard present when informing
the family of a death? How much do we pay for such things? Does the body armor
have to be sterilized? Are the body guards unionized? Who pays for their
liability insurance? Should they carry guns?
Pffft. As I said, you're being ridiculously idealistic. It's fine to engage in
wishful thinking and dream of unicorns. But don't use that as an excuse for
idiots who cause more problems than they solve. Moreover, don't use your
magical thinking to apply a guilt trip to an already stressed workforce.
On 12/27/21 10:11, Eric Charles wrote:
Letting people try long shot, even mystical attempts, to save a person we are
virtually certain is going to die is less cruel. (If we can let ministers pray
with patients, we can give them a Vitamin D pill.)
Finding a way to let people see their dying family member, whatever that method
may need to be, is less cruel. (The idea that the doctors have to calculate the
risk of being accused of murder if they arrange it is a negative aspect of the
situation, not a positive one.)
When you are virtually certain a patient is going to die, not saying "I won't won't
let you die" is less cruel. (It is cruel to the patient, it is cruel to the family,
and, frankly, the idea that anyone should have to say such lies is cruel to the person
saying the lie.)
Not going out of your way to convince a family to come to the hospital if you
know you won't let them in, is less cruel.
Not seeking them out while they are still in fight-mode, to tell them in person
that the patient died, is less cruel.
Being prepared for extremely negative reactions in situations where extremely
negative reactions are likely to occur, is less cruel.
Not blaming them for your leaving the profession, after a series of unforced
errors on your part, is less cruel.
Do you remember the UK case with Alphie Evans? When the doctors decided the kid should have
to stay and die in a UK hospital, rather than be transferred to a hospital where doctors
wanted to try a long-shot treatment? Alfie Evans not allowed to leave country, UK court
says | CNN <https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html>> That was
about as dystopian and cruel as health care rules can possibly get, and it followed all the
laws and statutes and policies that existed for rational reasons. As a fan of dystopian
stories, I can assure you that it is common for them to feature bureaucracies following
rationally constructed laws and statutes.
I do agree with Marcus that it would have been much better if the family had
proactively identified someone who would more closely follow the treatment path
they wanted. I don't know what the initial path to hospitalization was.
<mailto:echar...@american.edu <mailto:echar...@american.edu>>
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:28 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
This is unadulterated bullshit. Sure, perhaps in some ideal world, where all people
are rational and all systems are frictionless, "the process could have been much
less cruel". It's bullshit in Frankfurt's sense because it's not quite a lie and
it's not quite the truth. And given your (EricC) ability to think clearly and pay
attention to detail, we can only assume you *know* it's bullshit.
If it could have been much less cruel, then please suggest the concrete
modifications to the current byzantine set of laws, P&Ps, cultural norms,
agency recommendations, political forces, etc. that would get us from here to
there. (Not the impractical nonsense in your bullets like patients' family members
prescribing meds that nurses will administer. Really? Sheesh.) If you cannot get
us, practically, from where we are now to that less cruel place, then you're just
blowing idealist smoke.
On 12/27/21 09:18, Eric Charles wrote:
> Even if, by the time the story starts, he was going to die no matter
what happened, the process by which that happened could have been much less cruel.
--
glen
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.
--
glen
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
