Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My dad could still be alive, but he's not

jenn.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 328 posts

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#41

Post by Marsymars »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #25
moralestapia wrote: post #10

>family members were too naive to know that the thing they were instructed to do by the state was a false thing Would be interesting to see everyone who jumped in here yesterday [1] to comment on this one as well. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45889297

What terrifies me personally is that people with 2-digit IQs are apparently being employed in virology labs. That's the kind of realization that could undermine anyone's confidence in government.

I don't know that there really exist any jobs where someone with a 99-IQ who's hard-working and dedicated to getting through the hiring process would never get hired.

And really, if your critical virology lab procedures depend on having a double-digit IQ as a floor... you're probably hooped anyway the next time your 120-IQ employee is having a bad day where they slept poorly and are distracted by family problems.

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#42

Post by _drimzy »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #23
ugh123 wrote: post #5

>my dad is dead, because his family members were too naive to know that the thing they were instructed to do by the state was a false thing. We're told a lot of things by "officials" not because it's correct, but because it holds the least legal liability for official parties involved, especially anything involving healthcare. These officials also sometimes include doctors, who work to protect themselves and the syst…

This is very conspiratorial thinking. Do you really think that in a high stress situation you’re going to make the best decisions? Do you really think health workers are all concerned about legalities first? Not moving a patient unless you explicitly know how is probably right the vast majority of the time. Sometimes that’s wrong, but how are you going to get the entire public to understand what the right situation i…

> Do you really think that in a high stress situation you’re going to make the best decisions?

I mean that statement could be used to excuse any mistake in any project/system ever made, and is mostly a cop out. Yes, the system is definitely designed to minimize legal risk for the health-workers/hospitals. A system is only as good as what it's' design objectives are, and if "save a life at all cost" was the objective the system might as well look entirely different.

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#43

Post by [deleted] »

nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote: post #30
energy123 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incompetence and laziness among doctors is a big cause. As a professional you've probably worked with many colleagues you thought were bad. Well there are doctors like that too. Many of them. And unlike in tech, they don't get let go if they're bad. They stay around and keep "treating" patients.

I was thinking this the other day about GP. If I work in tech I work in a team and we pair. Why doesnt this happen with doctors. Why is everything all on one mind to get wrong or right. Yes there is a team of doctors sometimes but they communicate via emails async and you visit one then the next and so on. I guess I know the answer. Money.

[deleted]

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#44

Post by zahlman »

ugh123 wrote: post #5

>my dad is dead, because his family members were too naive to know that the thing they were instructed to do by the state was a false thing. We're told a lot of things by "officials" not because it's correct, but because it holds the least legal liability for official parties involved, especially anything involving healthcare. These officials also sometimes include doctors, who work to protect themselves and the syst…

Okay, but we're also specifically told to wait for ambulances because they can administer certain forms of care within the vehicle, right?

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#45

Post by wk_end »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #23
ugh123 wrote: post #5

>my dad is dead, because his family members were too naive to know that the thing they were instructed to do by the state was a false thing. We're told a lot of things by "officials" not because it's correct, but because it holds the least legal liability for official parties involved, especially anything involving healthcare. These officials also sometimes include doctors, who work to protect themselves and the syst…

This is very conspiratorial thinking. Do you really think that in a high stress situation you’re going to make the best decisions? Do you really think health workers are all concerned about legalities first? Not moving a patient unless you explicitly know how is probably right the vast majority of the time. Sometimes that’s wrong, but how are you going to get the entire public to understand what the right situation i…

It's not that health workers are always thinking about legality; it's that they're following policies either written by people thinking about legality or re-written by people in response to legality, i.e. they got sued and changed the policy in light of that.

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#46

Post by riffraff »

michaelhoney wrote: post #38

I'm sorry this happened to you/Jenn. I lost my brother to a heart attack aged 50, but he died immediately. In the end it was very quick, but he had warning signs for years. Look after yourselves, people.

Let me add one thing: high blood pressure is both very bad and sometimes has no clear tell signs, and cake people doing sedentary work like IT folks it's very common. Get tested regularly.

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#47

Post by zahlman »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #3

Something similar happened to a friend of mine. In San Francisco. I just sort of assumed it was just bad luck. Bad things happen occasionally even in good systems. But maybe that assumption is wrong? Is this a thing? Are ambulances just unreliable?

FWIW, I also live in Toronto and been in an ambulance a fair few times (generally for false alarms that were still worth checking out); I can't recall it ever taking that long for an ambulance to arrive, even reporting less severe symptoms.

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#48

Post by pugio »

I can speak to this. I recently joined a community first responder association (I've always wanted to know what to do in case of a medical emergency) and was shocked to hear the members' horror stories of how long it can take an ambulance to arrive. Like the author, I grew up with the narrative "in trouble, call the ambulance, they'll scream through the streets to get to you in moments".

That might still be true where I grew up, in the US, but that's certainly not a guarantee in Melbourne, where I now live. On joining the local volunteer organization, I went from thinking "oh this will be a useful bonus for the community" to "wow, we can literally be essential". Since our org is composed of people living within the community, average response time to ANY call is We can't do everything an ambulance paramedic can, but we can give aspirin, GTN, oxygen, CPR, and defibrillation. We can also usually navigate/bypass the usual triage system to get the ambulance priority upgraded to Code 1 (highest priority, lights + sirens, etc.) If for some reason the ambulance is far away (it backs up all the time), we can go in the patient's car with them to the hospital, with our gear, in case of further issues in transit.

I tell everyone now to always call us first (since our dispatcher will also call the ambulance) but while I feel more confident in how I'd handle an emergency, I feel less safe overall, with the system's faults and failings more exposed, and the illusion of security stripped away.

My condolences to the author.

In terms of updating - consider whether The System is really working. If not, what can you do yourself (or within your larger network) to better prepare...

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#49

Post by somenameforme »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #23
ugh123 wrote: post #5

>my dad is dead, because his family members were too naive to know that the thing they were instructed to do by the state was a false thing. We're told a lot of things by "officials" not because it's correct, but because it holds the least legal liability for official parties involved, especially anything involving healthcare. These officials also sometimes include doctors, who work to protect themselves and the syst…

This is very conspiratorial thinking. Do you really think that in a high stress situation you’re going to make the best decisions? Do you really think health workers are all concerned about legalities first? Not moving a patient unless you explicitly know how is probably right the vast majority of the time. Sometimes that’s wrong, but how are you going to get the entire public to understand what the right situation i…

> Do you really think health workers are all concerned about legalities first?

100%. Legal issues are a huge deal in healthcare. This is a snippet from a study [1] on the topic, just to get an idea of the scale (which I think most do not realize at all):

---

Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants). The proportion of physicians facing a claim each year ranged from 19.1% in neurosurgery, 18.9% in thoracic–cardiovascular surgery, and 15.3% in general surgery to 5.2% in family medicine, 3.1% in pediatrics, and 2.6% in psychiatry. The mean indemnity payment was $274,887, and the median was $111,749. Mean payments ranged from $117,832 for dermatology to $520,923 for pediatrics. It was estimated that by the age of 65 years, 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim, as compared with 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties.

---

I can give a very specific example of how legal issues play directly into behavior, and how it leads to antibiotic over-prescription. Antibiotics are obviously useless against viral infections but many, if not most, doctors will habitually describe them for viral infections anyhow. Why? Because a viral infection tends to leave your body more susceptible to bacterial infections. For instance a flu (viral) can very rarely lead to pneumonia (bacterial). And that person who then gets very sick from pneumonia can sue for malpractice. It's not malpractice because in the average case antibiotic prescription is not, at all, justified by the cost:benefit, but doctors do it anyhow to try to protect themselves from lawsuits.

There have been studies demonstratively showing this as well, in that doctors who live in areas with less rampant malpractice lawsuits are less likely to prescribe antibiotics unless deemed necessary. Or if you have a friend/family in medicine you can simply ask them about this - it's not some fringe thing.

[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20250628065433/https://www.nejm....

Re: My dad could still be alive, but he's not

#50

Post by bonsai_spool »

photon_lines wrote: post #34
energy123 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incompetence and laziness among doctors is a big cause. As a professional you've probably worked with many colleagues you thought were bad. Well there are doctors like that too. Many of them. And unlike in tech, they don't get let go if they're bad. They stay around and keep "treating" patients.

This is 100% true, especially in Canada. I've had multiple encounters with doctors who were not fit for their positions and should not have been working as doctors. One of them nearly killed my mom, and another one was suspended due to malpractice and performing research fraud, but was given her license back and is back to work at the moment. Yes she is fully licensed and back to working as a regular MD in Canada: ht…

> One of them nearly killed my mom, and another one was suspended due to malpractice and performing research fraud, but was given her license back

How does alleged research fraud affect someone’s ability to be a caregiver?

Post reply on HN