5 common medical procedures

[Steven Low]

lol this discussion is amusing.

Anyway, regarding point #1 in the article CTs are ordered not for more money on insurance it's so docs can COVER THEIR BUTTS AGAINST LAWSUITS.

If someone has abdominal pain you're almost compelled to take a CT so you can cover your butt if it's something insidious even if 99% of the time something like a stomach ache where the patient doesn't need it..

For the docs ordering them it's definitely not about the money. They don't make anymore from ordering more CT scans.

[Gonzalo Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Steven Low

lol this discussion is amusing.

Anyway, regarding point #1 in the article CTs are ordered not for more money on insurance it's so docs can COVER THEIR BUTTS AGAINST LAWSUITS.

If someone has abdominal pain you're almost compelled to take a CT so you can cover your butt if it's something insidious even if 99% of the time something like a stomach ache where the patient doesn't need it..

For the docs ordering them it's definitely not about the money. They don't make anymore from ordering more CT scans.

They do if they own (directly or indirectly) their own CT scanner.

[Steven Low]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo Fernandez

They do if they own (directly or indirectly) their own CT scanner.

Yes, but most docs don't own a CT scanner.

They get the same amount from the hospital whether they order CTs or not.

A larger amount of the CTs are occurring from people with stomach pain in the ER.

[Robert Callahan]

Originally Posted by Matt Haxmeier

Interesting.

But the circumcision part is debatable now that they've had a few studies which do show it has some health benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011503106.html (WFS)

????

That circumcision helps prevent infection should have never been up for debate. I remember reading that in Desert Storm some huger % of the men with urinary infections were uncircumcised. This is why it is a part of the Jewish faith, because in North Africa/ Middle East where the religion first developed UTI were common unless you preformed circumcision. And back then, without antibiotics and modern medicine this could be a major issue.

But WTF does this have to do with the need for circumcision in the modern day US?? We are not in a dry, arid, sandy environment. We have easy access to clean water as well as soap. If the only benefit is maybe helping reduce the chance you get an STD if exposed then that is a pretty weak reason if you ask me simply because it is still not 100% and will simply give people a false sense of security. If you want to be safe, use a condom and don't sleep around. Circumcision should have nothing to do with STD protection IMHO.

Add to that the risks (ie cutting too much off, decreased sensitivity) and I think it is not worth it.

Keep in mind also that many doctors do it for the money. It is a <5 min procedure after a birth that they can bill $300+ for.

[Gonzalo Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

????

Keep in mind also that many doctors do it for the money. It is a <5 min procedure after a birth that they can bill $300+ for.

I agree that doctors do it for money, much as we all work to make money, but the ultimate decision is still in the hands of the parents. Doctors do not decide whether or not a child gets circumcised.

[Robert Callahan]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo Fernandez

I agree that doctors do it for money, much as we all work to make money, but the ultimate decision is still in the hands of the parents. Doctors do not decide whether or not a child gets circumcised.

Yes but most parents trust the opinion of their physician and will go with what he/she recommends.

[Gonzalo Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

Yes but most parents trust the opinion of their physician and will go with what he/she recommends.

So you're saying that physicians recommend to parents that they should circumcise their kids so the doctors can make more money. You really believe that?

For legal reasons, most doctors do not make those type of recommendations. If anything, it is dictated more by culture, religion, and whether or not dad is circumcised.

Maybe the doctors out in California have been hit harder by the economy than on the east coast. I've never heard that conspiracy theory.

[Troy Becker]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo Fernandez

Maybe the doctors out in California have been hit harder by the economy than on the east coast. I've never heard that conspiracy theory.

Even our president espoused that one in a speech, only his example was tonsil removal.

[Robert Callahan]

I am not espousing a conspiracy theory, but that is a good effort and undermining the point.

To assume that someone will be effected by something that directly effects them monetarily is not a unreasonable. I am not saying that doctors are secretly plotting to do tons of unneeded circumcisions. What I am saying is that it is a lot easier to be swayed by arguments for something, taking a much less critical eye, when you stand to gain large amounts of money.

I mean if a physician does 10 circumcisions (a fairly low number) a week at $300 (also a low ball number) that comes out to almost $150,000 dollars. With that kind of financial incentive it would be easy to take studies supporting it at face value and leave it at that. They allow themselves to be convinced it is good for the kids because that is what they want to believe, not because it is true.

This kind of thing happens in all fields when people stand to gain lots of money. To not take it into account would be grossly naive.

[Troy Becker]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

I am not espousing a conspiracy theory, but that is a good effort and undermining the point.

Conspiracies involve two or more people deciding to do something together- they "conspire."

A lot of the time it's just motivated self interest, especially when it's going along with what is already the norm.