Re: IDSA GUIDELINES ATTEMPT TO NARROW THE DEFINITION OF LYME DISEASE AND PROMOTE A LEGAL STANDARD OF CARE THAT CAN BE USED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES AND STATE MEDICAL BOARDS


Greatcod wrote:


Jesus, 3rdMan, doctors do not and will never do what lawyers do--read
the law on a case by case basis.

First, Cod, no, I ain't Jesus...(that's some other guy blaspheming).
(Just joking).

They don't have time. They memorize
the basics on a lot of things, diagnosis, treatment, medication side
effects, and then they get out there and guess. That's their job; they
are never going to demand of each other that they know the details.
There is far too much to know--how many Lyme journal articles-
3,000??..and 8 million articles in Pub Med
about various aspects of medicine.

Yes, but what I am really suggesting here is WHO is LEGALLY responsible
for a patient's care.
What all the Lyme advocates seem to want to do is to hold the
researchers responsible.

And that's wrong legally, and wrong tactically, in my opinion.

LOOK...everyone seems to acknowledge the fact that most GPs do NOT
understand the intricacies and subtleties of the ELISA/Blot. AS you,
yourself have acknowledged, most will end inquiry if one or the other
is deemed 'negative'.

So, if you really want to help people...WHY don't you expend your
energies in efforts to counter what the LDA claims is language that
suggests you must "confirm" extracutaneous synptoms? (Therein lies a
lot of the problem, I think. The LDA seems to have "jumped the gun"
over the word "confirm"). Everyone's an editor.

Remember that this publication was intended for the use of trained
medical professionals and that terms used sometimes have meanings that
are not customary in general usage..."terms of art".

AND...ask yourself if, in reality, you aren't holding the IDSA people
to an impossible standard...that is, that the difficulty and complexity
of this material is an actual reflection of the real difficulty and
complexity presented by the actual disease!

But form a legal basis, the law has an answer for you...the LEGAL
standard of care upon which a physician will be judged to have
committed malpractice is established in COURT and depends on what a
doctor would be expected to do and probably, in the case of Lyme,
depends on the degree of endemnicity in the area.

The legal standard is, in a sense, a minimalist standard...the duty
below which a physician's care must not fall.

I would assume that a physician who does follow these guidelines in
treatment...PROBABLY (depending upon individual circumstances) is going
to be able to present good evidence of having practiced according the
known state of the art.


The operating reference is the "Standard of Care", not the details of
journal articles.
And the Lyme Standard of Care is exactly what the IDSA guidelines are
designed to impact.

Well, as I have said elsewhere here...you are talking about two
different, although inter-related concepts...a medical standard and a
legal one.

So far as insurance companies go...look...if they want to deny
treatment, they can...and NOT based upon the Guidelines, but the
clinical trials that the Guidelines cite to.

Very clearly within the TREATMENT GUIDELINES the practitioner is
encouraged to familiarize themself with the diagnostic issues...(thus
acknowledging, that 'this ain't really what we are talking about
here').

And yet, that's what the LDA reacted to. Why? Probably because they
misread a sentence in the "executive summary" portion and for some
reason, want to make some sort of show right now.

But the larger question still exists...seems to me, at least.

Look...everyone seems to agree that if a patient is diagnosed and
properly treated early, then the patient has a good chance of full
recovery.

So, the point of impact is in the "duck"s office.

SO...just from a perspective of tailoring your solution to meet the
problem...

....WHY attack the TOP of the food chain?

You see my point?

(Am I explaining it well enough)?

But basically, I guess I am somewhat disturbed by what seems to be an
attempt to bring someone to task for their opinions...and that is very
troublesome, whenever you see that...whether it is the KKK, or the
Nazis...or the IDSA...or anyone else you happen to disagree with.

You don't try to "criminalize" freedom of speech and the expression of
opinion in this country, supposedly.

I can only assume the people who are leading this charge just really
don't understand some key concepts here.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the real issue in the Jones case
    ... medical board in the country without exception), ... say that Lyme patients do NOT have access to care. ... But it IS the standard of care. ... congenital Lyme is common, just argue that it happened here. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Roanoke Response 2005: Standard of care for Lyme is under dispute
    ... Medicine was accurate but incomplete ("Shining a light on Lyme ... the charges of improper patient care stemmed from ... treat patients suffering from Lyme disease. ... At issue is the standard of care followed by most physicians (Centers ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: ADA 2006 Standards of Care
    ... Here is the comment on this in the same issuue of Diabetes Care: ... updated ADA guidelines. ... that it strongly suggests that these guidelines ... "standard of care" for diabetes. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Proof that Cholesterol Guidelines A Gift For Merck, Pfizer
    ... > Doctors are setting guidelines moron. ... These are the standard of care ... to pharmaceutical companies, many of which manufacture statin drugs. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Two Standards of Care? Anyone understand this?
    ... care" in regard to Lyme disease... ... ...the ILADS Guidelines state on their face, ... of Lyme and associated tickborne diseases, ... BE A STANDARD OF MEDICAL CARE. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)