I don't think the medical world has the slightest grasp of how disturbing their behaviour has been for patients to observe recently. Whether you like it or not, without a transcript to support your indignant objections, it can appear very self-serving to us - and that's scary.
-
-
I guess I don’t understand why you place so much emphasis on the transcript. If we’ve been told what was considered in making the decision, then surely we know what was considered in making the decision.
-
I get that. For me, the only thing you can be certain of when dealing with lawyers, is that you won't be getting the full picture. Only the bits they want you to see. I'm not prejudging what the transcript may say, but I like source data. Call me picky :)https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/950691530037252097 …
-
Fair. But when a topic is completely missing, and a well understood phenomenon is described as “not explained”, I feel confident in assessing that the topic wasn’t explained.
-
Again, I can understand why you see it that way, particularly given your own speciality. Having spent several years needing to analyse misleading language from lawyers & clinicians tho, I tend to want to understand the basis for any statement now. (See number 2 on image above) :)
-
Thanks for helping me understand. And yeah, years of practice telling engineers “No, you haven’t investigated this problem adequately” does predispose me towards the view that an investigation was inadequate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
