RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight

RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 8:23:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh The most common answer was that the use of the word "ensure" was incorrect. "Close monitoring" is likely to be done by the GP's scheduling appointments at a greater frequency than normal with those patients. Bullshit DS........ You just dont get anything that doesnt include the word "Insure" No wonder i call some of you Americans stupid. Thankfully there are more that get what is meant by "ensure2 in this context than not. You and Aylee are firmly in the "not" group, or as its otherwise none, "The head up your arse club" I see you're one of the Founders of the club. My response to Aylee was, pretty much, the same as FD's in Post #221.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 8:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh The most common answer was that the use of the word "ensure" was incorrect. "Close monitoring" is likely to be done by the GP's scheduling appointments at a greater frequency than normal with those patients. So they are going to nag them to lose weight. No. The patients don't "have to" go to the appointments. But, the GP's will keep track of the progress, or lack thereof. Granted, this should already be the norm, though.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 9:21:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh The most common answer was that the use of the word "ensure" was incorrect. "Close monitoring" is likely to be done by the GP's scheduling appointments at a greater frequency than normal with those patients. So they are going to nag them to lose weight. No. The patients don't "have to" go to the appointments. But, the GP's will keep track of the progress, or lack thereof. Granted, this should already be the norm, though. It isn't 'the norm' in many places though - and that is the major problem; inconsistency. My GP wouldn't elaborate but apparently there is a penalty imposed for those GP's who don't follow the directive properly. Whether that's a financial incentive for those that convince their patients to follow recommendations or whether the GP's actually get some sort of slap on the wrist, I have no idea as he wouldn't tell me exactly what the penalty was. So in that sense, 'ensure' was a strong word to evoke action by everyone, not just those that do it as a matter of course.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 9:47:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh The most common answer was that the use of the word "ensure" was incorrect. "Close monitoring" is likely to be done by the GP's scheduling appointments at a greater frequency than normal with those patients. So they are going to nag them to lose weight. No. The patients don't "have to" go to the appointments. But, the GP's will keep track of the progress, or lack thereof. Granted, this should already be the norm, though. It isn't 'the norm' in many places though - and that is the major problem; inconsistency. My GP wouldn't elaborate but apparently there is a penalty imposed for those GP's who don't follow the directive properly. Whether that's a financial incentive for those that convince their patients to follow recommendations or whether the GP's actually get some sort of slap on the wrist, I have no idea as he wouldn't tell me exactly what the penalty was. So in that sense, 'ensure' was a strong word to evoke action by everyone, not just those that do it as a matter of course. Aylee's concern over this program was in how compliance was going to be "ensured." Other posters here - who wouldn't be described as having the same values as I - have stated that "ensured" was not the correct word, and that there is no way to guarantee patients comply. MariaB posted (Post #149): quote: And if they choose the help of a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity. I asked what happens if they don't choose the help of a doctor, and there hasn't been any response to that. From what I'm interpreting from your post, a GP now has to be a "better salesman" to get patience to comply, else there may be some sort of penalty to the GP?

Politesub53 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 1:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh The most common answer was that the use of the word "ensure" was incorrect. "Close monitoring" is likely to be done by the GP's scheduling appointments at a greater frequency than normal with those patients. Bullshit DS........ You just dont get anything that doesnt include the word "Insure" No wonder i call some of you Americans stupid. Thankfully there are more that get what is meant by "ensure2 in this context than not. You and Aylee are firmly in the "not" group, or as its otherwise none, "The head up your arse club" I see you're one of the Founders of the club. My response to Aylee was, pretty much, the same as FD's in Post #221. Yet you keep posting the same old shit, without listening when those in the UK point out the facts. Just as you do in every other thread about the NHS, you bleat on about your so called facts until people give up trying to explain things to you.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 2:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Aylee's concern over this program was in how compliance was going to be "ensured." Other posters here - who wouldn't be described as having the same values as I - have stated that "ensured" was not the correct word, and that there is no way to guarantee patients comply. The "ensure" is for the GP and healthcare professional, not the patient. The angle of question was wrong and hence you cannot understand it, or the replies. And, FWIW, "ensure" was the correct word to use. Merriam Webster Ensure: to make sure, certain, or safe. synonyms: ENSURE, INSURE, ASSURE, SECURE mean to make a thing or person sure. ENSURE, INSURE, and ASSURE are interchangeable in many contexts where they indicate the making certain or inevitable of an outcome, but ENSURE may imply a virtual guarantee the government has ensured the safety of the refugees, while INSURE sometimes stresses the taking of necessary measures beforehand careful planning should insure the success of the party, and ASSURE distinctively implies the removal of doubt and suspense from a person's mind I assure you that no harm will be done. SECURE implies action taken to guard against attack or loss sent reinforcements to secure their position. So yes, 'ensure' for the GP to make recommendations AND record those and any outcomes is the correct word to use. It was not for patient compliance but for the GP to make the necessary recommendations. Whether the patient follows through or not is also recorded. That is the 'ensure' - for the compliance by the GP. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri MariaB posted (Post #149): quote: And if they choose the help of a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity. I asked what happens if they don't choose the help of a doctor, and there hasn't been any response to that. There have been many responses to that exact question. If they don't follow the advice, nothing happens to the patient at all. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri From what I'm interpreting from your post, a GP now has to be a "better salesman" to get patience to comply, else there may be some sort of penalty to the GP? From what I understand.... yes. To the GP - not the patient. You are seeing the 'problem' from the wrong PoV and questioning the wrong point.

Aylee -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 2:40:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Aylee's concern over this program was in how compliance was going to be "ensured." Other posters here - who wouldn't be described as having the same values as I - have stated that "ensured" was not the correct word, and that there is no way to guarantee patients comply. The "ensure" is for the GP and healthcare professional, not the patient. The angle of question was wrong and hence you cannot understand it, or the replies. And, FWIW, "ensure" was the correct word to use. Merriam Webster Ensure: to make sure, certain, or safe. synonyms: ENSURE, INSURE, ASSURE, SECURE mean to make a thing or person sure. ENSURE, INSURE, and ASSURE are interchangeable in many contexts where they indicate the making certain or inevitable of an outcome, but ENSURE may imply a virtual guarantee the government has ensured the safety of the refugees, while INSURE sometimes stresses the taking of necessary measures beforehand careful planning should insure the success of the party, and ASSURE distinctively implies the removal of doubt and suspense from a person's mind I assure you that no harm will be done. SECURE implies action taken to guard against attack or loss sent reinforcements to secure their position. So yes, 'ensure' for the GP to make recommendations AND record those and any outcomes is the correct word to use. It was not for patient compliance but for the GP to make the necessary recommendations. Whether the patient follows through or not is also recorded. That is the 'ensure' - for the compliance by the GP. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri MariaB posted (Post #149): quote: And if they choose the help of a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity. I asked what happens if they don't choose the help of a doctor, and there hasn't been any response to that. There have been many responses to that exact question. If they don't follow the advice, nothing happens to the patient at all. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri From what I'm interpreting from your post, a GP now has to be a "better salesman" to get patience to comply, else there may be some sort of penalty to the GP? From what I understand.... yes. To the GP - not the patient. You are seeing the 'problem' from the wrong PoV and questioning the wrong point. Except that it is to ensure healthy eating and exercise. So that is not something the GP would or would not be doing.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 2:54:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Except that it is to ensure healthy eating and exercise. So that is not something the GP would or would not be doing. Uummmmm.... yes, it is the GP's responsibility to monitor their patient and offer anything that might help the situation. Whether that is just monitoring (and recording) the clinical data or whether something more drastic needs to be considered is another ball of wax - which also needs to be recorded under the new directive. And I saw nothing in the linked report beyond offering the necessary support for the patient. quote: ORIGINAL: From the report - GPs will be asked to identify patients who are putting on weight under a new national programme to help fight obesity. Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, said it was time for Britain to "get back in shape" in order to protect millions of people from a host of obesity-related diseases. Under the scheme, family doctors will be asked to identify anyone who has gained weight and is at risk of diabetes – particularly those aged below 40. They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more. All for the GP to record and monitor. If the patient can't be assed - then that's their problem. There is NO coercion, no force, nothing sinister. You are nit-picking over ONE word and ignoring everything else about the topic. Get real!

MariaB -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 3:42:53 PM)
MariaB posted (Post #149): quote: And if they choose the help of a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity. Goes to show I don't always proof read my post because what I was trying to say is, "and if they choose NOT to accept help from a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they become ill." Nobody ever gets refused treatment in the UK and no individual has a right to better treatment according to how rich they are. Yes, they can choose to go to a private hospital and get better waitress service but private hospitals rarely have state of the art medical equipment like the NHS hospitals do .

Politesub53 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/1/2015 4:30:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Except that it is to ensure healthy eating and exercise. So that is not something the GP would or would not be doing. How thick are you ? Even a three year old could have understood the replies you have had. The program is to ensure those that want help, get help. If people dont want help then fine, but they are likely to be told on subsequent visits that they need to lose weight or suffer health problems. No one is talking about force feeding people with a fruit and veg diet, but dont let that stop your continued ignorance.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/2/2015 6:23:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh The most common answer was that the use of the word "ensure" was incorrect. "Close monitoring" is likely to be done by the GP's scheduling appointments at a greater frequency than normal with those patients. Bullshit DS........ You just dont get anything that doesnt include the word "Insure" No wonder i call some of you Americans stupid. Thankfully there are more that get what is meant by "ensure2 in this context than not. You and Aylee are firmly in the "not" group, or as its otherwise none, "The head up your arse club" I see you're one of the Founders of the club. My response to Aylee was, pretty much, the same as FD's in Post #221. Yet you keep posting the same old shit, without listening when those in the UK point out the facts. Just as you do in every other thread about the NHS, you bleat on about your so called facts until people give up trying to explain things to you. The funny thing is, my response wasn't critical of the program or the NHS. It was, also, more in support of the program than anything. Can you see your duodenum, yet? If not, it's probably just around the next bend.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/2/2015 6:35:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Aylee's concern over this program was in how compliance was going to be "ensured." Other posters here - who wouldn't be described as having the same values as I - have stated that "ensured" was not the correct word, and that there is no way to guarantee patients comply. The "ensure" is for the GP and healthcare professional, not the patient. The angle of question was wrong and hence you cannot understand it, or the replies. And, FWIW, "ensure" was the correct word to use. Merriam Webster Ensure: to make sure, certain, or safe. synonyms: ENSURE, INSURE, ASSURE, SECURE mean to make a thing or person sure. ENSURE, INSURE, and ASSURE are interchangeable in many contexts where they indicate the making certain or inevitable of an outcome, but ENSURE may imply a virtual guarantee the government has ensured the safety of the refugees, while INSURE sometimes stresses the taking of necessary measures beforehand careful planning should insure the success of the party, and ASSURE distinctively implies the removal of doubt and suspense from a person's mind I assure you that no harm will be done. SECURE implies action taken to guard against attack or loss sent reinforcements to secure their position. So yes, 'ensure' for the GP to make recommendations AND record those and any outcomes is the correct word to use. It was not for patient compliance but for the GP to make the necessary recommendations. Whether the patient follows through or not is also recorded. That is the 'ensure' - for the compliance by the GP. quote: They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more. The way the article is written, it's quite revealing that the subject of "to ensure" is not the doctors, but that the patients are eating better and exercising more. Might I also point out that by making the statement that using ensure when it wasn't the correct term isn't a criticism of the program? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri MariaB posted (Post #149): quote: And if they choose the help of a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity. I asked what happens if they don't choose the help of a doctor, and there hasn't been any response to that. There have been many responses to that exact question. If they don't follow the advice, nothing happens to the patient at all. Then, what was the point of MariaB's statement, then? Isn't there an underlying implication that if they don't choose the help of a doctor, it would affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity? If there isn't any difference, why put it out there at all? I accept that MariaB could have been written her statement wrong, ETA: ~~but she hasn't stated that. Neither has she answered my question.~~ quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri From what I'm interpreting from your post, a GP now has to be a "better salesman" to get patience to comply, else there may be some sort of penalty to the GP? From what I understand.... yes. To the GP - not the patient. You are seeing the 'problem' from the wrong PoV and questioning the wrong point. No, I'm not. Y'all are misinterpreting my statements because you're letting my opposition to a national health program taint your viewpoint.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/2/2015 6:38:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB MariaB posted (Post #149): quote: And if they choose the help of a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they do become ill from obesity. Goes to show I don't always proof read my post because what I was trying to say is, "and if they choose NOT to accept help from a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they become ill." Nobody ever gets refused treatment in the UK and no individual has a right to better treatment according to how rich they are. Yes, they can choose to go to a private hospital and get better waitress service but private hospitals rarely have state of the art medical equipment like the NHS hospitals do . Thank you for the clarification. That's a significant change from what you (mistakenly) posted. lol

Politesub53 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/2/2015 4:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The funny thing is, my response wasn't critical of the program or the NHS. It was, also, more in support of the program than anything. Can you see your duodenum, yet? If not, it's probably just around the next bend. Sure you werent critical, even though you kept spouting on about "Ensure" Your love for the NHS is well known. [8\|] quote: DS...... No, I'm not. Y'all are misinterpreting my statements because you're letting my opposition to a national health program taint your viewpoint. [sm=yeahright.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/2/2015 6:51:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The funny thing is, my response wasn't critical of the program or the NHS. It was, also, more in support of the program than anything. Can you see your duodenum, yet? If not, it's probably just around the next bend. Sure you werent critical, even though you kept spouting on about "Ensure" Your love for the NHS is well known. [8\|] quote: DS...... No, I'm not. Y'all are misinterpreting my statements because you're letting my opposition to a national health program taint your viewpoint. [sm=yeahright.gif] You can be so, what is your word, daft? This entire thread was about how compliance would be ensured. For someone from the UK, you sure can't seem to understand English. How the fuck did you not get that? My response to her was not that the NHS would go all gestapo and force compliance, which, while my example is hyperbole, what Aylee was thinking. But, you didn't get that. Go pour yourself another cuppa joe, and maybe, just maybe you'll wake up. I doubt it, though.

NorthernGent -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 4:33:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: LiveSpark And the point you either aren't getting or are willfully ignoring that GPs ARE doing those things but there is only so much they can do. If they are already doing this, then what's the point of a program that asks GP's to do what they're already doing? It's in the article. A partnership. The age-old belief that 'two heads are better than one'. There is an element of government control, of course there is, because the government are involved as one stakeholder of a few and so they want results and want some sway in controlling the path toward those results. That much is obvious and should be taken as read, and certainly unworthy of page after page of what amounts to a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence which thinly veils an attempt to manipulate posters into stating: "yes, there is an element of government control"; and one thing this type of correspondence is certainly failing to do, miserably, is masquerade as discussion. The idea that government intervention is always mischievious, or malevolent, or taking liberties; is a touch distasteful, especially as the government interfere in many aspects of life, some of which are genuinely dangerous and often times go ignored by the 'libertarian' (not that such a thing exists in practice: it's tantamount to a monumental load of bollocks serving only to self-deceive) advocates. In terms of economics, obesity is costing the British tax-payer an inordinate amount of money that would be better served elsewhere. And, after all, the government have been elected to serve all of our interests, not only those who are ferociously busy trying to eat themselves into oblivion. In terms of the social/health aspect, I doubt that many people are overly concerned with the health of some bloke down the street who is too lazy to buy some vegetables and steam them, but, and this much should be obvious: we don't want to pay for the outcome. You continue to ask why the government are poking their noses in when 'all of the information is out there'. Are you're being mischevious, or are you leading posters down a path to your next question, or are you simply bored?. I would suggest you take a look around you, and even a cursory glance would lead to the conclusion that the information 'being out there' alone, is evidently not sufficient to check a growing problem.

NorthernGent -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 4:39:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee 11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. sigh Aylee, Are you suffering from the same severe case of boredom? Why does anyone monitor anything? Monitoring is a control tool which is aimed at 'ensuring' results. Spelling it out for the untutored in basic monitoring philosophy here you are: information will be gathered to understand the extent of the problem, solutions will be proposed and agreed, targets will flow out of the solution aimed at supporting the agreed solution, these targets will be monitored to ensure they are being met and by extension the agreed solution is being met, the targets may be reappraised depending upon progress. This couldn't be more basic, understood by all - even burrow owls, and undertaken the world over.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 6:13:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: LiveSpark And the point you either aren't getting or are willfully ignoring that GPs ARE doing those things but there is only so much they can do. If they are already doing this, then what's the point of a program that asks GP's to do what they're already doing? It's in the article. A partnership. The age-old belief that 'two heads are better than one'. There is an element of government control, of course there is, because the government are involved as one stakeholder of a few and so they want results and want some sway in controlling the path toward those results. That much is obvious and should be taken as read, and certainly unworthy of page after page of what amounts to a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence which thinly veils an attempt to manipulate posters into stating: "yes, there is an element of government control"; and one thing this type of correspondence is certainly failing to do, miserably, is masquerade as discussion. I'm not the one making any claims that the UK, by way of the NHS, is going to institute 1984 on you. The discussion about how compliance would be "ensured," ended up with me being on the side of "ensured" not being the correct word ("promoted" being a much more accurate term, imo). quote: The idea that government intervention is always mischievious, or malevolent, or taking liberties; is a touch distasteful, especially as the government interfere in many aspects of life, some of which are genuinely dangerous and often times go ignored by the 'libertarian' (not that such a thing exists in practice: it's tantamount to a monumental load of bollocks serving only to self-deceive) advocates. You have greater faith in the UK's government than I do for the US government. I sincerely hope it's well-founded. quote: In terms of economics, obesity is costing the British tax-payer an inordinate amount of money that would be better served elsewhere. And, after all, the government have been elected to serve all of our interests, not only those who are ferociously busy trying to eat themselves into oblivion. In terms of the social/health aspect, I doubt that many people are overly concerned with the health of some bloke down the street who is too lazy to buy some vegetables and steam them, but, and this much should be obvious: we don't want to pay for the outcome. Why don't you want to pay for the outcome? Isn't that what socialized medicine is all about? My biggest criticism of socialized medicine for the US is that we, for the most part, are gluttonous, consumers who would absolutely abuse the system to continue to make our own self-placating decisions, forcing others (who don't really have any say in the matter) to pay for our choices. I'm much more supportive of personal responsibility and personal liberties, so that the choices you make are yours to deal with (outside of others personally choosing to help). Citizens of the UK may be growing more like US Citizens (as far as materialism and consumption are concerned), but you lot have a long way to go before you catch us (sadly). quote: You continue to ask why the government are poking their noses in when 'all of the information is out there'. Are you're being mischevious, or are you leading posters down a path to your next question, or are you simply bored?. I would suggest you take a look around you, and even a cursory glance would lead to the conclusion that the information 'being out there' alone, is evidently not sufficient to check a growing problem. Government "poking their noses" into people's lifestyle choices is what I would consider a proper function when government is the one having to pay for the results of those choices. Government should have a responsibility to taxpayers to not waste money, and having people consume more than their "fair share" of health care resources, solely due to personal choices, would be wasteful to those who aren't consuming more than their "fair share." I don't want that in the US. If you want that in the UK, that's fine. Keep it. I could accept that the Citizens of the UK are far less likely to abuse the system than Citizens of the US. To what end, though, is government getting involved? Is it just to disseminate information? Obviously, we already agree the information is already out there. If people aren't doing what they can now, what is the next step for the NHS? I have to mention that I found humor in the very last phrase you used. When you described it as a "growing problem," I chuckled at the literal and figurative truth it is.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 6:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You can be so, what is your word, daft? This entire thread was about how compliance would be ensured. For someone from the UK, you sure can't seem to understand English. How the fuck did you not get that? My response to her was not that the NHS would go all gestapo and force compliance, which, while my example is hyperbole, what Aylee was thinking. But, you didn't get that. Go pour yourself another cuppa joe, and maybe, just maybe you'll wake up. I doubt it, though. You and Aylee are really hung-up on the one word "ensure". To use an example similar to the quote from Merriam Webster (but ENSURE may imply a virtual guarantee the government has ensured the safety of the refugees) - Example The captain of a sinking ship could instruct you in the use of a life jacket. He could also hand you a life jacket and escort you to the lifeboats. By doing that, ie giving you the information/advice/tools and means to enable it, he has "ensured" your safety and survival. And, as per definition of the word, has implied a virtual guarantee. But... If you then willfully decide to do a hari-kari jump off the bow without the life jacket and end up drowning, the captain cannot be held responsible for you ignoring his efforts to save your life. And you cannot argue that he did not 'ensure' your safety either - because of your own willful negligence. That is the meaning of 'ensure' in this context. And again, this health drive is for the GP in his 'ensured' information and actions, not the patient. To take an exact quote from the original OP link - "being offered...healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more." Do we really have to get into the minutae of the English language and its nuances just for those Americans that don't 'geddit'?? From your post#252: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more. The way the article is written, it's quite revealing that the subject of "to ensure" is not the doctors, but that the patients are eating better and exercising more. The GP is doing the 'ensuring', not the patient. How the fuck can you screw up the fundamentals of English?? Oh, I forgot, you are American - you've all fucked up English into something completely different. [8\|] But, as per my example, the GP does what is required to 'ensure' the health of their patient by giving them the advice, prognosis, courses, clinics etc. If the patient then willfully decides to trash that advice and not follow it, the GP is virtually absolved from future liability. And, as per Maria's reply in post#253: "...and if they choose NOT to accept help from a doctor, it won't affect later treatment if they become ill. Nobody ever gets refused treatment in the UK and no individual has a right to better treatment according to how rich they are." You have been given this fact many times before; so why the obfuscation??? [:-] Sometimes, when a single simple fact has to be hammered into you time and again, I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse or just trying our patience to see how long it takes us to give up explaining the obvious to you. I refuse to accept that you are plain thick, dense or living on another planet; but I do sometimes wonder..... Would someone please feed that poor starving elephant doing the Fandango in the middle of the room?? [:D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 6:35:26 AM)
ensure is also a nutritional drink/shake FFS this is bloody stupid, because an article states" ensure", we have the put forward the fat fema camps and glutton gulags as a DIG at the "glimmer" of patients being forced. I know some of you have this reds under the beds terror thing going on(that or the "eeebil moooozlems"), but that is YOUR issue to deal with, not ours. Its bloody dumb and its gone 13 pages with paranoia rampant.. from the usual suspects. The doctors, and health services may come together with a great plan, but it wont do any good if the diet and food industry dont agree to do anything about it. That includes GMOs HFCS or added glucose in practically EVERYTHING. They lie about their claims, they lie about their ingredients, hormones, preservatives, EVERYDAMN thing and the diet industry makes a living confusing everyone. For DECADES.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625