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 (1/3/2015 6:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 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'?? The OP was all about the use of the word "ensure." The way the word was used, the GP's help was not being "ensured," but that the patient would be eating better and exercising more. I don't think "ensure" was the proper word to use. I think "promote" would have been a better term. "...lifestyle advice and close monitoring to promote they are eating better and exercising more." In truth, I think that is what the program is about, promotion of healthy habits. That's the truth that some of you don't get. quote: 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. If parsing a sentence has changed, then there is the crux of the issue. It's not who is doing the ensuring, but what is being ensured. The doctor can not "ensure" ("guarantee" by your listed definition [which I'm not questioning]) that patients eat healthier or that they exercise more. The only thing a doctor can do is give out the information. The whole, "you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink," adage. Since a doctor can't ensure a patient complies, the use of that word was not proper. quote: 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??? [:-] MariaB addressed this, and admitted she left a word out. I acknowledged that already. quote: 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] Actually, what's usually being done is responding to my posts with things that don't pertain at all. The continued disagreeing with me over whether or not the NHS is going to go 1984 and force compliance (even though we agree it is NOT going to do that) is an example.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 6:44:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic 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. Is it really "bloody stupid" to discuss the implications of the use of the word "ensure" since it was the actual point of the thread (by the OP)?!? What's "bloody stupid" is arguing the implications of the use of the word "ensure" by supporting the benefits of proactive health care. It's like talking about whether a shade of blue paint looks good in a room by arguing how important it is to have a proper lighting levels when you read.

NorthernGent -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 6:47:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why don't you want to pay for the outcome? Isn't that what socialized medicine is all about? Yes, in principle, we pay for the outcome. For clarity, it may be worth highlighting what we are trying to achieve in terms of 'outcome'. We are certainly not trying to achieve a situation whereby good money is doled out hand over fist; in fact, this is the polar opposite of the desired outcome. The inception of the NHS was characterised by 'access to healthcare for all', granted, but it follows that this was tacitly underpinned by the idea that the health of the nation would improve accordingly and costs would diminish. I think we could say with some certainty that the NHS achieved its goal in that respect, and I think few would argue against the notion that we are in better health than we we were in 1945. These days, we are faced with obesity, among other things, causing a strain on people's health and the country's finances; and so, in keeping with the spirit of the NHS, the whole point of this programme, i.e. the desired outcome, is to improve people's health and in the process reduce the burden on the country's finances. As said, the desired outcome is not to fund obesity; it is to alleviate it. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. One of my better attempts....... and who said humour can't cross international boundaries!

Lucylastic -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:00:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic 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. Is it really "bloody stupid" to discuss the implications of the use of the word "ensure" since it was the actual point of the thread (by the OP)?!? What's "bloody stupid" is arguing the implications of the use of the word "ensure" by supporting the benefits of proactive health care. It's like talking about whether a shade of blue paint looks good in a room by arguing how important it is to have a proper lighting levels when you read. It has been answered so many times its pathetic The Quote mentions ensure before that was the sentance 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 ... there was no mention of "ensure" but close monitoring from Aylee,. just that shes" read about this sort of close monitoring before" then quotes 1984...so no, ensure isnt the point of the post. She is positing FORCE, there is your difference. There was no wish to discuss, only incite bullshit, and we got lots of it. Aylee isnt stupid, she did it for a reason and it sure isnt that diabetics in britain are going to be forced into compliance, like was posited as well

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:15:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. One of my better attempts....... and who said humour can't cross international boundaries! [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:22:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It has been answered so many times its pathetic The Quote mentions ensure before that was the sentance 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 ... there was no mention of "ensure" but close monitoring from Aylee,. just that shes" read about this sort of close monitoring before" then quotes 1984...so no, ensure isnt the point of the post. She is positing FORCE, there is your difference. There was no wish to discuss, only incite bullshit, and we got lots of it. Aylee isnt stupid, she did it for a reason and it sure isnt that diabetics in britain are going to be forced into compliance, like was posited as well Sure, she mentioned "close monitoring." The "close monitoring" that was to ensure compliance. Of course, "close monitoring" can be defined in many ways, but when paired with ensuring something (that is, guaranteeing that something is going to happen), there is an underlying implication of force and loss of liberty. I thought of this thread when I was watching the OSU vs. Alabama game this weekend: Direct TV Commercial

Musicmystery -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:29:33 AM)
As has been said and ignored many times in this thread, an assumption totally void of factual backing.

mnottertail -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:31:10 AM)
Except that you misuse the sense of both to an evil end. One of the purposes of our Constitution was set forth as: [to] . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . Does that mean that nutsuckers are going to be quartered at our houses, imposing their puritan law? Every squabble met with a hanging? Every burnt dinner met with torture? Or is it that we use our words to a good end, and the English People (having by and large) a better command of the language, use theirs for nefarious purposes? Same shit, different nutsuckers.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It has been answered so many times its pathetic The Quote mentions ensure before that was the sentance 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 ... there was no mention of "ensure" but close monitoring from Aylee,. just that shes" read about this sort of close monitoring before" then quotes 1984...so no, ensure isnt the point of the post. She is positing FORCE, there is your difference. There was no wish to discuss, only incite bullshit, and we got lots of it. Aylee isnt stupid, she did it for a reason and it sure isnt that diabetics in britain are going to be forced into compliance, like was posited as well Sure, she mentioned "close monitoring." The "close monitoring" that was to ensure compliance. Of course, "close monitoring" can be defined in many ways, but when paired with ensuring something (that is, guaranteeing that something is going to happen), there is an underlying implication of force and loss of liberty. And there is your difference. You assumed that position which is NOT inherent in anyone else on this thread (except maybe Aylee). Many of us stated that there is NO force, NO coercion, NO threats, and NO consequences. Yet you still hold that "there is an underlying implication of force and loss of liberty". [8\|] At the risk of personal insults and extreme rudeness with prejudice: No further comment.

Lucylastic -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:41:48 AM)
ensure compliance wasnt in the quote, that came out of aylees paranoia ETA yeah im done now one trick pony is knackered at the wilful bullshit being posited by the US paranoids among us

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery As has been said and ignored many times in this thread, an assumption totally void of factual backing. I agree.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:49:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It has been answered so many times its pathetic The Quote mentions ensure before that was the sentance 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 ... there was no mention of "ensure" but close monitoring from Aylee,. just that shes" read about this sort of close monitoring before" then quotes 1984...so no, ensure isnt the point of the post. She is positing FORCE, there is your difference. There was no wish to discuss, only incite bullshit, and we got lots of it. Aylee isnt stupid, she did it for a reason and it sure isnt that diabetics in britain are going to be forced into compliance, like was posited as well Sure, she mentioned "close monitoring." The "close monitoring" that was to ensure compliance. Of course, "close monitoring" can be defined in many ways, but when paired with ensuring something (that is, guaranteeing that something is going to happen), there is an underlying implication of force and loss of liberty. And there is your difference. You assumed that position which is NOT inherent in anyone else on this thread (except maybe Aylee). Many of us stated that there is NO force, NO coercion, NO threats, and NO consequences. Yet you still hold that "there is an underlying implication of force and loss of liberty". [8\|] At the risk of personal insults and extreme rudeness with prejudice: No further comment. The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words.

mnottertail -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:51:27 AM)
It implies no such thing, not a necessary and sufficient condition of the definition. It is strictly an impugnation an etymological fallacy. This is certainly a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, if not an outright fallacy of equivocation.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:53:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic ensure compliance wasnt in the quote, that came out of aylees paranoia ETA yeah im done now one trick pony is knackered at the wilful bullshit being posited by the US paranoids among us Yes, "compliance" wasn't in the quote. However, compliance would mean they are "eating better and exercising more." So, if you "ensure" they are "eating better and exercising more," you are ensuring compliance.

Lucylastic -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 7:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words. monitoring means to observe or record (the activity or performance) of (an engine or other device) close monitoring is close recording of facts....weight loss, blood sugar levels, wieght, diet , calories, fluid intake, urine tests.... nothing to do with implied force. REALLY you are going with that? its really bloody ridiculous paranoia. UNFOUNDED paranoia

Lucylastic -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 8:01:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic ensure compliance wasnt in the quote, that came out of aylees paranoia ETA yeah im done now one trick pony is knackered at the wilful bullshit being posited by the US paranoids among us Yes, "compliance" wasn't in the quote. However, compliance would mean they are "eating better and exercising more." So, if you "ensure" they are "eating better and exercising more," you are ensuring compliance. compliance wasnt even mentioned until post s79 guess who posted it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 8:03:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words. monitoring means to observe or record (the activity or performance) of (an engine or other device) close monitoring is close recording of facts....weight loss, blood sugar levels, wieght, diet , calories, fluid intake, urine tests.... nothing to do with implied force. REALLY you are going with that? its really bloody ridiculous paranoia. UNFOUNDED paranoia OMFG!! Are you serious with that? The phrase "close monitoring" leaves open to interpretation just how close one will be monitored. We agree that it's not going to be even close to a 1984 situation. Did you ever hover over a child to keep them from not doing their homework? Wouldn't that constitute "close monitoring" that "ensures" compliance?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 8:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic ensure compliance wasnt in the quote, that came out of aylees paranoia ETA yeah im done now one trick pony is knackered at the wilful bullshit being posited by the US paranoids among us Yes, "compliance" wasn't in the quote. However, compliance would mean they are "eating better and exercising more." So, if you "ensure" they are "eating better and exercising more," you are ensuring compliance. compliance wasnt even mentioned until post s79 guess who posted it. Probably the same poster that found a way to type less than "they are eating better and exercising more." "Compliance" taking fewer keystrokes and all. [8\|]

Lucylastic -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 8:06:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words. monitoring means to observe or record (the activity or performance) of (an engine or other device) close monitoring is close recording of facts....weight loss, blood sugar levels, wieght, diet , calories, fluid intake, urine tests.... nothing to do with implied force. REALLY you are going with that? its really bloody ridiculous paranoia. UNFOUNDED paranoia OMFG!! Are you serious with that? The phrase "close monitoring" leaves open to interpretation just how close one will be monitored. We agree that it's not going to be even close to a 1984 situation. Did you ever hover over a child to keep them from not doing their homework? Wouldn't that constitute "close monitoring" that "ensures" compliance? Why would I stop my kids from doing their homework?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Doctors told to report patients who put on weight (1/3/2015 8:12:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words. Not in my English it doesn't. There is NO such implication at all. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Yes, "compliance" wasn't in the quote. However, compliance would mean they are "eating better and exercising more." So, if you "ensure" they are "eating better and exercising more," you are ensuring compliance. Nope. I can "ensure" that my plants grow better. But if they don't??? Meh!! What do I do, chop them down or dig them up? Jeeezz... You can be a real dunce sometimes Desi. Merriam Webster Main Entry: com£pli£ance Pronunciation:km-pl-n(t)s Function:noun Date:circa 1630 1 a : the act or process of complying to a desire, demand, proposal, or regimen or to coercion b : conformity in fulfilling official requirements 2 : a disposition to yield to others 3 : the ability of an object to yield elastically when a force is applied : FLEXIBILITY "We" (generally), are using definition 1a (the main part); with the doctors using 1b. You, however, are taking ONLY the latter part of 1a and 2 and are refusing to even acknowledge the main part of 1a (and 1b).

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875