In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] writes
>According to the TV news [must be right then], :-) the programme is anonymous
>and pt isn't told anything, even if positive.
>It would certainly be of interest to have some idea of how long the disease
>can lie dormant
>Also useful to know if we are likely to have a deluge of cases in the future,
>and approximately when (perhaps)
Hmm - praps - but not sure health planning ever looks that far ;-)
>
>It might even be possible to say whether people are still catching it despite
>the changes to beef production
>Or answer the question as to whether lamb is safe too
Can't see how we will get this info from anonymous testing.
>
>I don't know whether it will be possible to answer such questions but lives
>might be saved if, for example, the results were alarming and more changes in
>agriculture followed.
Doubt it - how can this result from anoymous testing - all it does is
let us know if there is a lot about - not where it came from
BTW - it makes me nervous that a govt who is so sure of its figures and
policies on beef and now sheep has to consider anonymous testing of
humans - oh well, I spose its just to be sure ;-)
>
>I agree with KT's arguments where telling people is concerned, unless they ask
>for a test, I suppose.
I find it difficult to imagine a situation where we should force a test
and force the telling of the result.
>
>I seem to remember a pathologist telling us as students that if they did a
>postmortem on a pt with CJD they had to throw the knives etc away because it
>was infectious and the instruments couldn't be properly cleaned.
>
>Could we be spreading it on scalpels???
Arent they disposable items?
>
Have a good time :)
Cheers
--
Jelly Bean
'When you get fed up surfing....
.....go find some waves'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|