At the risk of becoming philosophical. The practice of medicine is not only
the application of biomedical science. I can understand the sentiment that
means of assessment should be as objective as possible. The skills and
competences required to practice within the discipline of clinical chemistry
are quite diverse and may of them we take for granted. Most patients and a
lot of doctors want "touchy feely science" in their dealings with the health
care system because things are rarely black and white, reassurance and
approachability are valued by some even above diagnostic competence and
everybody wants to be treated with respect as an individual. In terms of a
communication, whether a comment or a clinical consultation, Whatever its
content, however accurate and precise its content, only if the recipient has
confidence in the judgement and "humanity" of the sender whatever this
entity might be, will it be received, believed, internalised and acted upon.
The advertising industry has been aware of this for many years!
I have been watching the degree of abstraction of this thread rise for some
days now. It seems to illustrate the point to my mind, however elegant the
argument, once you have lost the audience, you have lost the debate!
Apologies for the touchy feeliness and the terrible grammar!

Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is an open discussion list for the academic community
> working in [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Griffiths Paul (RTF) NHCT
> Sent: 14 December 2001 16:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A challenge for interpretive comments
>
>
> Complicating the issue to the point where the majority of the audience
> cannot even follow the argument is not good communication. At the
> end of the
> day we have to live in the real world with real people. In my experience
> communicating a simple message is usually more helpful.
>
> Paul Griffiths
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TICKNER TREVOR (RM1) Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 14 December 2001 14:55
> To: 'Griffiths Paul (RTF) NHCT'
> Subject: RE: A challenge for interpretive comments
>
>
> I hope it is not a competition and certainly not one in statistics.
>
> I became alarmed when I learned that the gold standards against which we
> judge ourselves were at best brass.
>
> One of the best attributes of clinical chemists is that they are
> prepared to
> test themselves against standards that are as objective as they
> can be made.
> The thought of 'touchy-feely' science frightens me.
>
> Just as there are those concerned with improving and extending chemical
> analyses there are challenges in improving interpretation.
> Histopathologists
> have approached this by looking for concerted opinions but with no attempt
> to correlate those with actual clinical outcomes.
>
> I hope that we, in clinical chemistry, are prepared to try to do better.
>
> Best wishes,
> Trevor Tickner
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Griffiths Paul (RTF) NHCT
> > [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 14 December 2001 14:22
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      A challenge for interpretive comments
> >
> > If this is a competition to see who claims to understand the most
> > complicated statistics, then I declare myself a loser !!!
> >
> > Paul Griffiths
> > Consultant Biochemist
> > Wansbeck General Hospital
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended
> only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you
> must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance on it.
> If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. Any unauthorised
> disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.