In article <[log in to unmask]>, Rowland Cottingham
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I still think that people here have over-reacted. I'm sorry if I seem to
>be harping on, but we do need to clarify the relative risks here.
>
>Can we apply a bit of mathematics to this? How many people are on this
>list? Let us say for the sake of argument 1,000 people.
168 according to mailbase site. I think (dunno, making this up now)
there are 166 health professionals and 2 journalists - writing for
publications with combined circulations of 40 million.... ;-)
>
>There is therefore a 1.6 x 10^-5 chance that any one individual in the UK
>will be on the net; a thousandth of a percent, in other words.
>
>That particular person must know firstly where I work (obligingly, jel
>reminded everyone of the area I worked)
Please read the archives - you will find that I didnt - I just pointed
out that you had previously revealed your location yourself. Please
either get it right or don't say it - there was no need for this remark
- what is your problem with me Rowley???
> Because of the vagaries of the list, there
>was actually a delay before my message appeared such that the timing did
>not correspond with the story.
Information is available via the message header/routing.
>
>I regard this chain of circumstance to be so tenuous as to be frankly
>absurd, and like my sensible friend Carlos Perez-Avila say:
..and that is fine - it is your opinion. It may not be the opinion of
others - and if it goes wrong then you will face this. No problem with
any of that - why do I get shot at though for pointing out that it may
not be the opinion of the courts/GMC/patients/other publishing forums?
Personally I would not want to be openly discussed on here - cos I could
probably be more readily identified in this community. That is my
right. I would be happy if the discussion took place in a more safely
anonymised fashion - especially if my care may improve as a result.
>
>" lets stop worrying about silly things. I am prepared
>to defend my actions in court if need be, No judge in the land will fault
>me for trying to improve patient care."
Who is that 'judge'?
>
>Finally, you may be interested to hear that I also asked for comments on
>an American list with a similar function to this list, which happens to
>have several very sharp attorneys on it. Not one has commented adversely,
>and several doctors have given some excellent advice for future management
>of the difficult clinical problem I originally posed.
If I were a shopkeeper I would be unlikely to advise you against
spending your money ;-) (v tongue in cheek comment so lets not get all
flustered about it please :-)
Loose talk costs lives ;-)
--
Dr Jel Coward
'There's no such thing as bad weather - just bad clothing"
Anon Norwegian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|