Joseph Gwinn wrote:

I imagine that the occupational safety doctors do know the bottom-line
answer. Lots of welders have heart problems, but we have not heard so
many stories that they had to retire because the HF from TIG or MIG
welders bothered their pacemakers.

Anyway, these doctors are the ones that make the legal decision as to
what activities (and thus jobs) must be curtailed subsequent to any
medical procedure or condition.

The doctor that implanted the defib probably also does know the
answer, even if he has no idea what a Tesla is.


You need to look at how such decisions are made. For most activities there
are simply not sufficient data (see my post on ham radio). The decision is
then guided by what is reasonable under the circumstances and yes, the
medicolegal issues are very much in play.

For example someone mentioned using a fencing lame for protection. This is a
brilliant idea but until it has been tested *on human subjects* there is no
way a Dr. will recommend one way or the other on its use (to my knwledge
such research has not been done). In fact I wish I took up fencing earlier,
it would have made for an interesting study.

Is recommendation based on reasonable analysis of the problem (read:
educated guess) always good? History of medicine is full of episodes where a
good idea on paper turned out to be a very bad idea in practice. So the
advice the doc gives you today may be reversed tomorrow. That is the nature
of the beast.

Don is fortunate that he has a cardiac problem (well, fortunate is perhaps a
poor choice of words :-) in that cardiology has one of the best specialty
records of testing hypotheses and most of the practice is evidence based.
However, there are many holes in the knowledge and areas where testing
simply will not happen unless someone is really interested and *can get the
money to do the research*. Sadly, most of the current research is funded by
pharmaceutical companies and is directed to drive sales of their products.
So, unless an enterprising cardiologist can bamboozle Miller or Lincoln
together, perhaps, with Leon Paul or another fencing manufacturer to put up
money for a study we shall never know if the lames work as a protection.

In all this one has to realize that as a patient one is a sovereign being
and has a right to make ones own decision when presented with options unless
there are legal issues affecting others e.g. driving. There are many who
refuse treatment and do well. Longevity is not always the highest priority.
The important thing is that the decision is *informed*. Which brings us full
circle.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC