In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 27/08/2019 13:43, michael adams wrote:
Why we
even hire our nukes off of them at considerable cost,
with no guarantee that they'll actually let us use them.

We have stuffed our 'beloved' NHS with American high
technology, at huge expense for decades, and no-one has noticed,
never mind complain.

Why would anyone complain about buying the best technology for such things
from anywhere?

They might well complain if things like insulin become so expensive the
NHS can't afford them, though.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/08/2019 18:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 27/08/2019 13:43, michael adams wrote:
Why we
even hire our nukes off of them at considerable cost,
with no guarantee that they'll actually let us use them.

We have stuffed our 'beloved' NHS with American high
technology, at huge expense for decades, and no-one has noticed,
never mind complain.

Why would anyone complain about buying the best technology for such things
from anywhere?

They might well complain if things like insulin become so expensive the
NHS can't afford them, though.


Why indeed. But every time I hear someone praising an NHS consultant for
making a diagnosis of an obscure condition, is clearly unaware that it
was the path labs, radiography and other depts who are actually making
that diagnosis (and treatment) possible.

Remember there are conditions like cystic fibrosis that can only be
managed by buying *very* expensive drugs from other countries, notably
the USA, and Israel.

Even companies making generic off-patent drugs have been bought up by
overseas investment companies and promptly added a couple of zeroes
to the price the NHS has to pay.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Why indeed. But every time I hear someone praising an NHS consultant for
making a diagnosis of an obscure condition, is clearly unaware that it
was the path labs, radiography and other depts who are actually making
that diagnosis (and treatment) possible.

Really? Didn't those patients stop to ponder what all the tests and scans
were for - if it was just down to the skills of a consultant?

However, many of these scans and so on are done by a technician. Still
needs an expert to interpret the results.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/08/2019 15:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Why indeed. But every time I hear someone praising an NHS consultant for
making a diagnosis of an obscure condition, is clearly unaware that it
was the path labs, radiography and other depts who are actually making
that diagnosis (and treatment) possible.

Really? Didn't those patients stop to ponder what all the tests and scans
were for - if it was just down to the skills of a consultant?

Patients are like voters, mostly clueless and think all doctors are
gods, apart from the ones who think they have been treated badly or
don't agree with the diagnosis. Check out the amount of money the
NHS had to spend on negligence claims last year.

However, many of these scans and so on are done by a technician. Still
needs an expert to interpret the results.


The experts are those who specialise in the relevent field, be it
haematology, biochemistry, microbiology, radiology or whatever.

And artificial intelligence has been part of the diagnosis western
medecine for ages, and gets better all the time. Ask Google why they
are so keen on it.

You obviously aren't familiar with the way path labs process hundreds
if not thousands of samples per day. These days 'technicians' are
just machine minders in many cases. Loading up the specimen trays,
replenishing reagents and making sure the results are sent to the
correct requester is about all they do. Only in microbiology and
histopathology is more hands-on activity required.