On 10/2/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
To be clear. To "hurt" someone is to cause them pain. In medicine, for one, there can be pain associated with the treatment, and with the healing. To "harm" someone, however, is to cause them unnecessary and irrevocable damage.
on 10/2/08 2:17 PM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
[[Iatrogenesis]] is the ten-dollar word for this (of which medacaid will pay a buck-fifty on a good day).
In medical record-keeping jargon, doctor fuck-ups are referred to as an "adverse event", that is, if they are reported at all. Annually (as of 2000) the FDA estimates 44,000 to 98,000 deaths from medical error in the U.S.[1] and the British Medical Journal estimates 1,000,000 injuries[2].
That's right, doctors kill more people than cars, guns, drugs, and STDs.
Of course W's immediate response was "Gee, let's limit the maximum awardable money for medical malpractice suits..." My conclusion is that unless you're about to die anyway, you might be better off not going to a doctor.
Point well made, CW :-)
Back on topic, while the "do no harm" slogan may have significant merit at face value, I worry that the disturbingly ironic medical undertones make it difficult for the average user to take seriously.
In the end, this nutshell-ism might do us more harm than good.
Then what we really are left with, CW, is the intent of the editor. I agree the term "Do No Harm" is rather vague for our use in the encyclopedia. It does come down to each individual editor asking themselves - honestly - "Why am I including this piece of information?; does it really enrich our understanding of the subject? Or am I just getting-off by including it"?
Marc