RE: New member
Welcome, Christophe! It's always great to meet new people, and from the accomplishments you listed there, it sounds like you'll fit in just fine. Just pick a thread and dive in. Remember, we're all just a bunch of members around here. ;-) Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New member
From: Tharn Kelrac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New member Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:46:35 +0100 Hi everybody, i just joined the list an i will say something about me:(je ne me rappelle plus du mot pour dire se présenter) Welcome Christophe! Very nice to meet you! Feel free to dive right in and don't be shy. Jon _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Mars to Get Closer than Ever in Recorded History in 2003
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SCOUTED: Mars to Get Closer than Ever in Recorded History in 2003 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 00:04:40 EST In a message dated 1/8/2003 9:51:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Uh huh. Remember what happened in the late 1800's when Mars was close? Watch out for green flares on Mars, that's all I'm saying. I'll be stocking up viral cultures of the common cold... Adam C. Lipscomb I aint worried. They try to land in Jersey without a union card and the mob'll take them out. William Taylor 2X2L this is 8X3R Or, if they land in California, look for a new restaurant chain called 'To Serve Man' coming soon to Hollywood, Los Angeles, Bevery Hills, San Diego and San Francisco. Jon heh. an on-topic comment maru. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 8/1/03 8:45 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives In the real world nobody refuted the argument. But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of course you can refute arguments you disagree with. I didn't define what real was. I just pointed out that in the real world nobody refuted the argument. For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, 'Reduced to' isn't equivalent to 'is'. The mind may be supervenient on the brain, but that isn't the same as being the brain. and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by biochemistry. It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase I am self aware. And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a person's brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or not. Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the question of the existence of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question of consciousness. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard. - anonymous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: {Sports} Hunter Thompson apologizes.
After last week?s win over the Giants, victory, espn columnist Hunter S. Thompson has apologized for ripping the 49?ers to shreds. As one of his longtime readers, I thought this was a pretty cool 'eating crow' column. I still say the Giants wuz robbed tho. :) Jon GSV $%^#@! Penalties! http://espn.go.com/page2/s/thompson/ Excerpt: Public Shame and Private Victory By Hunter S. Thompson Page 2 columnist I would like to take as much personal credit as possible for the San Francisco 49ers' mind-shattering victory over those poor bastards from New York last Sunday, but, alas, I cannot. It would be like Jack Nicholson beating his chest and bragging/boasting that he alone was responsible for the Lakers' last three NBA titles. Jack would never do that, of course. He is an honorable man and a totally loyal Lakers fan. He would never think of betraying them and calling them doomed just prior to another doomsday playoff with the Sacramento Kings -- never bet against them in public or scorn their genetic makeup, never curse them on the Internet or announce on TV that he was switching his love to the Clippers from now on. No. Jack is a decent person. Indeed. And I, apparently, am not. Because I did all those hateful, treacherous things to the 49ers last week, and I did them as publicly as possible. I raved, I babbled, I even threatened to piss down their spines to consummate our divorce. It was horrible, frankly, and I was deeply embarrassed by it on Sunday when San Francisco erupted from out of the bowels of football's foulest graveyard to play 20 minutes of the finest and bravest and most beautiful come-from-behind football in 49er history, to beat the crazed and bewildered Giants by one truly desperate point, 39-38. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'
At 22:21 06-01-2003 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: Football isn't reality. The tradeoff between a possible death toll of hundreds of thousand (2 A-bombs) and a highly probable death toll that was estimated at close to one hundred thousand is different than the tradeoff between a possible death toll of say ten millions (50+ bombs) and the same probable death toll. Further, N. Korea would be less likely to sell their only nuclear bomb, but would be likely to sell one of 50+. I can only presume that I am the only Brin-L'er reading your message, I read his message too, so you are presuming wrongly. because I am positively stunned that nobody else has called you on this Well, I can think of a few explanations for that. Maybe they aren't interested in the topic. Or maybe (and quite likely, IMO) they don't share your interpretation of Dan's post. Sometimes the failure of you people to see any black-and-white whatsoever in the world just drives me to the point of insansity (not to mention running into conflict with other liberal sacred cows). Actually, most of us realise that nothing in the world *is* really black-and-white; most of us therefore don't see things in black-and-white, but see many shades of grey (or perhaps full colour). IIRC, you are the only one on this list who has been said (repeatedly) to have a black-and-white worldview, and the only one who fails to see the shades of grey (or all those colours). BTW, wasn't referring to a group of people as you people considered somewhat of an insult in English-speaking countries? The problem in Iraq is not the war; I have little doubt that we can handle the army in Iraq. Their ability to cause harm during the war is minimal. Its what to do afterwards. Remember what you wrote in 2001 about turning Afghanistan into a model country? What is the reality there, now? The national government controls the capital, while warlords rule the rest of the country. Dan, I can't believe that you who are normally the soudnest voice of reason and patience on this list has just criticized the Bush Administration for not turning Afghanistan into a model country less than a year after the war ended there. It looked more like an observation than criticism to me. I believe that your suggestion that Dan is suddenly sounding unreasonable and impatient is totally out of place here. Jeroen No Nukes van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Scouted]A unusual new possible stroke drug
Of sorts, that is. http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pridt=030109cat=frontpagest=frontpagestroke_bat030109src=abc An excerpt: Research in this week's issue of Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association says a rare protein in the saliva of vampire bats appears promising in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke the kind of stroke caused by a blood clot that blocks blood supply to the brain. So, sir, I hope you don't mind if we injest you with bat spit to save your life. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: That's One Heck of a Bird
At 11:22 AM 1/9/03 -0800, J.D. Giorgis wrote: An intereting article here about the discovery of the first Trojans in Neptune's orbit Now that Neptune has Trojans, I guess there won't be any more sea-nymphs, then . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Doc Knows Best (It'll be too late for you, if he's wrong.)
At 02:15 PM 1/9/03 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: [article quoted] But that was before the bioethics movement largely abandoned the sanctity of life ethic for an express or implicit utilitarianism that views the value of human life through a distorting prism of quality. That was before most bioethicists came to believe that health-care rationing should be imposed. ... I'd have no problem with him arguing about HOW to make the decisions about who gets what medical resources, but he seems to be arguing, against reality and common sense, that no decision needs to be made at all, that medical resources are infinite. How can someone be so disconnected from reality? By looking at it just from a selfish emotional viewpoint? If one has a loved one in danger of death, one wants to do everything possible to save them. Ages ago, when everything possible didn't include as much, this made sense. I'm sure a lot of people will just respond to the article at an emotional level, and agree. But it is irresponsible to advance such an irrational argument. Doctors and nurses have struggled for years with the question of futile care. Quality vs. quantity is not some interesting concept, but snaps in your face (and nose) at any neurological ICU, PICU or nursing home. In the past, decisions were often made by one individual, acting in what they thought was the best interest of the family/patient; ethics comittees, which have been around at many teaching hospitals since the 80s, are an attempt to remove that power and responsibility from a single person. Whether such committees are a step towards greater transparency and accountability, or towards 'star chamber' style authoritarianism depends - like any governing body - on the rules/articles of its foundation and upon the integrity of most of the persons comprising it. One facet of taking care of critically/terminally ill patients has been to help the family know that it is alright to let go, to accept that Mama or Papa is *dying*, and all we can do is prolong that process - not bring them back to a life. [The need for empathy and compassion are part of what makes medicine, for many who practice, a 'calling.'] And Erik's point about limited resources is quite valid, as we don't live on a Federation starship; so far Americans have not been willing to deal with the reality of rationed healthcare. (I can't remember if it was on-list or Brin-chat that we discussed two- or three- tier systems...Dee?) I think that at the heart of the problem is that when the so-called bottom-line is so heavily emphasized (as it has been since the advent of HMOs), the family *cannot be sure* any more that the doctor is telling them the truth when s/he says that Mama or Papa is*dying*, and all we can do is prolong that process - not bring them back to a life: perhaps they really just mean Mama/Papa is 70+ and though s/he was in good health for a person of that age before the heart attack, someone of that age can't make any useful (financial) contribution to society, so we might as well let them die and 'decrease the surplus population'. IOW, can medicine be both a 'calling' AND a _business_? If not, which one will it actually be? I'd really like to hear your opinion as a professional, particularly as how to restore the public's trust in the profession . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: That's One Heck of a Bird
In a message dated 1/9/2003 6:28:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 11:22 AM 1/9/03 -0800, J.D. Giorgis wrote: An intereting article here about the discovery of the first Trojans in Neptune's orbit Now that Neptune has Trojans, I guess there won't be any more sea-nymphs, then . . . Oh, I don't know. You could always poke a hole through the fabric of space. William Taylor See monitary unit of Sysbath-Finorc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Scouted]A unusual new possible stroke drug
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:46:20PM -0600, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Really, though, how is that any more Ew, gross! than doctors using live leeches to help restore proper blood flow in a reattached limb, or live maggots to remove necrotic tissue? Personally, I find being ingested quite scarier than those prospects, whatever my parts are mixed with during the ingestion. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Scouted]A unusual new possible stroke drug
Ronn Blankenship wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: So, sir, I hope you don't mind if we injest you with bat spit to save your life. :-) Really, though, how is that any more Ew, gross! than doctors using live leeches to help restore proper blood flow in a reattached limb, or live maggots to remove necrotic tissue? Way to suck the humor out of this, Ronn. No pun intended. :) But seriously, it's really not any worse than those things, but it's certainly not appealing. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Doc Knows Best (It'll be too late for you, if he's wrong.)
At 09:19 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:40:37PM -0600, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: just mean Mama/Papa is 70+ and though s/he was in good health for a person of that age before the heart attack, someone of that age can't make any useful (financial) contribution to society, so we might as well let them die and 'decrease the surplus population'. What kind of reason is that? How about, there's someone over there who needs us and who DOES have a chance of having a long, healthy life if we can save her now In the given scenario, both can be saved. However, bypass surgery costs something like $40K (maybe more). Is it possible that, either now or in the future, insurance providers (private or Medicare) will decide that no 70-year-old's life is worth $40K, so they will not approve a doctor's request for surgery on any patient that age, regardless of their prospects for surviving the surgery, recovering, and living many more years in good health? How about if the patient is 75? 80? Older? (And otherwise in good health compared to others of that age, with a good prognosis if operated on.) At what point, if any, may someone in a position to make the final decision on whether or not a patient gets treatment say, Yes, that patient _could_ be saved, but his/her life is not worth the amount it will cost to save him/her? And if there's any possibility of such a determination being made, how can the family be sure that when the doctor says There's nothing we can do, s/he really means There is nothing medical we can do to save Mama/Papa, and not We could save Mama/Papa, but the bean counters have decreed that Mama/Papa is not worth saving? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Scouted]A unusual new possible stroke drug
At 09:20 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:46:20PM -0600, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Really, though, how is that any more Ew, gross! than doctors using live leeches to help restore proper blood flow in a reattached limb, or live maggots to remove necrotic tissue? Personally, I find being ingested quite scarier than those prospects, whatever my parts are mixed with during the ingestion. ??? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Scouted]A unusual new possible stroke drug
At 09:46 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn Blankenship wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: So, sir, I hope you don't mind if we injest you with bat spit to save your life. :-) Really, though, how is that any more Ew, gross! than doctors using live leeches to help restore proper blood flow in a reattached limb, or live maggots to remove necrotic tissue? Way to suck the humor out of this, Ronn. No pun intended. :) But seriously, it's really not any worse than those things, but it's certainly not appealing. Sorry to suck the humor dry (milking it for all it's worth), but my serious point was that those disgusting things have become accepted medical treatment, and are sometimes the only way available to doctors to save a limb or a life, so I don't see where an injection of bat saliva is really any different . . . (Not to mention that a lot of medical procedures which don't involve in any way application of living creatures or their body fluids are still pretty gross to contemplate . . . ) You're Going To Stick WHAT In WHERE?!! Maru --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Scouted]A unusual new possible stroke drug
At 09:00 PM 1/9/03 -0600, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 09:20 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:46:20PM -0600, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Really, though, how is that any more Ew, gross! than doctors using live leeches to help restore proper blood flow in a reattached limb, or live maggots to remove necrotic tissue? Personally, I find being ingested quite scarier than those prospects, whatever my parts are mixed with during the ingestion. ??? Never mind. I just noticed the typo in the part of Jim's post you snipped . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Doc Knows Best (It'll be too late for you, if he'swrong.)
--- Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 02:15 PM 1/9/03 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
snip
Doctors and nurses have struggled for years with
the
question of futile care. Quality vs. quantity...
In the past, decisions were often made by one
individual, acting in what they thought was the
best
interest of the family/patient; ethics comittees,
which have been around at many teaching hospitals
since the 80s, are an attempt to remove that power
and
responsibility from a single person. Whether such
committees are a step towards greater transparency
and
accountability, or towards 'star chamber' style
authoritarianism depends - like any governing body
- on the rules/articles of its foundation and upon
the integrity of most of the persons comprising it.
One facet of taking care of critically/terminally
ill patients has been to help the family know that
it
is alright to let go, to accept that Mama or Papa is
*dying*, and all we can do is prolong that process
- not bring them back to a life...
...so far Americans have not been willing to deal
with
the reality of rationed healthcare...
I think that at the heart of the problem is that
when the so-called
bottom-line is so heavily emphasized (as it has
been since the advent of
HMOs), the family *cannot be sure* any more that the
doctor is telling them the truth... [or decided] we
might as well let them
die and 'decrease the surplus population'.
I have not met _any_ doctor or nurse who would approve
of a 'Logan's Run'-style cut-off to decrease the
surplus population. [Withholding all but
comfort-care from some of the murderous thugs that
land on the ER doorstep, yes -- but that is another
kettle of fish entirely, conflicting with the make no
judgement ethic; I don't know (and haven't personally
heard of) anyone who actually did more than snarl in
private about 'saving a vicious murderer's life when
those resources could have gone to help some innocent
but poor sick person.']
IOW, can medicine be both a 'calling' AND a
_business_? If not, which one will it actually be?
Only with great difficulty and personal sacrifice
(time, money or compromised ideals#) now; if medical
interventions could be made significantly cheaper, if
people would take responsibility for their own health
(lifestyle choices), if clinicians would demand what
is right and not merely expedient -- then maybe.
{#frex, choosing the needs of the profession over the
needs of one's family}
[Next 3 paragraphs are entirely my opinion/impressions
about what led to the current state of affairs; I'm
sure there are books out there which have more erudite
conclusions, but this is my from the trenches view:]
Historically, that is not an entirely new issue; the
elite/rich have always had access to the best a
society had to offer - the big difference now is that
the best really _can_ bring back life from the brink
of death, whereas, frex, the best Revolutionary
society had to offer George Washington was repeated
(and ultimately fatal) blood-letting.
Docs in the first quarter of the last century had only
marginally improved knowledge/interventions (I still
shake my head at the 1905 text that stated 'for
control of female fertility, relations should only
occur in the two weeks furthest removed from her
cycle; this is how the early Hewbrews were able to
keep their population managable'), and they did not
expect to be fabulously wealthy. (A good thing, as
payment was frequently a chicken or a sack of wheat.)
The social programs of the 60s, though initiated with
the best of intentions, were seen as a cash cow by the
unscrupulous, and suddenly to be a doctor was a way to
**get rich**. Nearly everybody was happy (from a
health standpoint; I'm ignoring Vietnam etc.) - many
people got 'free' (or nearly so) care, the government
(and business) was popular with the voters for being
caring and progessive, doctors were in the black
financially -- until the spending and the dissociation
between actions and consequences started to catch up
with Reality. Finger-pointing, fist-shaking and
near-panic ensued. Then came HMOs...
When I graduated from med school (1988), I was
expected to be my patient's advocate in all things
medical and health-related. I was not trained to be a
gatekeeper (HMO term for primary care clinicians -
they are expected to keep patients from seeing
specialists 'too frequently,' from getting 'too many'
expensive interventions, and thus to keep costs down).
I was trained to do the best for each patient.
During residency, cost was still a secondary issue,
but to be considered in a the sense that one should
not order an MRI if an X-ray would yield the same
diagnosis (say pneumonia, as an extreme frex), or
choose an expensive drug if a cheaper one would do the
job as well. Transition began from doing everything
possible as one did at a public teaching hospital, to
considering if a patient should be a DNR (Do Not
Resuscitate) because s/he was
Turkish Reluctance
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/international/middleeast/09ALLI.html?todaysheadlines The Turks would probably help us out if they didn't think that by doing so the Kurds would get their way. Doug VFP Miss Muffit ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Doc Knows Best (It'll be too late for you, ifhe'swrong.)
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: [article quoted] But that was before the bioethics movement largely abandoned the sanctity of life ethic for an express or implicit utilitarianism that views the value of human life through a distorting prism of quality. That was before most bioethicists came to believe that health-care rationing should be imposed. ... I'd have no problem with him arguing about HOW to make the decisions about who gets what medical resources, but he seems to be arguing, against reality and common sense, that no decision needs to be made at all, that medical resources are infinite. How can someone be so disconnected from reality? By looking at it just from a selfish emotional viewpoint? If one has a loved one in danger of death, one wants to do everything possible to save them. Ages ago, when everything possible didn't include as much, this made sense. I'm sure a lot of people will just respond to the article at an emotional level, and agree. But it is irresponsible to advance such an irrational argument. Doctors and nurses have struggled for years with the question of futile care. Quality vs. quantity is not some interesting concept, but snaps in your face (and nose) at any neurological ICU, PICU or nursing home. In the past, decisions were often made by one individual, acting in what they thought was the best interest of the family/patient; ethics comittees, which have been around at many teaching hospitals since the 80s, are an attempt to remove that power and responsibility from a single person. Whether such committees are a step towards greater transparency and accountability, or towards 'star chamber' style authoritarianism depends - like any governing body - on the rules/articles of its foundation and upon the integrity of most of the persons comprising it. One facet of taking care of critically/terminally ill patients has been to help the family know that it is alright to let go, to accept that Mama or Papa is *dying*, and all we can do is prolong that process - not bring them back to a life. [The need for empathy and compassion are part of what makes medicine, for many who practice, a 'calling.'] And Erik's point about limited resources is quite valid, as we don't live on a Federation starship; so far Americans have not been willing to deal with the reality of rationed healthcare. (I can't remember if it was on-list or Brin-chat that we discussed two- or three- tier systems...Dee?) Debbi But yield who will to their separation, My object in living is to unite My avocation and vocation, As my two eyes make one in sight. Robert Frost, 'Two Tramps in Mud Time' __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
