this and that bloodletting

• Previous message: this and that bloodletting
• Next message: Removing the collar
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

true but unfortunately a modern health system requires we use lawyers
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Smith" <rfsmith at interaccess.com>
To: "'Trauma & Critical Care mailing list'" <trauma-list at trauma.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: this and that bloodletting


> Well we're still using leeches!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org
[mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org]
> On Behalf Of DocRickFry at aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:53 AM
> To: trauma-list at trauma.org
> Subject: Re: this and that - Cervical Paranoia
>
>
> In a message dated 10/9/2005 11:49:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> felixalbers at terra.com.br writes:
>
> in the  alert patient, without neuro deficit, a normal CT rules out
> medullary  compression risk. This is based on logic, not on evidence (just
> like your  statement). I guess this is the problem with those injuries.
Try
> to imagine  an injured cervical spine
>
>
> Ahhh--the old "logic--who needs evidence?" approach--sorry but that went
> out with the Dark Ages--or, at least, most of us thought so.  By this
> reasoning w e would still be practicing bloodletting--which by the way was
> perfectly logical to all physicians 200 years ago!  What you say above is
> not true and cannot be supported ERF
> --
> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html
>
>
>

• Previous message: this and that bloodletting
• Next message: Removing the collar
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]