Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446137
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: OT: in favour of gradualism |
| Date | 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o75au7$js5$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <f2cc1153-ecda-408d-bcc3-da9dce236181@googlegroups.com> <o71sjp01lmq@drn.newsguy.com> <o72bdv$8oa$1@dont-email.me> <bn5c9ctfe6ucog1785ogmoo0lmdmupdrvt@4ax.com> |
On 2/4/2017 11:05 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:35:55 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2017 5:21 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote...
>>>>
>>>> Atul Gawande has written another impressive piece for the New Yorker
>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-incremental-care
>>>>
>>>> It is mainly a plea for better primary-care medicine - what your
>>>> own doctor does for you at your local practice - but it includes
>>>> a reference to the 1967 collapse of the Silver Bridge across the
>>>> Ohio River, which was due to a failure in inspection and maintenance,
>>>> making the point that while doing heroic operations and building
>>>> new bridges are both extremely glamorous, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>> says that it's better to spend time on making sure that what's
>>>> working stays working, and perhaps improve it a bit from time to
>>>> time. Development rather than a new design from scratch.
>>>
>>> Would that we could snap our fingers and get a doctor like that.
>>
>> Why do we EXPECT medical professionals to be more "dedicated"
>> than any other profession?
>
> Because our lives depend on good medical practise. Few electronic
> design bugs kill people.
You're confusing skill and dedication. Would you relish a doctor
who works long hours on your care, weekends, etc. -- but is largely
incompetent?
"Yeah, but at least he TRIES!"
>> I've watched technicians NOT clean the flux from a board they've
>> just repaired; not inspect the quality of their solder joints
>> (as if they KNOW their work is "top quality" -- not!); "programmers"
>> who will only "test" their code at gunpoint; "continuing education"
>> being little more than reading trade rags; plumbers who don't properly
>> prep a joint before sweating it (nor cleaning it afterwards!);
>> painters who just make a token attempt at cleaning their brushes;
>> or, inflate their rates; etc.
>>
>> Yet, we seem to expect the medical professionals to be on top
>> of all the latest research; "take the initiative" to track down
>> OUR test results (instead of waiting for them to fall into
>> their laps in the normal course of events); be "on call" and
>> have ready appointments when we need them; etc.
>>
>> Last time I checked, they're "just people". They look forward
>> to Fridays as much as anyone else. They have similar motivations
>> and aren't all rooted in self-actualization, etc.
>
> Out next-door neighbors are both MDs. They often work weekends.
And there are medical professionals who take off *every* Friday.
(Virtually impossible to find a dentist in town that practices on
a Friday)
And, ones who will fail to follow through on their "promises".
(E.g., reporting your test results to you promptly -- a friend
is waiting to hear if her mastectomy will require chemo, etc.
Wouldn't you think her doctor would KNOW that she's waiting
on pins and needles for that call?)
The same is true of engineer, technicians, plumbers, etc.
A neighbor had just moved in and found himself (and wife and
newborn child) locked out of the house -- on a Sunday. He called
around to a few locksmiths and, despite the super-extra-premium-rates
that they justify for sunday "emergency service", none would step
away from their TV's ("I'll be there after the game...")
So, he and his wife and newborn should spend the next few hours
in the blistering heat?
I broke a tooth many years ago (pistachio nuts). On a Sunday.
Called the dentist "on call" for my regular dentist. Despite
KNOWING the sort of pain I was in, he grumbled: "Cant it
wait until Monday?" And, eventually only consented to see
me AFTER he'd finished dinner, etc.: "Meet me in three hours
at the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK..."
> They have an impossibly cute kid, and sometimes have a limo take her
> to day care, when they both have to be at the hospital in the early
> morning.
>
>
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:39 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 04:21 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 04:57 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-03 11:38 -0600
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:21 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 10:42 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 08:15 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 11:36 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 09:40 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 11:50 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:31 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-04 18:04 -0600
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:33 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 05:00 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:03 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 09:35 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 09:10 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 17:18 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 07:24 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:34 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:04 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 12:07 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 14:15 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 14:02 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:19 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:36 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:46 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-04 14:56 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:17 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:55 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 18:22 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:26 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 15:44 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:42 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:56 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-05 08:14 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:56 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 16:43 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-06 17:12 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:59 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-07 07:40 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 12:16 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:11 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:43 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-04 20:42 -0500
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-04 10:24 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:45 -0700
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-04 17:54 -0800
Re: OT: in favour of gradualism Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:45 -0700
csiph-web