Talk:Medical misconceptions and the media

So I'm going to need proper cats and templates, if anybody knows them. Thanks--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Rational Wiki?

constructive dialogue

We aren't a general knowledge site, nor a medical site, and the "self cpr hoax" is really not exactly a big deal out there. --GodotGet over it!. 23:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Three potential incoming links, one goes to WP... might be worth keeping as a support article. -- Nx / talk 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean, by that logic, we should have articles on the color Blue, which sometimes is used in "woo" medicine, and on ladders which have people scared to go under them, and tornados which are also misrepresented in mainstream media. I still am not convinced that support articles are something we should be supporting, if we can't do something "different" or "better" than WP. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Meh. The way I see it, even if WP has a long boring article on something that's not on mission, but also not trivially common knowledge, it's useful to have a brief article on RW that just says what the thing is so that when you're reading an article and come upon a term that you don't know, you don't have to go search for it on google or WP. -- Nx / talk 23:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So here's my real question for you. What kind of server space do the hundreds of stubs like this take up, and why do we care if we have them? I'm picky because I don't like stubs or shoddy work. it looks half assed. I'd rather have time devoted to stuff that says *here is who we are*. But that's me. Brx temper tantrums aside, I really am always torn, cause the more general stuff we have, the more it looks like we are trying to be a mini "wp". But again (and BRX again, aside) I'm just giving my opinion and asking is this a valid article. I don't generally delete things without concensus. ;-) (though i have, when it's really really bad, like "vomit")--GodotGet over it!. 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Server space: much less than a lot of the other nonsense we keep. And deleting it doesn't reclaim the space already used. Time devoted: people work on what they want to, so that's also not a very strong argument for deletion - it's already here, you can't reclaim the time spent writing it by deleting it (though of course you can avoid wasting more time on maintenance/expansion, but I don't think that's a big issue... like I said, people will work on what they want to). I'm against being a crappy WP clone, but I also don't like it when we have to use inline links to WP to explain stuff, or force the reader to look it up on WP or whatever. As for having hundreds of crappy stubs - it comes with being a wiki. -- Nx / talk 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I created a well-sourced article relevant to RationalWiki's mission. This is not a reference article, particularly since no reference on CPR is at all called for in any article on this wiki. Instead I am putting forth that this article is about misconceptions of science, controversy in the scientific community, and pseudoscience. Certainly there are less topical articles that no one is pressed to delete, and the subject is an interesting one. My apologies for my uncouth defense that you see presented above. I was angry, but I have since calmed.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Shut up, Bricks

I think this fits number four pretty well, number one a bit too. Godot is just a bitter know-it-all looking for an opportunity to be a pedant and a bitch--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder why people find you abrasive & unendearing? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I know why. This doesn't happen often, though. Just when people like Godot do shit like this. And Godot, by your logic we'd just be the crank index.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

all?" lol. Like everyone else, dear child, I have opinions about what we should portray to the world. Others will agree or disagree. That's how wikis work. not sure why it's know it all or bitchy. --GodotGet over it!. 23:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (ec., and by the way, it happens almost every day with you BRX. )

Blast it into oblivion. Тy^talk 23:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Fucking

Fuck you--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Way to argue your case, Brix. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you br, fuck you--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That was just the introduction to my opening argument. Besides, she just pissed me off--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

By saying an article is not RW worthy? wow, you have issues, dude.--GodotGet over it!. 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"X pissed me off so i fucked up my opening arguement by telling them off". yah, and thats why you would lose a court case--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Think of the Jews, dammit! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote

Keep it

1. Just because Bricks wrote it doesn't mean it's worse than all of the other "support" articles we host and use. Blue (is useful) 21:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Please don't buy into his rhetoric that this was somehow a cut on him. Like most of us, when I see anything edited in "recent changes", I hop over and have a look. I do not look at who edits or who writes, just what the article is. And since I'm the one who put the template on, it was **just** about the article. i had no idea who wrote it till i was told to fuck off. That said, I"m not trying to change your vote. I review articles based on the article. not my "non article" beefs with others.GodotGet over it!. 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Good for you, but my vote still stands. Blue (is useful) 21:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Blue, did you read what I said? "I'm not trying to change your vote". GodotGet over it!. 21:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Of course. My comment that "my vote still stands" is not directed at you in particular. I'm not trying to argue with you. Blue (is useful) 21:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   No. You look at recent changes and you see the contributor. You knew I created this article. But at this point discussion of your intentions are pointless.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   Please do grow up. --GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 01:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Keep. I created a well-sourced article relevant to RationalWiki's mission. This is not a reference article, particularly since no reference on CPR is at all called for in any article on this wiki. Instead I am putting forth that this article is about misconceptions of science, controversy in the scientific community, and pseudoscience. Certainly there are less topical articles that no one is pressed to delete, and the subject is an interesting one. My apologies for my uncouth defense that you see presented above. I was angry, but I have since calmed.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Meh, it's not totally out in left field. Can't hurt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Kill it with fire

1. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
2. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
3. GodotGet over it!. 16:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
4. FIRE! Ace^ace 01:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Oh right. There was another vote on something. 22:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am having pains radiating up and down my left arm and I feel nauseous

• I have to sign here, just cause it was so cute an addition. (but kill it).GodotGet over it!. 16:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting

For someone to explain why my defense was wrong.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares. A vote was taken, the article was deleted. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I care. Hear me out instead of trolling--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."

You keep referring to a "defense." Is this it or is it scattered among several diffs? If several, please post them. 22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OH, now i remember why i hated this article so much. "it's mission cause it's psuedoscience' where? how? If you are going to say that, SHOW it. What this article was about is the fact that TV fucks up (like it does with most dramatic things) and says cpr is more effective than it is. Tv also says that coke tastes good, and that lawyers step away from teh tables to talk directly to witnesses --- we don't have articles on that. We should! GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Nutty, that is it. Godot, you're just not listening. Thinking you can perform CPR on yourself is quackery. Misrepresenting an important procedure in the media is wrong. Now, if you're for deleting this article, then I suggest you get started on over half the wiki, since they don't meet your illusory standards. You'll find you'll have to delete a few of yours, too. Anyways, this:

However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world. From the community standards--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking you can perform CPR on yourself is quackery. Yes, since it would involve being conscious while unconscious. Does anyone actually believe this, or is it just an uncited anecdote about a fin-de-siècle email meme? Misrepresenting an important procedure in the media is wrong. "The media" is a big fat category of many different things, with many different kinds of ethics surrounding them. Misrepresenting facts within journalism, for example, would usually be seen as unethical, but here you're talking about hospital dramas. Fiction has no obligation to be realistic. If cardiac patients on ER are revived statistically more often than in real life, then so what? It's not like a "Duck and Cover" situation where something completely useless is promoted as a life-saving technique: CPR can be effective & life-saving; it just has a low success rate because in most CPR situations the patient is already beyond recovery unless full medical assistance is available immediately. TV dramas thrive on drama so there are bound to be a few more exciting stories of near-death experiences than real life. Now, if you're for deleting this article, then I suggest you get started on over half the wiki. It doesn't work like that. See WP:WP:OTHERSTUFF. Same principle applies at RW. Of interest to the community at large. You haven't demonstrated this. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ace^ace 00:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Granted, it's radically changed, but it's far more RWish

I think one article with all these little bits and pieces is far more effective than an article on its own. I only knew of one more to add, but I'm sure the tv and medical people could find more examples of drama Medicine that isn't reflective of day -to-day medicine. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now this is the sort of thing we should have as high fecking priority stuff. ^gnostic 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's all thanks to Brx and all the hard work he put in on it today. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the section on med students, I recall reading an article somewhere that suggested that if TV medical dramas were assessed for accuracy and used all the techniques accurately then they could actually be used for public education. So instead of a mish-mash of "is this real, does this work?" you'd actually know that this is what to do in whatever situation. ^gnostic 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My wife has worked as a nurse in the emergency operating theatre of a large hospital for the last twenty years or so and always tells me that most hospital series have scant basis in reality. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If she's not into writing, would you at least ask her some of her favorite "oh, god, not this again" moments. I'd love to add them. I almost want to make one of these for lawyer shows. hehehe -- but only, *ALMOST*. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No chance she'll be writing here. She always finds the idea that people are constantly bonking each other in the hospital to be hilarious, but I'll ask her about some medial ones.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I always suspected there were people with sense in the world. I've finally found one. lol. I think it would be fascinating to hear real world nurses say "oh my god, let me tell you the real story". :-)GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to neurological stuff/brain disorders, House is actually pretty good -- usually it's the smaller details they screw up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What, like having doctors run every test, do lab work, AND do every single kind of surgery that comes into the place. ;-) GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 22:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant in terms of the illness. I'm sure it's completely ridiculous from a procedural standpoint (like having doctors break into people's houses). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Having spoken to the wife some of the unreal stuff is about people being rushed into hospital and a doctor takes one look at a patient and gives an instant diagnosis; the fact that every operation has to have a moment of high drama which usually involves the use of a defibrillator with dramatic shouts of "clear"; the way that the surgeon is seen as the only important individual - she tells me that the anaesthetist (and the nursing team) are equally important. There was more stuff too but I failed to take notes.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume the usual trope of "we need the best spinal surgeon in the world!"? I don't doubt some people's expertise, but the idea that only one dude, usually with a poor personal demeanor and lots of skeletons in his closet, can perform one specific operation and no one else can. Don't they rehearse the majorly complicated and unique surgeries (the one time per decade such a thing happens) with computer simulations among other things like they were repairing the Hubble telescope? ^{d hominem} 15:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Morality

Cut from the article, doesn't make much sense in context, would probably make more sense on the morality page itself: "Brain damage can affect moral decisions; a person with a specific type of brain damage is more likely to endorse killing, for example. Injury to a specific part of the brain has a specific effect on moral decisions. Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices This might indicate that morality is a function of the brain rather than of any hypothetical soul." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Brain surgery

Cut from article. There are lots of minimally invasive procedures as well. "When you have 60 minutes to solve a "rare medical dilemma" that happens every week (requiring a team of four to work only on your case and nothing else), you cut into people's heads as easily as if it were freezing off a wart. And the patient wakes up all happy ready to expose the next symptom that proves it's an autoimmune disease after all. And of course, brain surgery is effective, cause those tumors are so easy to cut out.

Of course, the sad reality is that Brain surgery, which is of course still very serious, does not have such a high success rate. Tumors are not lumps in the brain easily cut out, but are usually twisted into the actual healthy brain tissue, and may require removing some of that healthy tissue. If you survive the surgery itself, you still are likely to experience some level of dysfunction due to the removal of part of the brain. ^{[citation needed]}"

Oh, come on! :-) Every time I watch 'a gifted man' or house, they are taking off parts of teh person's skull, digging round like there's no tomrrow, pulling out chunks of matter without harming the person. I know 3 people who have had tumors removed. None of them were up and around in a day, most weren't really even talking for a day or two and all three had lasting repercussions that are better than the tumors, but are very real. Anyhow, i wouldn't revert cause the ONLY thing i know hence the "fact" template, is 3 patients and 2 tv shows. ;-) --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's obviously a wee bit exaggerated, but as for that section, I'm going to say "I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that…" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, i 'm just giving you a hard time. my experience is very limited!GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

CPR

This -- Seth Peck (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)0

Hands-only CPR is only any good if you can expect an ambulance (or somebody else with a defibrillator) to arrive PDQ. More than a few minutes, you need to alternate between pushing the chest & mouth-to-mouth. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's half the reason I made the damn CPR article. Hands-only CPR is the best CPR. There is enough oxygen present in the bloodstream that hands-only CPR is sufficient. Mouth to mouth may as well be obsolete, and THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CPR IS NOT TO REVIVE ANY BODY. It's to keep the brain oxygenated until someone can can the heart started properly. You'll have to wait for the paramedics to come with a defibrillator. Obviously, the article on CPR alone was necessary since supposedly educated RationalWiki users know nothing about it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Brx, you don't have to yell at me; I'm aware of what CPR is for. How can you say there is indisputably "enough" oxygen in the bloodstream when there's no limit on how long it can take somebody with a defibrillator to show up? It's not unknown for an ambulance to take an hour to get to some locations. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the yelling, my anxiety disorder had gotten the best of me. Now I've gone for a brisk walk, got me a beer and some rice, and I'm feeling much better. As for oxygen in the blood, look at the studies I had posted in the original article. I don't know if they're in this version, because I have so far refused to look at it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I also refuse to look at it. Can you summarise approximately how long hands-only CPR can viably maintain blood oxygen levels before intervention is required? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A while. That's all you're getting out of me tonight--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but if I have to perform CPR on somebody tonight, I'm doing it hands-only for as long as it takes, and holding you legally liable if it all goes wrong, since I asked you straight & you couldn't give me a straight answer. Sweet dreams. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and you can go to their web sites, "hand only" CPR is not what is recommended if you are knowledgeable about what you are doing, and if you have reason to believe the ambulance will not arrive for more than 10 minutes, due to lack of oxygen in the lungs at that point. also, (and i quote) "For those with non cardiac arrest and people less than 20 years of age standard CPR is superior to compression only CPR." standard as in "with artificial respiration". http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/CPRAndECC/CPR_UCM_001118_SubHomePage.jsp and http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/22_suppl.toc, both of whom have done their recomendaions in 2010. One of the reasons compression only is advised is because it is easier to talk through over the phone, and it's harder to "fuck up" than CPR & AR. But that does not mean it's better. When you call 911 (in the states), they will ask you if you are trained, if you are, they will advise you which is better for the victim, given the location you are in, the type of problems they see (including the color of lips after doing compression only CPR), the age of the victim, etc. For very young children it is ALWAYS necessary to attempt AR, because there is simply not enough oxygen to maintain their tissues. While I understand you have some studies, until or unless the AHA is saying that's the best practice (when trained adults are doing it, or when children are the victim), then the article needs to be far more clear. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is why we need to be careful about medical topics. Is anyone in this discussion a trained and certified health care professional? No? Then maybe we should stick to making fun of Ken and writing about Darwin. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 03:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have one of the proper full first-aid certificates and know an instructor, so I can at least tell you what the actual advice given for first-aid care is, and do a degree the secondary cardiac care performed by paramedics. The advice does change frequently, but it's always "what you're confident and comfortable doing". If you can't do mouth-to-mouth for whatever reason, it's fine to leave it out - an unconscious body consumes relatively little oxygen so 99% of the time it'd be safe to say you can do it hands only for 10 minutes or so. I wouldn't expect this article to give advice on how to do CPR, just focus on what is wrong and misleading about it in TV, which it does. ^narchist 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)