In article <saednU2CY9B4avbVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka Kammerer
says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>> In article <XvydnVtIxPDrXvbVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kammerer
>> says...
>>> Banty wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't understand this. Why is there this bright line drawn at a
urine test?
>>>>If the physician has suspicions, but the urine test is negative, if he
orders a
>>>> barium test, you'd say "no" then turn to assuming it's behavioral?
>>> I think you evaluate further testing on the merits.
>>> It is not always the beneficial to run every possible test
>>> to rule out every single possibility no matter how small.
>>
>>Well, sure, step by step based on what is learned. No sense making this
a false
>> all-or-nothing thing, though.
>>
>> Why, a priori, declare that only a urine test is worth pursuing in
finding or
>> ruling out medical issues??
>
> Because it is quick, easy, non-invasive and more or less
>capable of indicating whether there's a UTI, which would be far
>and away the most likely cause of a physical problem causing
>these sorts of accidents. If you were on the fence about whether
>it was physical or behavioral, it's practically a no brainer to
>rule out far and away the most likely physical cause...and one that
>could cause damage if not diagnosed.
Read my question again, emphasis on the word *only*.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to, even before a doctor
visit,
declare that a urine test is the only one that makes sense - one will work
on
behavioral issues before pursuing any medical issue further. One would
*see a
doctor*. Then pursue it *how the doctor and one decides* according to
discussions with him or her, results of any tests, etc. etc. It doesn't
make
sense to walk into the doctor's office with the attitude "I'm not pursuing
this
beyond a non-invasive urine test".
One step at a time.
It's really just common sense.
Banty
|
