Banty wrote:
> 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
Where did I say "only"?
Best wishes,
Ericka
|
