On Jul 2, 9:30=EF=BF=BDpm, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <CuqdnczFU747ufHVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kammerer=
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Banty wrote:
> >> In article <saednU2CY9B4avbVnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kamme=
rer
> >> says...
> >>> Banty wrote:
> >>>> In article <XvydnVtIxPDrXvbVnZ2dnUVZ_snin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kam=
merer
> >>>> says...
> >>>>> Banty wrote:
>
> >>>>>>I don't understand this. =EF=BF=BDWhy is there this bright line
draw=
n 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?
> >>>>> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDI think you evaluate further testing on the
merit=
s.
> >>>>> 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. =EF=BF=BDNo sense
m=
aking this a false
> >>>> all-or-nothing thing, though.
>
> >>>>Why, a priori, declare that only a urine test is worth pursuing in
fin=
ding or
> >>>> ruling out medical issues??
> >>> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDBecause 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. =EF=BF=BDIf you were on the fence about
whet=
her
> >>> 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
v=
isit,
> >> declare that a urine test is the only one that makes sense
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDWhere did I say "only"?
>
> It's not about what you said. =EF=BF=BDAll this started when I responded
t=
o Chris
> saying:
> _____________________________
> Actually, Ericka, you are in agreement with me. I mentioned earlier
> that a simple urine sample is easy enough to obtain and that further
> testing beyond that I would put off unless I was unsure about it being
> behavioral and it was causing worry. The OP hasn't chimed in for a
> couple of days, and I'm assuming the doc visit they initially had
> would have included that first initial urine check-hopefully.
> ______________________________
>
> It's the "further testing beyond that I would put off" that doesn't make
s=
ense
> to me. =EF=BF=BDThat's the 'only the urine test' idea that I'm talking
abo=
ut.
>
> One might, and even might likely, upon discussion with the doctor, only
do=
a
> urine test. =EF=BF=BDBut it doens't make sense to decide that even
before =
seeing the
> doctor.
>
> Banty- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps if I cut and past the rest of that sentence you didn't
include, it might be more clear....
>>unless I was unsure about it being behavioral and it was causing worry.
Clarification -- this means that if I was certain it was behavioral, I
wouldn't automatically request invasive testing to try to rule out the
world. (neither did the OP's doctor). You really just need to read the
OP and move out from there.
|
