In article
<ea6f56f7-a915-4ea3-b713-e4ed6cceae3f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chris says...
>
>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.
But that's much of the discussion right there, from the beginning of this
thread. On something like this that may have a medical cause, one *can't*
be
certain it's behavioral until a medical cause is ruled out.
Banty
|
