In article
<4b217e30-22f9-4c5d-8451-e4841098fc70@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chris says...
>
>On Jul 3, 8:10=EF=BF=BDam, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
<ea6f56f7-a915-4ea3-b713-e4ed6ccea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>.com>,
>> Chris says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 2, 9:30=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> >> In article <CuqdnczFU747ufHVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kamm=
>erer=3D
>>
>> >> says...
>>
>> >> >Banty wrote:
>> >> >> In article <saednU2CY9B4avbVnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
K=
>amme=3D
>> >rer
>> >> >> says...
>> >> >>> Banty wrote:
>> >> >>>> In article <XvydnVtIxPDrXvbVnZ2dnUVZ_snin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Ericka=
> Kam=3D
>> >merer
>> >> >>>> says...
>> >> >>>>> Banty wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>I don't understand this. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDWhy is there this
bright=
> line draw=3D
>> >n at a urine test?
>> >> >>>>>>If the physician has suspicions, but the urine test is
negative,=
> if =3D
>> >he orders a
>> >> >>>>>> barium test, you'd say "no" then turn to assuming it's
behavior=
>al?
>> >> >>>>> =3DEF=3DBF=3DBD =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDI think you evaluate further
test=
>ing on the merit=3D
>> >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.
=3DEF=3DBF=3DBD=
>No sense m=3D
>> >aking this a false
>> >> >>>> all-or-nothing thing, though.
>>
>> >> >>>>Why, a priori, declare that only a urine test is worth pursuing
in=
> fin=3D
>> >ding or
>> >> >>>> ruling out medical issues??
>> >> >>> =3DEF=3DBF=3DBD =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDBecause it is quick, easy,
non-inva=
>sive and more or=3D
>> > 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. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDIf you were on the
fence =
>about whet=3D
>> >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
tha=
>t
>> >> >>> 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
doct=
>or v=3D
>> >isit,
>> >> >> declare that a urine test is the only one that makes sense
>>
>> >> > =3DEF=3DBF=3DBD =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDWhere did I say "only"?
>>
>> >> It's not about what you said. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDAll this started when I
r=
>esponded t=3D
>> >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
ma=
>ke s=3D
>> >ense
>> >> to me. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThat's the 'only the urine test' idea that I'm
t=
>alking abo=3D
>> >ut.
>>
>> >> One might, and even might likely, upon discussion with the doctor,
onl=
>y do=3D
>> > a
>> >> urine test. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDBut it doens't make sense to decide that
ev=
>en before =3D
>> >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. =EF=BF=BDOn something like this that may have a medical cause,
on=
>e *can't* be
>> certain it's behavioral until a medical cause is ruled out.
>>
>> Banty- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>One can't be certain that a persistent illness/fever isn't meningitis
>unless they do a spinal tap, but you don't see them recommending those
>routinely for children. @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to extremes again. In this case, an irrelevant extreme. Frequent
urination isn't a presenting feature in Meningitis.
I think you, for some reason, got your back up at my second post, so
persist in
misinterpreting what Im saying.
Banty
|
