Posts by Harold Mendoza3

Kevin White5 said:do you have any idea what percentage of young doctors actually get a paid residency after graduation????

Well, if you're looking in a place like New York City, you could probably count them on one hand, because everyone else is essentially working for free as volunteers.

It’s honestly quite depressing.

Unfortunately, even outside of the major metropolitan areas, the situation isn't much better.🙄

malignant disease

Look, going to the urologist isn't exactly a highlight of anyone's week, but let's be honest—if women can commit to regular gynecologist appointments (which, frankly, aren't much more pleasant), I don't quite understand why men tend to dodge these necessary check-ups when it actually matters.🙄

Justin Fox As stated by:
I find myself contemplating the idea of my partner looking at or touching my penis.

If it helps at all, there are female urologists available as well. 😁

How exactly would he perform the examination? Visually? Honestly, whenever I find myself facing a male doctor, my physiological response is practically the opposite of an erection, so I can assure you that the gentleman wouldn't be seeing anything of the sort.

Does the penis actually need to be erect during an exam? Honestly, you live and learn every single day.😁

I would have noticed that something felt off as well. To put it bluntly: there was absolutely zero value gained from his review.

I honestly fail to see why urologists even have jobs anymore when any random layman can seemingly stumble their way into an approximate diagnosis.😬

I should also note that prostate cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality among men in the United States. 👎 If I recall correctly, that falls within the scope of a urologist's practice. 😬

Justin Fox said:hypocritekritova The whole concept of an oath and all that nonsense really ought to be rebranded as something Hippocratic.kratovu Take an oath, because most people around here are busy dragging the reputation of what used to be called "humanitarian professions" through the mud.

You’ve got your wires crossed on this one. It isn't that "most people" are acting in bad faith; it’s just a small minority causing the trouble. There are parasites in every field, no matter how legitimate. Just like in any other profession, the hardest part is always weeding out the rot from within your own ranks.

At this point, it’s strictly a matter of business.

What isn't a business opportunity these days? As far as I can tell, they haven't quite figured out how to monetize the fact that we all breathe for free.

Alex Collins26 said:I’m starting this thread mainly because of what happened to my mother yesterday... she ended up at Mayo Clinic because we suspected gallbladder attacks (she had back pain, a fever, and hasn't been able to eat for two days). However, after a series of tests—urine, bloodwork, X-rays, and various doctor consultations—they actually concluded they have no idea what’s going on. The doctor mentioned he suspects cancer, but admits he's unsure, so he called my husband over to ask him a few questions. My husband mentioned that Mom has had a darker mole on her leg for quite some time now, so the doctor called her back in to take a look. Upon seeing it, he immediately gave a diagnosis of cancer (though he doesn't know exactly what kind) and prescribed...

I realize I might be tilting at windmills here, but I feel compelled to respond to this post.
I understand that when a family member is admitted to the hospital, it is an incredibly stressful situation. It's difficult to follow the process, and even harder to truly grasp everything a doctor is saying. We are terrified for our loved ones, and sometimes we struggle to answer the simplest questions ourselves—let alone process a mountain of technical medical jargon and expert advice that feels completely foreign to us. But...
There is always a "but."
We have to remain mindful that doctors are not omnipotent (regardless of how much some might wish they were) and they don't possess a crystal ball that can instantly reveal a patient's specific condition or their remaining time. That knowledge belongs to a higher power, not the physician. Consequently, I find it difficult to believe that anyone should be throwing diagnoses around so casually, offering grim prognoses at first glance or counting down someone's days. Yet, people always want to ask—"What's the prognosis?" Providing a prognosis before a definitive diagnosis is even established is futile. That is precisely why all these various tests are performed. Similarly, providing a prognosis based solely on initial findings is equally senseless. Every person is an individual; some handle illness one way, others differently. A doctor is not a fortune teller, nor should they attempt to be one.

According to the updated regulations, breeders are no longer permitted to breed two primary non-reactors.

And does this famous doctor actually have the right to know whether the patient he's operating on is HIV positive or not?

Justin Fox said:There was once a scandal where several Buggar nurses and a doctor administered some kind of vaccine to children, which was later discovered to be contaminated with HIV. Because of this, many children tested positive for HIV—I believe it was over 100. Initially, the nurses and the doctor were sentenced to death, though that was later commuted to prison sentences; there was quite a debate regarding who was ultimately responsible for the vaccine. If I recall correctly, they are still imprisoned in Libya.

A vaccine itself cannot be "infected" with AIDS. 😬 (It can be contaminated with HIV, certainly, but not with AIDS)
AIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. Most people living with HIV carry the virus for years until it causes enough damage to the immune system to create the conditions necessary for AIDS to develop. By definition, the term AIDS refers to the late stage of an HIV infection.

Regarding those Buggar nurses, they were accused of intentionally infecting children alongside a Palestinian doctor, with the number of infected children reported to be upwards of 400.

Sophia Martinez65 said:I heard they actually believe they have to consume the placenta 🤮 🙂 🙂

🙂 I honestly can't imagine how one would even go about doing that😕

🙂 We are talking about a placenta here😁

OT:
It is quite interesting to see who is doing the pointing fingers here.😉

You suddenly decided to upgrade your insult from "you idiot" to "irritable and primitive."🤣

My thanks to 😘. I can clearly see how much you care about this matter.😉

Unlike you, who seems to derive all your medical expertise from internet forums and Google searches, I actually earned my credentials at medical school.

But then again, how could I possibly compete with someone of YOUR vast intellectual caliber?🙏

😍

Amy Fowler85, it’s a good thing it isn't a keloid.👍

Justin Fox said:Man, what an idea—refusing to tattoo over a keloid scar,

Well, where exactly does it state that we aren't dealing with a keloid? Not everyone possesses your level of medical expertise.🙏

When they say scar, presumably they mean a standard one.

It’s good to know you’re such an expert at interpreting her intentions.🙄

They look more like inflammation and swelling than anything one would callJUSTIN FOX imagine being a scar.

According to Justin Fox's definition...🙄

By the way, the anatomical placement of the chest, shoulder girdle, and upper back are all textbook locations for these types of scarring patterns.

my best friend is a doctor

Isn't that essentially the root of all your frustrations? Your friend achieved exactly what he set out to do, yet you find yourself nursing a quiet envy. If you claim to possess such extensive knowledge, why not simply enroll in medical school? It's not as if the information isn't already at your fingertips.😉

Do you also advise your "friend's" patients to resort to criminal activities 🙂 should they find his services lacking?😕

when it comes to subjects based on specific problems (math, physics, etc.), you can memorize an entire textbook, solve every single problem in a workbook, and still fail the exam multiple times.

Is that really a valid excuse for why you haven't graduated yet?😬

Forget all that; just go into medicine.🙏

It really depends on the specific nature of the scar. If we are dealing with a keloid, masking it with a tattoo is going to be an uphill battle. The texture and quality of the skin within a keloid area are fundamentally different from the surrounding tissue, which means any ink applied there will likely yield a result that deviates significantly from what you’re expecting. Furthermore, the skin in those spots tends to be hypersensitive; there is a genuine risk that even minor procedures—let alone the trauma of tattooing—could trigger the formation of new keloid scarring.

Lawrence Wells said:Justin Fox, you clearly have no idea what the reality of medical school is actually like; you're just talking trash because you're dealing with a massive inferiority complex.

and the mystery is solved
👍

Justin Fox said:A little bit of physician complacency is a small price to pay compared to the actual risk to a patient's health. It’s truly unfortunate. 😢

Unfortunately, we aren't dealing with a lack of medical expertise from our doctors; rather, we’re facing the systemic limitations of Medicare. Believe it or not, Medicare acts as the ultimate gatekeeper for almost everything. They are the ones deciding who qualifies for specific procedures and who gets left out in the cold. To be perfectly blunt, the process of drawing and storing one's own blood prior to a major surgery carries a significant cost, and Medicare simply refuses to foot the bill. It seems that in our current system, the decision-making always boils down to one thing: choosing the cheapest option possible.

From a legal standpoint, I believe that unless you sign a blanket waiver upon admission granting the hospital full discretion over your treatment, they are strictly required to seek your consent for every single procedure. If you encounter any resistance or pushback because you refuse to sign such an all-encompassing statement, you should demand the names of the staff involved. My advice would be to report them directly to the Department of Health and Human Services for denying you medical care based on unlawful grounds.

Upon admission to any hospital, you are required to sign a universal consent form authorizing medical treatment; without that signature, the facility simply won't admit you. The notion that your doctor should consult you on every single minute detail of your care is a complete utopia. That kind of granular level of communication doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Beyond the practicalities, that statement serves as a critical legal document.

If someone goes ahead and implements something without your consent, you should arguably have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit based on the resulting emotional distress.

I agree, certainly, but I must reiterate: it is simply not feasible to ask a patient for consent at every single micro-moment during a procedure. This is precisely why we utilize general consent forms that don't dictate every granular step of the process. Medicine isn't a mathematical equation; 2 + 2 rarely equals 4 in a clinical setting. Every surgical intervention carries inherent risks, and at the onset, it is impossible to guarantee with absolute certainty how a situation will unfold. Despite our best intentions, laparoscopic procedures frequently have to be converted into open surgeries mid-stream.

Why shouldn't one be forced to sign a blanket waiver? The real question is how we regulate this effectively. From a legal standpoint, instead of signing a broad statement that grants total approval for everything, wouldn't it make more sense to authorize only a specific, targeted treatment?

As I mentioned before, you’re welcome to give it a shot, but I honestly don't see you getting much further than the reception desk.

The pragmatic approach is this: you walk into the doctor's office, offer them some cash to ensure they perform exactly the way you want, provide a small portion upfront, and once you’re satisfied with the results, you settle the rest. In my view, that is how you guarantee you get exactly what you need and receive the level of care you expect. That is simply the reality of the American healthcare system—if you want genuine respect and dignified treatment, you either have to take your chances or pay under the table.

I believe this is quite possibly the most flawed approach imaginable. You cannot simultaneously throw stones at the entire healthcare system—accusing everyone from the top down of corruption and incompetence—while also abandoning any meaningful reform in favor of the path of least resistance. It is essentially saying, "Let's just hand a massive settlement check to a few doctors and call it a day." This is nothing more than a blatant application of double standards. You really need to decide which side you are on.

If you’re truly being ruined by this, your only alternative is seeking retribution from some criminal element.

Honestly, this doesn't even merit a response.

These guys have cornered the healthcare market, so they act with total impunity. They couldn't care less about the patients, and they cause damage without ever facing consequences. 😢
Their day of reckoning will come eventually!

It won't be, though—especially not with those specific players you mentioned, as long as you try to resolve your issues using the methods you just suggested.

See if you can work out a private arrangement or a little "under the table" deal just to ensure you're treated with some dignity.

👎

hiddenheron78 said:Generally speaking, I didn't sign anything, because I believe there is nothing wrong with helping someone else if I am unable to help myself.

I’m a bit lost here—what exactly did you not sign? I find it hard to believe that upon being admitted to the hospital, you didn't sign a standard consent form for the procedure along with everyone else.😕

It is certainly true that a patient must be fully informed about any procedure they undergo. However, we see it happen daily in American hospitals: patients refuse established treatment protocols without actually understanding the specifics, simply because they were told something different or because they heard a "miracle cure" was better, even if it isn't medically necessary.
Some individuals take their condition very seriously and strive to learn everything possible about it. On the other hand, there are those who refuse to learn anything at all yet still consider themselves competent enough to reject the therapy being offered. It makes me wonder: despite having the legal right to refuse, do they truly have the moral right to do so?🙄

hiddenheron78 said:But honestly, it was the whole intake process that really incensed me—since when am I stripped of my right to make a decision? It actually got me thinking about how I might sign a directive stating I don't wish to be an organ donor, only to find myself in a situation where, God forbid, it becomes necessary—who’s actually going to verify if I signed the paperwork or not? At that point, I wouldn't even have the capacity to protest, much like how I couldn't simply get out of bed back then.

Regarding that specific concern, you can rest easy. A vast number of our local hospitals aren't even equipped to perform organ extractions. So, even if you were to sign a donor card and heaven forbid such a scenario occurred, the real question is whether anyone would even be able to facilitate it. 🙄

Of course, a patient always maintains the right to decide, but simultaneously, the physician also holds decision-making authority. A doctor should always act according to the principle of doing what is best for the patient in that exact moment. Unfortunately, all too often, when faced with a choice between what is truly best and what is merely easier or faster, the latter path is chosen. However, I sometimes struggle to understand the patients as well. When they disagree with the procedures they are subjected to, why don't they file a formal complaint on the spot, rather than waiting until everything is over to write posts on internet forums? Now, this doesn't apply to you, as I read that you did indeed protest at the time, but generally, the situation follows this pattern: people visit the doctor, fail to comprehend even 5% of what is being explained to them, and are too intimidated to ask questions because they view the physician as some sort of sacred icon that cannot be questioned—only to vent about it on a forum later... What do you all think? What should I 😕