Posts by Kate Collins67

Jacob Fox6 said:I'm with you on that. But I think you misunderstood part of what I meant... I've been consistently against the views expressed by ruggedscout91, who starts off by suggesting we should give this or that based purely on personal opinion. I'm not sure if you see the difference between what you're saying and what she was arguing. She was pointing out typical cases of discrimination, which isn't really what you're talking about here, because her point was about discrimination on a personal level fueled by individual prejudices (I could pull excerpts to prove it if needed), whereas you're talking about systemic discrimination, which isn't what I was getting at at all. It's an exaggeration to say the rules generally can't be followed. Of course, it's not always possible, and doctors definitely try to squeeze out every bit of good they can, but overall, there are guidelines that are easier to follow in some specialties than others, though I truly believe a doctor can act in a way that stays within the bounds of humanity... And again, that's not the same as what ruggedscout91 writes, where it seems like people are just tossed aside because they're elderly, or judged as doomed because they're alcoholics, using those excuses to justify treating or not treating them... what she represents is prejudice, while what you represent is something else entirely, and even though the line is thin, it exists. You're doing it because of a limited budget and you can't just change who you are to do things the way they "should" be done, but she does it because of bias. That's the whole point...

I hear exactly what she’s saying, I hear what I’m saying, and I get your point—but let’s stop pretending for a second. Let’s forget that I’m a doctor, you’re a medical student, and she’s a patient. Let’s pretend we’re all just "patients" stripped of any identity other than raw medical data.

Personally? It would absolutely kill me if my son, my daughter, or my grandchild died, while someone in their 80s gets to cling to life for a few more months simply because the system is rigged to prioritize "excessive care for the elderly," causing a massive bottleneck for everyone else.

On the flip side, if it were my grandfather or grandmother in that bed, maybe I wouldn't be able to say that—though, honestly, life has already shattered most of my ideals anyway. But even then, I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make that call when it comes to my own flesh and blood (even though my grandparents have all passed away).

ruggedscout91 writes what he writes because he understands the fundamental truth: in a system where it is impossible for everyone to get everything, it makes more sense to prioritize those for whom the intervention will actually provide long-term value (or at least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing).

Jacob Fox6 said:I am totally on board with what you're saying here...

But I can't get behind the way ruggedscout91 is looking at things, because honestly, she’d probably try to hand off someone’s organ for transplant to whoever she thinks "deserves" it more, even though the rules are super clear on that... And those comments about third-party coverage are just totally out of line, and complaining about the number of prescriptions seems pretty silly to me. Sure, there are a lot of them, but most of those people genuinely need them just to live a normal life...

What you pointed out is exactly what I was thinking about when I brought up the budget... To me, what ruggedscout91 is advocating for isn't quite the same thing as your example, because yours is pure reality while her take is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Of course someone is going to miss out, I never said otherwise, which is why I emphasized that absolute truth, but as long as you aren't denying someone care based on prejudices like age or lifestyle, then I'm right there with you... because it stays within the realm of reality and isn't about discriminating based on some personal worldview, but rather just judging how urgent a specific test is. Even at my local clinic where I always go for bloodwork, they handle thyroid tests right there, so I don't see why every single patient needs to be sent to a major Medical Center unless they're actually hospitalized, since local clinics usually have decent labs... But hey, that was just a simple example for thyroid stuff, and there are a million other tests that can only be done at a big hospital. I know that's why waiting lists exist and all that... But we end up back at what I said—it all comes down to the money... Even with an organized system like ours in the States, it would be so much better if hospitals just had a proper budget...

Sure, the protocols for transplants might be black and white, but that doesn't mean they're actually moral.
In my book, if there's only one liver available and two patients—one who's an alcoholic and another dealing with a liver disease they had zero control over—that second person is the one who deserves it.
Since nobody is asking me to make the call, I'm not going to play God, and if the law dictates a certain way, I'll follow it—but don't think for a second that I agree with it.

If you ever found yourself in a position where you desperately needed a liver, only to watch it go to an alcoholic while you're left with maybe six months to live, I bet your perspective would look a whole lot different.

Jacob Fox6 said:I am totally on board with what you're saying here...

But I can't get behind the way ruggedscout91 is looking at things, because honestly, she’d probably try to hand off someone’s organ for transplant to whoever she thinks "deserves" it more, even though the rules are super clear on that... And those comments about third-party coverage are just totally out of line, and complaining about the number of prescriptions seems pretty silly to me. Sure, there are a lot of them, but most of those people genuinely need them just to live a normal life...

What you pointed out is exactly what I was thinking about when I brought up the budget... To me, what ruggedscout91 is advocating for isn't quite the same thing as your example, because yours is pure reality while her take is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Of course someone is going to miss out, I never said otherwise, which is why I emphasized that absolute truth, but as long as you aren't denying someone care based on prejudices like age or lifestyle, then I'm right there with you... because it stays within the realm of reality and isn't about discriminating based on some personal worldview, but rather just judging how urgent a specific test is. Even at my local clinic where I always go for bloodwork, they handle thyroid tests right there, so I don't see why every single patient needs to be sent to a major Medical Center unless they're actually hospitalized, since local clinics usually have decent labs... But hey, that was just a simple example for thyroid stuff, and there are a million other tests that can only be done at a big hospital. I know that's why waiting lists exist and all that... But we end up back at what I said—it all comes down to the money... Even with an organized system like ours in the States, it would be so much better if hospitals just had a proper budget...

Look, hospital budgets aren't magic money trees—they’re tied to the federal budget, which means it's a zero-sum game. You have to take from one pocket to fill another. It’s a vicious cycle. You pour more into healthcare? Well, maybe you’re cutting funding for agricultural subsidies or infrastructure elsewhere. You can't just conjure cash out of thin air. That’s why we really need to figure out how to make the current system run more efficiently with the money we already have, because let’s face it—in the long run, there isn't going to be any more money coming down the pike.

So, what’s the move? We can sit around waiting until there’s enough wealth to provide perfectly equal service to everyone—which, let's be honest, is a fantasy—or we can fundamentally change how the system works from the inside. We could prioritize resources for those who absolutely need them most, even if that means unfortunately cutting back on services for people who are less critical or perhaps less "financially viable" to treat. Whatever you want to call it, that's the reality.

That’s just my take on things—and don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind feeling a lot more comfortable if there were plenty for everyone. But I think some of you are missing the point of what ruggedscout91 is getting at. I get where the frustration comes from, believe me; I see it firsthand, and all I can say is that the situation is even bleaker than what's being written here.

Jacob Fox6 said:I am totally on board with what you're saying here...

But I can't get behind the way ruggedscout91 is looking at things, because honestly, she’d probably try to hand off someone’s organ for transplant to whoever she thinks "deserves" it more, even though the rules are super clear on that... And those comments about third-party coverage are just totally out of line, and complaining about the number of prescriptions seems pretty silly to me. Sure, there are a lot of them, but most of those people genuinely need them just to live a normal life...

What you pointed out is exactly what I was thinking about when I brought up the budget... To me, what ruggedscout91 is advocating for isn't quite the same thing as your example, because yours is pure reality while her take is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Of course someone is going to miss out, I never said otherwise, which is why I emphasized that absolute truth, but as long as you aren't denying someone care based on prejudices like age or lifestyle, then I'm right there with you... because it stays within the realm of reality and isn't about discriminating based on some personal worldview, but rather just judging how urgent a specific test is. Even at my local clinic where I always go for bloodwork, they handle thyroid tests right there, so I don't see why every single patient needs to be sent to a major Medical Center unless they're actually hospitalized, since local clinics usually have decent labs... But hey, that was just a simple example for thyroid stuff, and there are a million other tests that can only be done at a big hospital. I know that's why waiting lists exist and all that... But we end up back at what I said—it all comes down to the money... Even with an organized system like ours in the States, it would be so much better if hospitals just had a proper budget...

Well, money has always been the issue. Always. But we can't sit around daydreaming about "what if" scenarios; we have to deal with the reality of surviving within the system as it exists right now.

But look, that reagent example you gave is a bit too simple because, usually, nobody gets fired over something like that. You have much more serious examples out there—far more serious potential diagnoses—where you're still prevented from acting, and suddenly you're stuck in this impossible dilemma: you know exactly what resources you have available, and you realize you can only help, say, one more person before the end of the month or the year. You're forced to choose between two people. And medically speaking? The only thing distinguishing them might be age—one is 40 and the other is 70—or maybe one struggles with alcoholism and the other doesn't. In certain situations, you might manage to game the system and help both, but in many others, you won't. And as time goes on, you'll probably start to falter because fighting against the system is exhausting and, most of the time, completely futile.

Since the law, with its restrictive budgeting, basically gives you a way to shift the blame onto the government, you’d think it would be easier to stomach—but it doesn't change the fact that you are constantly being forced to choose one person at the expense of another.
In a system set up this way, avoidance is impossible. And when you are finally making that choice, it becomes incredibly significant whether you're looking at a person with cancer or not, an alcoholic or a teetotaler, the young or the old. Because at the end of the day, you are the one making the decision that helps one person while depriving another... it's tragic, but that's just how it works. I'll say it again: sometimes there's a way to screw the system, but sometimes your hands are tied.

Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario here: imagine you have, say, 100 units of thyroid hormone reagents left for the month of May 2010. After those are gone, the hospital is physically incapable of running any more tests—it's literally impossible because you lack the supplies. So now, you find yourself in this position where you have to reach out to everyone who might need them, or you try to hand-pick a specific group based on your own judgment—your experience, your knowledge, whatever—to decide who will actually benefit the most from what little you have left.

You’re staring down exactly two choices: either you message everyone in order, regardless of how slim their chances are, which means by the 15th you've burned through everything, leaving nobody else able to get tested for the rest of the month and creating a massive waiting list.
The other option is to be selective—to make the hard calls and play judge, knowing full well that in the process, you are inevitably going to screw someone over. But at least then, you're aiming to minimize the overall damage.

That is exactly how the system works in the real world. You are forced into a position where you have to choose, and you can't pretend you aren't making a choice just by acting like it doesn't concern you—because no matter what you do, you've already picked a side.

Jacob Fox6 said:I basically agree with that, though I feel like when it comes to the two of us, things might play out a little differently...

We’re out here talking about taking care of our health, but let's be real—more and more people are losing their jobs every single day and that trend isn't slowing down anytime soon... We talk all about how the American insurance system is supposed to work, only to face the reality where you're stuck waiting an entire year just for a basic scan or some routine testing. Everyone loves to chime in with "it should be this way" or "they don't have the right equipment in the hospitals," but honestly, nobody seems to grasp that all of this is just the byproduct of money, corporate greed, and political maneuvering... To me, listening to the endless complaining about what a hospital lacks is pretty pointless when everyone from the patients to the doctors and the medical center directors already knows the deal. That same director who turns down a specific medication isn't being difficult for fun; they're just working within a tight budget at a hospital that's already drowning in debt. And look, I’m just a regular guy doing my job, so there's no point in overanalyzing it... If you can handle the grind, then handle it, but if you can't, go find some help to make things a little easier on yourself...

What you’re calling some kind of utopia is honestly just a total misunderstanding on your part... expecting the healthcare system to actually work properly anytime soon isn't a dream, it's just reality, and whining about it is pretty much just exhausting and unnecessary... but it definitely isn't a utopia to say that even within the current system, no matter how flawed, a person shouldn't throw their morals out the window and try to play judge and jury themselves... like, here's a simple example—if someone is at the top of the list for a kidney transplant, they get that kidney, period, regardless of age, medical history, or what anyone personally thinks about them being "worthy"... a doctor is in the hospital to focus on the illness and the patient, not to let their own personal moral compass dictate how they act... my own moral leanings happen to align perfectly with the Hippocratic Oath, thank God, and I don't recognize any other way of doing things...

There's really no such thing as absolute correctness because humans aren't perfect beings, and since everything involving people is subjective, I honestly have zero interest in arguing over who "deserves" what or anything like that... I'm not there to pass judgment, I'm there to follow the laws as they stand... if someone has an issue with the law itself, they should take it up with the right authorities... it’s like being a lawyer who has to defend a guilty client; even if it clashes with your personal code, you don't just turn around and blame them in court instead of doing your job, because that would just be hypocritical... the institution makes the calls, not the individual, and there's a reason it works that way... everything I've heard so far feels like nothing more than isolated, deviant takes on what morality actually means...

I still firmly believe that being a doctor isn't for everyone, because it requires this massive amount of humanity that, unfortunately, not everyone possesses... I didn't go into medicine just to pick and choose who gets help, I went into it to help everyone I possibly can... and when you hit those situations where helping everyone is impossible, the rules are crystal clear... anything else is just chaos... if someone can't handle following professional standards, then they probably shouldn't be practicing this profession in the first place...

But that’s exactly where the issue lies—the rules aren't actually "clear" when you leave the final call up to the individual. That’s precisely where these moral dilemmas start brewing. You seem to think we should just shift all that responsibility onto the lawmakers, and sure, I get it—that would certainly be the easiest way out—but it wouldn't solve the underlying moral conflicts. Just because a law says one thing doesn't mean it's the right thing to do in a specific moment, because let's face it, the law can't possibly be written to account for every single messy life situation we encounter.

@ ruggedscout91

Man, you should just start writing stuff for me—like, I’ll draft something up, and then you can take over the actual writing. It would save me a massive amount of grief from critics, because let's be honest, things always hit differently when they're coming from a patient rather than some doctor's mouth.

jadesailor14 said:Is lacking basic humanity considered "immature"?
Because cutting off medical care and dignified support for our seniors and the critically ill—what exactly does that say about us?
Who gets to play judge and decide who deserves care and treatment?
Are some people just trying to play God to satisfy their own egos and interests?

And as for ideals dying out too fast... I don't think anyone qualified to judge that has ever actually lived by them.
Sure, some die out, but there are plenty of people out there who carry those values with them for their entire lives!

Are you going to ask that same question when you leave your own mother or father stuck in a hospital bed, relying on strangers just to wash them and feed them because you couldn't be bothered to handle it yourself at home? (That’s just standard behavior for an American patient's family.)

jadesailor14 said:Is lacking basic humanity considered "immature"?
Because cutting off medical care and dignified support for our seniors and the critically ill—what exactly does that say about us?
Who gets to play judge and decide who deserves care and treatment?
Are some people just trying to play God to satisfy their own egos and interests?

And as for ideals dying out too fast... I don't think anyone qualified to judge that has ever actually lived by them.
Sure, some die out, but there are plenty of people out there who carry those values with them for their entire lives!

Oh, please—demagoguery is usually the strongest weapon for those who are terrified of actual change...
Look, let's not go in circles here; if we follow your logic, everyone should have access to everything from start to finish in equal measure. Happy now?
The reality is that people will continue to get sick and pass away even when, from a purely medical standpoint, they shouldn't—but hey, at least it’ll make things a little easier for those who actually have all their rights intact, right?

It's incredibly easy to act like a genius when you aren't the one making the hard calls...
And regarding this whole debate about who decides who gets treatment and who doesn't—from where I'm standing, it's Medicare, the Government, the Secretary of Health, and the doctors themselves. They are constantly deciding this through their policies, whether directly or indirectly.

So, in your opinion, who is supposed to organize the system and make these calls? You seem to think decisions should just spontaneously manifest out of thin air...

If we all agree that the current system is broken, then instead of just sitting there moralizing about how "everyone has a right to everything," why don't you actually propose a system where that's possible? Then maybe we wouldn't have to deal with these endless, exhausting arguments.

Angela Wright said:I am making a formal pledge right here and now: I will do absolutely everything in my power to ensure that psychological evaluations are integrated into the medical school admissions process. Furthermore, I will fight to make Communication Studies a mandatory core subject—one where passing is an absolute prerequisite for obtaining a medical license.
May God help me, and may He watch over all future medical students.😳

You aren't going to achieve a single thing with that attitude; I went through all the psych testing myself and look where I am...

It is simply impossible to explain the nuances of what a poet is trying to convey to someone who isn't actually deep inside the system. Look, nobody is asking you to agree with my perspective—I’m just reporting exactly what I see and how things are actually being handled on the ground.

Let me give you a real-world example from my own practice: A patient was referred from a local community hospital to the Mayo Clinic hematology clinic because they needed urgent intervention due to a platelet count of 3 and obvious subcutaneous bleeding. This patient wasn't responding to the standard therapy available at the general hospital.
And according to you people, I’m some kind of monster just because I sent this individual to the Mayo Clinic—only to have them sent right back with some idiotic excuse? It’s either because the doctor who saw them was too overwhelmed to care, or they are one of those pseudo-moralists who loves to lecture everyone about the Hippocratic Oath while doing nothing...
Two days later, that same patient was admitted to the Cleveland Clinic and the procedure was successfully completed.

If you can't see why these systemic failures happen, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to help you understand.

Sigh...
All I can say is you get exactly the system you deserve.

If you step away from all this fake moralizing for a second, you’ll realize that nobody here is actually talking about how things *should* be—we’re talking about how life actually works, what our actual options are in this messed-up existence, and the choices being forced upon us every single day.

This isn't some matter of personal preference; it's being imposed on us by the entire system.
And honestly, if your hair is standing on end because of a comment like that, you clearly aren't ready for a real debate. Opinions exist to be argued and dismantled with logic, not feelings.

Out of everyone here holding an opinion contrary to mine, it's funny how not one single person seems to be a professional—and let’s be clear, having a job at Vixen versus whatever else is going on, those ideals die pretty fast when reality hits.
Unlike some people around here, I don't need some Hippocratic oath or a local priest to lecture me on morality; when it comes to making decisions, I use my own damn head.

@ Sarah Johnson11 — your story comes from personal experience, and the way you're writing this just reflects your disgust and the fear that what I’m saying might somehow rub off on you. But believe me, I'm neither a monster nor insane; it's just incredibly difficult to unpack complex issues on a forum. To really get into it, you need a continuous dialogue lasting hours or even days—a forum post is always just a fragment of a thought.

Look, if people actually did things this way, everything would be fine—and clearly, it *is* possible... it’s just that certain people lately have been taking advantage of that "full review" option on their referrals to go big.

Here’s an idea: Why don't we set up a few dedicated clinics within the Medical Center specifically for GP doctors during weekends and holidays? They could have full access to the hospital lab and all the diagnostic tools they need—that way, they can wrap up care for patients who don't actually need to be hospitalized.

Kevin Garcia12 said:Oh, please. If we’re going to start nitpicking over semantics, then as far as I know, there aren't any rules against using colorful language when you're just venting about your own damn self...

And regarding your little examples—I have hundreds of them, but I'm not going to list them because a) it's pointless, b) it's actually illegal to discuss a patient's condition with anyone who isn't immediate family, and c) even if I did, it wouldn't change a single thing.

Just so we're clear, nobody has died on my watch because I failed to run diagnostics, and my hospital admission rate—for the people I send in—is sitting right around 70%. The percentage takes a hit during weekends or holidays because, believe it or not, I don't have an X-ray machine or a lab sitting right next to me, so sending someone to a general hospital for diagnostics during those times messes with my stats. It's like some kind of cosmic joke, but people always seem to have a tendency to trip and sprain their ankles playing sports or getting into various "personal projects" over the weekend...

That is just one more absurdity within the system: "cover the patients," they say, but then they won't let you run basic tests, so instead you're forced to just make an educated guess.

Kevin Garcia12 said:Oh, please. If we’re going to start nitpicking over semantics, then as far as I know, there aren't any rules against using colorful language when you're just venting about your own damn self...

And regarding your little examples—I have hundreds of them, but I'm not going to list them because a) it's pointless, b) it's actually illegal to discuss a patient's condition with anyone who isn't immediate family, and c) even if I did, it wouldn't change a single thing.

Just so we're clear, nobody has died on my watch because I failed to run diagnostics, and my hospital admission rate—for the people I send in—is sitting right around 70%. The percentage takes a hit during weekends or holidays because, believe it or not, I don't have an X-ray machine or a lab sitting right next to me, so sending someone to a general hospital for diagnostics during those times messes with my stats. It's like some kind of cosmic joke, but people always seem to have a tendency to trip and sprain their ankles playing sports or getting into various "personal projects" over the weekend...

You can share examples, just don't use names.🙂
Regarding the referral percentage, I know one person working in the ER who brings in about 95% of their patients, only about 5% end up getting hospitalized, and they all arrive with the exact same diagnosis. 🙂
If you ask me? They'll be out of a job soon enough.

Look, we can't just point fingers at patients and act like they’re the sole cause of all this chaos. Let’s be real—there are plenty of doctors out there who honestly don't know what they're doing, and their incompetence leads to a massive wave of unnecessary tests and redundant screenings. It’s a vicious cycle that just ends up bloating those endless waiting lists even further.

Now, I realize I shouldn't be lecturing people about physicians from a patient's perspective—I haven't exactly been a "serious" patient myself yet, so I don't deal with the system's headaches quite the way you guys do. And honestly? If I ever do run into medical trouble, I’ll probably just breeze through the red tape and get it sorted quickly—but hey, I guess that's just one of the perks of working within the system.

It looks like we’re still stuck in this endless loop debating whether or not people should actually get help.

Look, there are three distinct levels of care here—primary, secondary, and tertiary. It's basic stuff.

But here's where the whole system breaks down: when patients from primary care start overflowing into secondary, and then that overflow hits tertiary, you run into a massive bottleneck.

Take a guy like the grandfather I mentioned earlier—if he’s coming from somewhere like Washington, D.C., he ends up taking up a bed at the Mayo Clinic. But he doesn't actually *belong* there yet. He’s firmly in the primary care stage while things are manageable, moves to secondary when things take a turn, but under no circumstances should he be categorized as a tertiary case. We're talking about heart failure caused by ischemic cardiomyopathy here—which, let’s be honest, is basically the medical equivalent of an incurable cancer that drags on for years.

The whole thing boils down to this: if you have a patient with an unclear diagnosis, and after all the testing they find something that can't be explained by primary or secondary care—maybe a rare disease or something requiring highly specialized procedures—that's when they *should* be sent to a facility like the Mayo Clinic. But that isn't happening. We technically have tertiary care, sure, but in practice? It’s becoming nearly impossible for the people who actually need it to ever reach it.

mistyjackal842 said:So, it seems like the only issues being brought up are those three specific instances you mentioned. And everything else is just... well, it's being framed exactly like those three very real-life examples you're citing. I guess maybe there's a bit of overgeneralizing going on here? Why not mention the other cases where patients weren't just making things up, and they actually weren't at fault? Or is it your view that everyone is just lying? I also noticed some rather inappropriate language being used here—not necessarily directed at the forum members themselves, but still.

Look, out of the roughly 30 patients passing through that specific ER specialty unit on any given day, maybe five of them should even be our concern. The other 25? That’s either basic primary care stuff, situations they’ve already been discharged for, or just plain old stupidity like what I mentioned earlier.

I can think of three such cases off the top of my head from just one single shift.

mistyjackal842 said:Kate Collins67

I mean, I guess people really should be getting help just to figure out what's going on and get an actual diagnosis... especially looking at that first case you mentioned involving that elderly woman. If it turns out she isn't seriously ill, then sure, they should obviously just send her home right away. I think there was actually some discussion here on the forum before about how doctors in the US always start from the assumption that patients are genuinely sick, and then they run the necessary tests to rule things out and confirm whatever it is.

I don't think I'm delusional at all. Besides, those people you're bringing up—they have health insurance, so why shouldn't they be provided with medical care? According to your logic, most people are just making things up, that nothing is wrong, and that illnesses don't even exist. It feels... I don't know, a bit inhumane, especially considering your profession. That whole stance of yours seems really unreasonable to me.

Look, that’s just the first thing that hits you once you actually get out there and start working. If you had asked me these exact same questions back when I was still grinding through college—or even before that—I probably would have been nodding along with you. But now? Now that I've seen the other side of the coin, it’s hard to say anything remotely intelligent without sounding absolutely brutal.

mistyjackal842 said:Kate Collins67

I mean, I guess people really should be getting help just to figure out what's going on and get an actual diagnosis... especially looking at that first case you mentioned involving that elderly woman. If it turns out she isn't seriously ill, then sure, they should obviously just send her home right away. I think there was actually some discussion here on the forum before about how doctors in the US always start from the assumption that patients are genuinely sick, and then they run the necessary tests to rule things out and confirm whatever it is.

I don't think I'm delusional at all. Besides, those people you're bringing up—they have health insurance, so why shouldn't they be provided with medical care? According to your logic, most people are just making things up, that nothing is wrong, and that illnesses don't even exist. It feels... I don't know, a bit inhumane, especially considering your profession. That whole stance of yours seems really unreasonable to me.

Well, in the first case, the whole thing was a lie. The grandmother didn't have any issues at all; they basically just colluded to lie so they could hold a wedding without any drama... And look, lying is easy to catch—eventually, when you're talking to the grandmother, something slips out, right? It's not hard to figure out what's happening, especially when she starts denying the very symptoms that got her brought in in the first place.

As for the second case, I have no idea what kind of "medical assistance" I'm supposed to provide to someone who was MAYBE bitten by a spider and hasn't shown a single symptom in the 30 hours since the alleged bite...

And in the third case, the person was already given help and everything was explained ten days ago. But he's consciously choosing not to take his THC? Well, sorry, but I don't think someone like that deserves more help at the taxpayers' expense because of their own sheer negligence... He got the help he needed, he arrived in a state where he needed hospitalization, and now we're back to the fact that he took up a bed that should have gone to someone who actually acts responsibly regarding their own health.