Saturday, June 28, 2008

Reasons


On my post about going to Cedars, I received the following comment:
Paladelicioso said...
I find it strange that you would go
to one of the best medical and research facilities in the world, and then
question the quality of care you are getting. Sounds like you don't want to get well.
11:11 AM


I gave a cursory response in the comment section for the post, but I wanted to address this for everyone to see (just in case there are others who feel this way).

I find it strange that Paladelicioso could've read the post (and the entire comment thread) without seeing that I posted several reasons why this surgical option is something I'm hesitant about. So, I'll put them in list form so that those who feel as he does may understand the full picture.
1. The comment that I "don't want to get well" makes me very angry. I have spent the last two years dealing with an illness that, at this point, has NO cure. We can manage the symptoms, but that's about it. I would *love* a cure. I find myself wishing for one on a daily basis. But, the truth is that there isn't one that exists and, as such, I will never "get well". Consequently, even if I had the surgery for the kidney, it is not going to make me well.
2. I never questioned the quality of care I received. I questioned the procedure. I questioned the way in which it was presented and, what I perceived as, the eagerness of a physician to leap to surgery without having all the appropriate information. Surgery, no matter how safe we think it is, carries risk. If you don't go into a surgery with the desire to minimize those risks, or if you ignore the risks, then you are stupid. As it stands, I have risk factors that many people do not have and I want those risk factors addressed.
3. I think it's the responsibility of every patient to question their physicians and the proposed options. Why wouldn't you give this due diligence? "Medical experts" are human. They're not gods. They can, and do, make mistakes. They also do wonderful things for many, many others. But, I have four children. I can't afford to consent to a procedure while I have questions.
4. My husband and I agree completely on these points. Would you have the gall to say that *he* didn't want me to get well?
5. I've dealt with lupus for nine years. The surgeon may know everything there is to know about urologic or nephrologic surgery, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't up-to-date on lupus. Furthermore, I know my body. I know what it can and can't handle. If simply driving to a doctors appointment makes my blood pressure go up, blisters my skin, and wrecks me with fevers and exhaustion for weeks (just from an hour in the car!), then how on earth would I survive a surgical procedure and the two hour drive home?

Bottom line: You don't know me. You don't know my entire medical history. You're not going to find many atheists who go into major decisions without having a clear and complete understanding of what it is they're getting into. And, one doctor -even a specialist- is one doctor. He's human...not a God. It's my right and responsibility to get other opinions. I didn't slander the physician. I didn't suggest the quality of care was bad. So, please keep your bullshit, insulting commentary to yourself.

31 comments:

Jas said...

Paladelicioso said...
I find it strange that you would go
to one of the best medical and research facilities in the world,...

Here we have an example of how stupid people inflate numbers at their will. Cedar-Sinai is not a top for research or care. These are.
http://www.100tophospitals.com/winners/nationalwinners.aspx

Enshoku said...

Hey, Pmomma, I did some statistic checking of how often patients wake up during surgery, and it's effects. It is extremely rare, happening in about 3/1000 patients, but many suffer permanent mental damage from it. Those who it has happen to says it feels like being in a corpse, you want to kick,pray,curse,scream, and move any part of your body just for someone to notice you but you can't, your just left helpless in pain...please tell me it wasn't that traumatic for you, that's scary stuffs even without the thought of someone I know being in that kind of situation...

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Those who it has happen to says it feels like being in a corpse, you want to kick,pray,curse,scream, and move any part of your body just for someone to notice you but you can't, your just left helpless in pain...please tell me it wasn't that traumatic for you, that's scary stuffs even without the thought of someone I know being in that kind of situation...

I would actually say that's pretty accurate. I've tried to describe it to people and I get anxious, to the point of sweating (like I am now), just remembering it. From what I was told, we were at the two hour mark and trying to unfuse my bladder from my uterus. I had went in for a regular old hysterectomy (after P4, because I had endo). The adhesions and scar tissue they found (another reason why the kidney surgery scares me because I create scar tissue fast) meant that they had to extend the anticipated time of 90 minutes to four hours. Anyway, at hour two, the anesthesiologist was chatting up the nurse and, perhaps, he hadn't given me enough meds to last. We don't know.

My first memory is feeling like I was gagging on something (which I found out was the breathing tube). Then, I realized that I couldn't choke and that my body was paralyzed. I tried moving my hands, but they were strapped down and I'm not sure they'd have been movable anyway. Then, the pain came on and it was horrible. I could feel the cool air in the room. I could hear the heart monitor and for a moment, I tried to get my heart to race thinking that they'd look at me. I heard someone talking about appetizers and drinks and another person asking for cauterization. I think felt this burning, seering pain in my pelvic region. I tried screaming. I tried talking. I tried wiggling my fingers and toes. I couldn't even open my eyes. Luckily, I started crying. But, it was bizarre because I couldn't sniffle or move the secretions in my mouth - which made the gagging worse. Like I said, finally a nurse looked at me and said, "She's crying. Is she awake." and she removed the tape from my eyelid and I saw her and the anesthesiologist look at me and then he called out that I wasn't sedated and the last thing I remember was my OB/GYN (who is a four foot five, Indian woman) say "Stop cauterizing. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON...".

Before that, I had no fear of surgery. None. Now, just the thought sends me into a panic. Since then, there have been an impact on my daily life because certain smells in hospitals make me go back to that moment and I have nightmares about it. We didn't sue, because I doubt the guy intended for me to wake up and I can't prove that he hadn't done his job. He apologized the next day. But,...yeah. It was one of the top five worst experiences of my life.

Afterward, I was talking to a friend who's an anethesiologist and he says it happen more than it's reported, but for most people it only lasts five seconds and the doc notices it, putting the patient back under with no real harm done. But, my surgical notes estimated that I was awake for eighty seconds. How they figured that out, I'm not sure.

Mephitis said...

I'm sorry you're getting meddling comments. I suppose it's the downside of a public space, but still..

Milo Johnson said...

1. Yet another "shit sandwich" troll - "what, you don't like bread?"

2. 3 out of 1000??? That's a third of a percent of the thousands of surgeries just in this country every day? Those odds SUCK.

3. I'd guess the eighty seconds was the time from noticing you were awake until the time they administered more anesthesia, not necessarily the actual time you were not fully anesthetized.

ronan51 said...

As I work in the medical industry (I'm a transcriptionist in the radiology dept for a major Charlotte Hospital), I've learned to question. I also encourage my friends and family who have no medical experience to question their doctor. If you don't understand what they said (i.e. big medical words), ask them to put in terms you do understand. You're paying them, not the other way around.

It's the same with questioning a treatment being suggested. If you don't like the suggestion, either talk with the doctor about it or see another. It's called 'getting a second opinion' and it should be done more. Unfortunately, insurance companies, a necessary evil, unfortunately, don't allow that as much as they used to. It's the right of every patient to be able to question their treatment.

I've also been one of those who woke up during surgery. I had bilat carpal tunnel releases, and during the second surgery, I woke up. I clearly remember seeing the surgical suite and hearing the doctor and nurse talking about her son's ball game. He evidently noticed because I remember him saying "go back to sleep, we're not finished yet" and then I was out of it. It only lasted for a few seconds, but the memory is very clear.

So keep talking with your doctors, PM. It's your nickel and it's your body!

Maggie Rosethorn said...

Pmomma - you are RIGHT to question. Given your medical history, and your horrible surgery experience, I am amazed that you have the courage needed to contemplate additional surgery.

Yes, adhesions do make surgery much more difficult, and you are right in taking them into consideration. They add to the time surgery takes, increasing anesthesia time and increasing risks of complications.

Adding that to your health issues, I too would be very hesitant to undergo additional surgery.

I would guess the 80 second time was the length of time you were awake, not just the length of time they noticed you were awake. Being awake during surgery would leave some physiological indicators, and I bet the anesthesiologist reviewed the information recorded by the machine and realized how long you were wake. 80 seconds must have felt like a lifetime to you. How very frightening it must have been. I can understand you can't talk about it easily (I've got the same spots in my life, not surgery related, but horrible things that I can't discuss easily).

As a mother, I can readily understand your concerns about the possibility of dying and leaving your children when they are so young. Good luck in deciding.

Corbie said...

I don't know who the hell Paladelicioso is, but WTF? Every doctor I've had encourages questions; wants me to poke and prod and ask things. My GP knows little about my last knee surgery. If he proposes I do something contrary to what the orthopaedic surgeon said, shouldn't I question the GP about his advice? If I ever got a doctor that didn't want me to question him or one who was offended that I was "questioning his authority", well, sorry, but I'm outta there.

Carlie said...

Definitely, questioning is good.
Add me to the list of waker-uppers. I had general anesthesia when I got my impacted wisdom teeth cut out, and I woke up during. It was only a few seconds, because I made a noise when it hurt like hell and they got me back under quickly, but still. Many years later when in childbirth I had several hours of epidural, and I kept asking for boosters. The anesthesiologist was finally like "Really? Seriously? Another already?" Then when I finally ended up with a c-section, it took way longer than usual to get everything numbed. The surgeon kept doing test pokes and I was all "STILL HURTS!" The anesthesiologist told me later that some people just metabolize the hell out of those drugs very quickly (regardless of the size of the person), so they exit the system faster than average.

Enshoku said...

geez, carlie. Sounds like you just need the entire anesthetic bottle fed into your bloodstream, not fun. My only medical issue is severe athsma, I think I just need my own ER, and mephitis, I sure hope that you aren't talking about me *pouts*

Perpetual Beginner said...

I can imagine that waking up during surgery would be traumatic as hell. I've never woken up mid-surgery, but I did have an emergency D&C without anesthesia (of any kind) in the first place, but at least I didn't go in with the expectation that I would be asleep. What prep I had consisted of "This is going to hurt, LOTS! We don't have time to do anything about it. Sorry!" Which is traumatic in its own right, but hasn't left me with any fear of normal surgical experiences.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Mephitis said...
I'm sorry you're getting meddling comments. I suppose it's the downside of a public space, but still..

Thanks Meph'! I wasn't going to post it or respond, but the more I thought of it, the angrier I became. And, yes...I do realize that making this blog a public space means I'm going to have to defend myself on occasion. It's the nature of the beast...

Milo said...2. 3 out of 1000??? That's a third of a percent of the thousands of surgeries just in this country every day? Those odds SUCK.
That's what I was thinking. That's not exactly low when you think about how many surgeries are done in this country (daily). *pause* CDC says there were 44.9Million inpatient surgeries last year (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/insurg.htm).

A third of a percent equals 149,666 people who wake up during the surgery. That's not counting any outpatient, same day surgeries. HOLY CRAP! At that rate, they should warn you about the possibility as part of the intake exam and consent meeting.


Thanks for understanding Ronan. I think it's great that your doctor actually said something to you when he realized you were awake. At least then you don't question whether you're nuts or not.

Maggie said...As a mother, I can readily understand your concerns about the possibility of dying and leaving your children when they are so young. Good luck in deciding.
I realize that it does sound drastic, but that's the baseline fear for any surgery or treatment. Once you're a parent, it's hard not to think about it.

corbie said...If I ever got a doctor that didn't want me to question him or one who was offended that I was "questioning his authority", well, sorry, but I'm outta there.

Amen! I don't understand how people don't question their doctors. Paladelicioso also talks about contradicting being a sign of not wanting to get well, but that's bullshit. If someone walks up to you with a bottle and says, "Drink this. It will make you all better.", do you drink it? If you do, then you are an idiot. What if you were allergic to the elixir in the bottle? What if it was the wrong doseage? What if the doctor made a mistake and grabbed the wrong medication? What if it's all a bunch of hooey? Doctors are humans. Not Gods.

That doesn't sound fun Carlie.

Paladelicioso said...

Responding to "jas". There are many ways to rank hospitals, this is one of many. I find it strange, however, that many of the major hospitals and academic research centers are not on this list (e.g., Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Mass General ... think Harvard, to name a few). The "national winners" study looks at (1) outcomes of care, (2) service line efficiency, (3) hospital efficiency, (4) financial performance, and (5) growing community service. I'm not sure what items 2-5 really have to do with the level of expertise you receive at a medical facility ... so this list is probably not an appropriate reference point if you are looking for the "best" in medical care. For example, I'm not sure if them being efficient at trucking patients in and out is a good thing.

Regardless, I will recant my last statement to the blog host. In re-reading her thoughts I have opened my mind and see her point of view, at least a bit more.

I am also amazed at the amount of hostility on this web site. To a casual reader, it is interesting to see how much group think exists on this blog site. Nearly every topic there is a pile on mentality somewhere in a chain.

What is this site contributing to the larger discussion of atheism? It seems more like a place where you can go to get beat up if you happen not to be an atheist and offer an opinion contrary.

If you are all so sure there is not a God, why don't you spend some constructive time enlightening the world on what this mystery of life is all about? It is tiresome to read about how wrong, backwards, idiotic, weak-minded the theists are ... make this a constructive useful site. Not a place for verbal abuse.

Perpetual Beginner said...

paladeliscioso - actually, there are a number of theists who hang around here. Generally one doesn't get piled on unless you either commit a distinct fallacy of logic somewhere or attack pmomma in some way.

After several bad experiences with trolls, I'm afraid we tend to be rather - vigorous - in defending pmomma. Your initial statement seemed rather hostile, hence the response.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Paladelicioso said... Regardless, I will recant my last statement to the blog host. In re-reading her thoughts I have opened my mind and see her point of view, at least a bit more.
Thank you. You don't have to agree with my point of view, but assuming that I didn't want to get well was a very low blow and rude thing to say.

I am also amazed at the amount of hostility on this web site.
You don't think it's hostile to come to a stranger's website and post such an insulting statement? You'll also note that no one on this blog is unkind so long as there is respect. It may surprise you to know that about ten percent of my frequent commenters believe in God. If everyone could behave as they do, then we'd never have reason to be irritated.


To a casual reader, it is interesting to see how much group think exists on this blog site. Nearly every topic there is a pile on mentality somewhere in a chain.
Churches aren't "group think"? If you'd stumbled across a website against the slaughter of animals for food, would you then be surprised if the majority of the conversation was on veganism or animal cruelty? If you stumbled upon a Catholic site, would you then be surprised that the conversation revolves around Catholicism? Furthermore, once again, I have a hard time believing you've read the blog because it's not only a blog on atheism. Consensus on a position isn't "group think".

What is this site contributing to the larger discussion of atheism?
Based on the number of people who've come here and described how they can know see atheists as fathers, mothers, siblings, children, grandmas, grandpas, etc.,., I'd say it's done quite a bit. Furthermore, I doubt you've read the blog because there are discussions about ID/Creationism/Evolution, the Constitution, raising children, chronic illness, other religions, current events, and quite a few other topics.
It seems more like a place where you can go to get beat up if you happen not to be an atheist and offer an opinion contrary.

Lol. Are you kidding me? You came here and INSULTED me. You made unsolicited, and unfounded, commentary about my health. You didn't get ganged up on becuase you're a believer...in fact, I thought you might have actually been an atheist. You were "ganged up on" because you were being rude. AGAIN, go back and read. If you do, then you'll find that there are several theists here who are able to participate in productive discussion. Check out Perpetual Beginner, Erin, and the Karens.

If you are all so sure there is not a God, why don't you spend some constructive time enlightening the world on what this mystery of life is all about?
Who says that we don't? And, who said life is mysterious. It's only mysterious if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the complex, but very explainable and evident, science behind life. It is tiresome to read about how wrong, backwards, idiotic, weak-minded the theists are ... make this a constructive useful site. Not a place for verbal abuse.

How tiresome can it be when you've clearly not read this blog in any quantity? It's also tiresome for us to have people, like yourself, come in and, without reason or evidence, lash out. For someone so against verbal abuse, you sure dish it out. This site is constructive. But, you wouldn't know that because you've not taken the time to read it.

Enshoku said...

If you are all so sure there is not a God, why don't you spend some constructive time enlightening the world on what this mystery of life is all about? It is tiresome to read about how wrong, backwards, idiotic, weak-minded the theists are ... make this a constructive useful site. Not a place for verbal abuse.

boy, apparently you've never been an atheist in a christian chat, I mentioned the word wicca, and all hell broke loose, so to speak. my exact statement was "What do you guys think of the tenets of wicca?" and poof, half the people who were nice to me pulled out their clawses. The others told the first group that they should be more open minded, and not act in the manner in which they were, hence more asplosions in the irc chat. I learned something that day, if you want a Christians perspective on something use FORUMS not chats, lest ye lose 'yer head. The fact that religious beliefs are silly is a mystery of life? Wowzers, oh by the way, please no more strawman's, unless they are funny, or involve me, a virgin, some baby's blood, and knife, and 13 candles...

Atheist in a mini van. said...

It is tiresome to read about how wrong, backwards, idiotic, weak-minded the theists are ... make this a constructive useful site. Not a place for verbal abuse.

I didn't get to finish my comment because I had to get kids in bed. But, I think this comment is strange. Are you, paladelicioso, in the habit of telling other people how they should run their lives/blogs? Assuming this site is not constructive proves two things:
1. You've not read the blog and seen the positive impact it's had on many, many people.
2. You don't require evidence before making statements or taking positions.
Why else would someone come into a blog that's been active for almost two years, with over 450 posts, and make a snap judgement? Are you seriously implying that I should change what I've done (and will continue to do) because you don't like it?
If you don't like reading negative assessments of Christians, then maybe you should do something to change the impression we've received. You came in here guns blazing, making all manner of uneducated statements, and when called on it, started in on a criticism of the blog. What are you doing to help build bridges?

Paul said...

[silentsanta, NZ]

Paladelicioso: I have to confess that I, too, thought you might be an atheist momentarily (your offensive post deferred heavily to the doctor's authority, rather than that of some nebulous deity). Anyway, I felt your first post regarding PMomma's health to be obnoxious, and I recall writing an unpleasant retort that I deleted before posting. I am pleased to see that you (like me) regret what you wrote.

I'm actually going to disagree with PMomma about the mysteriousness of life. I can't see how life could be anything BUT deeply mysterious, and I do entertain some childish wonder at the question of quite how we came to be here.
But, Paladelicioso- my acknowledging of life's mystery doesn't mean I find superstitious nonsense, nor mysticism, nor cults, nor religions nor Joeseph Smith nor Deepak Chopra somehow "plausible". There are the questions we can answer with compelling evidence, questions we are unsure about (P = NP?) and questions that we can be absolutely honest in saying we have no idea about.
None of these questions mean that I should defer to some dude in an archaic robe and hat, nor some primitive scribblings handed down for centuries from an arbitrarily chosen region in the middle east.

Whatever happened to being honest about what we know, and what we don't know? If we can't talk with earnestness and sincerity about the limits of human knowledge, how can we hope to traverse or extend them?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

I'm actually going to disagree with PMomma about the mysteriousness of life. I can't see how life could be anything BUT deeply mysterious, and I do entertain some childish wonder at the question of quite how we came to be here.

Paul, you can't disagree!! We're atheists and that means we all believe the same things. ;) *wink*

Whatever happened to being honest about what we know, and what we don't know? If we can't talk with earnestness and sincerity about the limits of human knowledge, how can we hope to traverse or extend them?

Who is being dishonest? Just curious.

I don't feel I'm being dishonest in saying that, for me, the complexity and beauty of life comes in the complexity of the science behind it. That's not the same as saying we have all of the answers. Is it? Because, if it comes off that way, then I need to rethink how I phrase this.

Mystery, in my opinion, suggests that the causes are unknown and processes undocumented or tried. While I will gladly admit we don't have absolute certainty about how life began, I don't feel comfortable saying "It's a mystery". My concern, and maybe this *is* where you were going as well, is that most people will hear the word mystery and stop searching for the causes. Or, they'll give "mystery" an undue status, so as to suggest we should leave some things unknown. And, then there's the person who calls everything they don't understand "mysterious" despite their being an explanation for the phenomena. KWIM?

Milo Johnson said...

The odds are getting closer to certainty every day that sometime in the next decade (and probably less) simple living things will be created in the laboratory. The exact time and method of origin of life on Earth will never be known for sure, but the process itself will be demonstrated to be entirely natural and based on chemistry and the relationships on the periodic table. That event will make it very difficult to maintain that life is a mysterious phenomenon, and impossible to maintain that life could not have arisen through natural processes.

As to atheist evangelization, I think you'll find that most atheists have no interest in persuading anyone else to become atheist in their worldview, we usually just tend to push back when theists make statements that are unsupported by logic and the scientific method. I don't care what anybody else believes, but I dislike being told that demonstrably illogical beliefs are based on anything other than indoctrination and rhetoric.

Paul said...

[silentsanta, NZ]

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were being dishonest, if that was how I came across. What I meant was more like this:

For as long as we have had language, humans have been plagued by hoodwinkers, con-men and charlatans claiming secret knowledge of how or why the world is the way it is. These swindlers are only effective because we humans often don't wish to confront the uncomfortable truth- we don't have many answers about some of the big questions. We are a long way from understanding consciousness, and, though we can see why it would be selected for, we are a long way from creating it in (say) a computer.
We don't know why we can resuscitate some people and not others, and we don't have a satisfactory explanation for autism (which is why people are so attracted to unsatisfactory pseudoscientific 'explanations'). We don't know whether the theory of gravity is able to be integrated into the standard model. I am studying secular ethics out of interest and am wondering what possible approaches might remove the remaining significant weaknesses of utilitarianism. And I certainly have no satisfactory explanation for why Mike Myers chose to make the Love Guru. To quote Edison, "We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything." .

This is not to dismiss that which we do know, nor all those before us who carried torches into the unknown and lit heroically a little more of our mysterious realm.

There are those -often religious people- who offer false and unfounded explanations, petty assertions and glib tautologies to fill the gaps in our knowledge, as though no interesting questions remained and as though there was no majesty in passionate inquiry of the kind Feynman exemplified.

Corbie said...

Paladelicioso, rather than automatically identifying a bunch of people disagreeing with you as, "group think", try considering the fact that you might be wrong. Just a thought.

As to the "Mystery of Life"? There really isn't one, unless you want to get all philosophical. What makes me tick, what makes me happy, what makes my life worth living is not necessarily everyone else's cup of tea. Why should I follow the lead of religion and tell everyone they have to do what makes me happy to be happy themselves when I know it won't work?

Oh, and disagreeing with you isn't "hostility". Nor is it persecution, just in case that's the next card played.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paladelicioso said...

As is the norm around here, I'm going to take some excerpts and parse words from the context for a moment. Pmomma said: "You'll also note that no one on this blog is unkind so long as there is respect."

Jas called me "stupid"
Mephitis called my post "meddling"
Milo called me (or someone) "a shit sandwich stupid troll"
Corbie said I should consider that I am just "wrong" (about what?) and suggested I thought I was being persecuted by the group.
Pmomma herself had more than a few choice words, and even assumed I was part of a church of "group thinkers"

I know I could provide ample evidence of similar "respect" throughout the entirety of this blog, which I have read much of.

You (numerous) also assume that because I raised some questions about this blog, that suddenly I am a theist, worship men in long robes, etc., and then the reactions are of such consistency as those posted above. Lots of assumptions made. It is intriguing to see the conclusions reached based on two posts. Both of which were interpreted as if I was trying to be aggressive. Even in the post where I recanted my earlier thought, I then offered some suggestions/observations about this site and my impression of it, and what comes of it? More hostility. I presume much of the aggression in tone is driven by some underlying frustration of the moment. There is no denying that posters to this site who do not generally go with the flow will get berated.

I'm as anti-religious establishment as they come. And, to me, it is hard to understand how some people could ever become part of the more fundamentalist religious groups. But, I don't see the point in devaluing those that desire to be part of those religious establishments.

I would have thought a blog site on atheism would spend less time mocking theists of varied belief systems and more time contributing to some enlightening discussion / philosophical debates about how this is all to be explained?

Those participating on this comment chain missed my point, but for Paul. Paul's two posts were actually quite substantive and went in exactly the direction I was speaking to.

Milo Johnson said...

Wow, another self-pitying victim with reading comprehension issues. I said you were another "shit sandwich troll." I didn't say you were stupid. I'm sorry for the omission, I won't let it happen again.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Jas called me "stupid"
Mephitis called my post "meddling"
Milo called me (or someone) "a shit sandwich stupid troll"
Corbie said I should consider that I am just "wrong" (about what?) and suggested I thought I was being persecuted by the group.
Pmomma herself had more than a few choice words, and even assumed I was part of a church of "group thinkers"

As I said, no one here is unkind when you are respectful. You were not. You came to a blog and ran your mouth about my desire to get well. You were more that disrespectful. You were mean. Plain old mean.

You (numerous) also assume that because I raised some questions about this blog, that suddenly I am a theist, worship men in long robes, etc., and then the reactions are of such consistency as those posted above. Lots of assumptions made. It is intriguing to see the conclusions reached based on two posts
Do you even bother to read? I believe most people said that we assumed you were atheist or didn't make a judgement at all.

I'm as anti-religious establishment as they come. And, to me, it is hard to understand how some people could ever become part of the more fundamentalist religious groups. But, I don't see the point in devaluing those that desire to be part of those religious establishments.

And? You do realize you have lost so much credibility here that it's hard to take anything you say seriously, right? What your religious beliefs may or may not be have no bearing on my feelings about you. I know that may be hard for you to accept, but as has been repeated time and time again...there are theists here who manage to uphold their faith and not be rude or contentious.
People didn't get angry with you because of your faith (or no faith). People were angry with you because you came out of nowhere and started making uneducated and mean statements about someone's health.

would have thought a blog site on atheism would spend less time mocking theists of varied belief systems and more time contributing to some enlightening discussion / philosophical debates about how this is all to be explained?
Been there, done that. We don't owe you anything. I don't owe you anything. We've had many, many deep discussions. We also have light-hearted discussions. This blog wasn't started to be the great philosophical debate page. It was started as my venting spot. If you'd like to start your own page for discussing philosophy, then more power to you.

Those participating on this comment chain missed my point, but for Paul. Paul's two posts were actually quite substantive and went in exactly the direction I was speaking to.
Again...no one here is beholden to you to do anything.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Also, pala...
You've had your fun. As I read your comments, it's quite evident that you're not reading posts carefully. You're not taking responsibility for your own statements and behavior. You're misquoting people. And, you're trying to play the victim. Either respond to things like this:

"You don't think it's hostile to come to a stranger's website and post such an insulting statement?"


"Churches aren't "group think"? If you'd stumbled across a website against the slaughter of animals for food, would you then be surprised if the majority of the conversation was on veganism or animal cruelty? If you stumbled upon a Catholic site, would you then be surprised that the conversation revolves around Catholicism? Furthermore, once again, I have a hard time believing you've read the blog because it's not only a blog on atheism. Consensus on a position isn't "group think".

You're time for one sided ranting is done.

Vincent said...

#3 is absolutely true.
Nobody has more interest in your medical care than you, so why just leave it entirely up to your doctor s/he is not omniscient. Smart, skilled, experienced, those are all reasons to take your doctor's advice seriously, but at the end of the day it's still advice and you are the one who needs to make the decision.
So many people just do whatever the doctor says and doctors can make mistakes. It bugs the hell out of me that my Mom has no idea what her 17 pills a day actually are. She just takes em because the doctor prescribed them. Doctors don't track that stuff. Heck my wife's doctor recently said "I'm going to try you on xxx medication." To which my wife responded "You've been trying me on that for the past month." It was right there on the chart he was holding in his hand! And he's a really good doctor.

Your surgery. . . I just have no words for the horror.

Paladelicioso said...

Simply amazing! Took a break. Came back for a read. Nice updates! More verbal abuse from the honorable, moral, and upstanding Pmomma. And, good 'ol Milo J.

It is obvious that your self-righteousness prevents you from reading something, absorbing the context, and thinking. Every response that I have read has come with a knife-like attitude embedded in the words, particularly Pmomma and Milo J. You never even tried to answer my questions. Just throw a knife. It is easier, I guess.

Oh, and keep up the sentence parsing. It continues to show your true spirit of vindictiveness. When you have nothing useful to say, you parse, pounce, and respond.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Simply amazing! Took a break. Came back for a read. Nice updates! More verbal abuse from the honorable, moral, and upstanding Pmomma. And, good 'ol Milo J.
It is simply amazing that ten people could tell you that we use a concept called "earned respect." You've not been abused. But, there are a few people in Texas, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho who could show you what real persecution is.

It is obvious that your self-righteousness prevents you from reading something, absorbing the context, and thinking.
Me? Self-righteous? That's the pot calling the kettle black. I've read every word you've written and all of the books you've referred to. I've had deep discussion with Christin, Islamic, and Jewish friends. Never has one of them decided to break out into baseles attacks on my health.

Every response that I have read has come with a knife-like attitude embedded in the words, particularly Pmomma and Milo J.

Stop drama-queening! You've been asked on several occasions to answer some questions or explain why you felt the why you felt. You didn't do that.

When you have nothing useful to say, you parse, pounce, and respond.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Let's rehash this:
You came to this blog and said - "Paladelicioso said...
I find it strange that you would go to one of the best medical and research facilities in the world, and then question the quality of care you are getting. Sounds like you don't want to get well."

2. When you were called on the fact that you didn't have enough information to make that judgement, you tried to bury your wrong doing by calling our group "hostile".
3. You continued to whine and suggest how I should run/write my blog. You were reminded that this was MY blog and you really could choose not to read it.

Last time I have you a warning. This time, I telling you what's going to happen. Either drop the matyr-tude and debate without character debates or you will be deleted.

Milo Johnson said...

You aren't smart enough to realize this, but the scorn of a moron like you is a badge of honor. Thank you!