Interesting Office Visit & Present for Sharon

[hdugger]

txmarinemom,

I don't mean to suggest an in and out crowd, but in and out ideas. Whatever else you and Linda and differ on, you are in agreement in this thread.

On the hyper-agressive post: We seek out these forums in the most fragile periods of our lives, concerned for our children or ourselves, full of pain and fear. It's not really the time for flamboyant self-expression.

Each little "gotcha" post turns away someone who wants to ask a question. And the preponderance of "gotcha" posts in certain topics makes it almost impossible to freely explore ideas - it's as if there were little mine fields everywhere. At a time when we most need the freedom to explore ideas, the minimal job of a moderator is to clear the minefield and make discussion possible.

I don't expect everyone to behave - it's a trying time, people are in pain, and frankly feeling bitchy and at wits end. But I would press upon you the image of walking into a waiting room and seeing people waiting for reports for their child/love one/self, and then decide what tone is appropriate.

[Ballet Mom]

Brace adjustment tomorrow - returning to my specialist in three months for the yearly xray check.

Here's my present for you Sharon - I remember you saying that you would pay to see two independent people measure the same xray and come up with the same cobb angles. I asked my specialist to pull out the xrays from a few days before being fitted with my brace. As you know my spinecor provider took before brace xrays ... both measurements, that of the surgeon and my spinecor provider are: the same! The office visit today was not all that uplifting until that point - Is this close enough to put the check in the mail?

[/COLOR]

Hi Mamamax, glad you're getting help with your pain.

I must say I am confused though with all these specialists. You're returning to the pain specialist in three months for the x-rays or is this your chiropractor you're talking about, or the SRS guy down the hall?

Also, which specialist did you ask to pull the x-rays from? And then you had the pain specialist measure the Cobb angle, or is this the SRS guy from down the hall? I'm confused.... The surgeon (which one) had taken x-rays very close to the same time as the chiropractor? Or they measured the same x-ray?

[jrnyc]

I believe that Linda is the fairest of moderators...doesnt "take sides," doesnt criticize, & has the good of the patients at heart...and all who write in to this forum...always!


jess

[mamamax]

Mamamax...

The Pain Management visit begs the question... Why?



http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...5741#post85741

Yes Linda, that is correct - immediate pain relief upon fitting. Your question was answered in my first paragraph of this thread:

I've been able to cut my pain medication in half - and often don't need it at all - as long as I can pretty much move throughout the day at my own pace. At the same time - while I can do more physically, in the course of doing more, I will still sometimes experience pain - albeit the pain is localized in just one area as opposed to my entire back .. hence I still see another surgeon in the same practice as my SRS surgeon, for pain management.

[mamamax]

Hi Mamamax, glad you're getting help with your pain.

I must say I am confused though with all these specialists. You're returning to the pain specialist in three months for the x-rays or is this your chiropractor you're talking about, or the SRS guy down the hall?

Also, which specialist did you ask to pull the x-rays from? And then you had the pain specialist measure the Cobb angle, or is this the SRS guy from down the hall? I'm confused.... The surgeon (which one) had taken x-rays very close to the same time as the chiropractor? Or they measured the same x-ray?

Hi Ballet Mom - I get yearly xrays from my specialists/surgeons yearly .. to check for any progression. I return to these specialists every six months for pain management monitoring, or any other time I have a concern.

I had xrays taken days before fitting with my brace - I wanted a record of my beginning measurements from both my specialists and my brace provider - so two sets of xrays within days of each other. One set by the specialists, the other by the brace provider. Cobb angle measurements turned out to match.

[mamamax]

Dhugger & Toni Bunny -

Thank you for your comments. Yesterday was not an easy one, and it would have been considerably more difficult without your support and understanding.

[Pooka1]

My observations/opinions:

1. This board moderates to elevate facts over feelings. SSO, in my opinion, allows feelings at the expense of facts. I consider that somewhat misleading. That is why I have chosen to stop posting over there (except on one thread). I understand protecting people's feelings but NOT at the expense of facts. We are adults, not children.

2. Anyone familiar with the situation here would not say Linda and Pam are in great agreement on certain subjects.

3. Mamamax, I didn't take offense about the joke. Relax. I think what I was asking what is the Cobb angles measured by a chiro who wants to keep a growing kid in treatment for some alternative/unproven approach would have the same reading as a surgeon. And w.r.t. your chiro and surgeon agreeing on your (adult, pre-brace) measurement this one time, you would actually expect that by chance alone some percentage of the time. A better test would be if the surgeon agreed with the in-brace reduction. That I would be interested in seeing.

[mamamax]

Thanks Sharon - I didn't seek to be offensive, and didn't think you would interpret my comments that way. Honestly, it was the bright spot in the visit. Yep, I'll be curious, nervous, excited, about any agreement found at end of treatment also. Meanwhile, it is comforting to see that all parties are using the same measurement method. Appears that way at least.

[Pooka1]

When moderators cannot remain impartial (or, at least *appear* to be impartial), it tends to poison the air in a forum. Those on the "in" side become brave and hyper aggressive (witness txmarinemom's post in this thread - this post would only be written by someone who is fairly sure the moderator agrees with her). Those on the "out" side take more veiled swipes, because they're likely to be muzzled (witness the locked threads and people pussy-footing around forbidden topics).

I see no appearance of impartiality. There is a commitment to facts and knowledge. Some people think the facts or some surgical consensus is bias if it doesn't agree with their opinion. Either something is or is not a fact. Similarly either something is or is not a consensus position in a certain community. Similarly either evidence does or does not exist for a certain claim.

It is a fact that people like their feelings and will choose them over facts at times. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; They are NOT entitled to their own facts. And they are NOT invited to pretend to be experts when they are not and mislead new posters with blind leading the blind lading the naked ignorance.

I note how Dingo, who specializes in childishly calling me names on another forum, is a frequent complainer about lack of moderation here. He raises irony to a zen art on this point. If he called me those childish names here I would not be calling for moderation. I would edify him and then damn well expect no further complaints about lack of moderation from that quarter.

Moderation is for lazy people who refuse to think for them self or who can't be bothered to control what they read. They are also totalitarian in wanting to control what others write. And it is almost always people who are complaining about other posts that are simply too factual for their taste. Not everyone wants facts as we have seen over and over again.

It's OK to have a "sassy and opinionated" moderator a political forum, where people's opinions have no immediate affect on the lives around them. But, a moderator dealing with people's health and well-being really has to hold themselves to a higher standard of impartiality and compassion. Everyone else can take sides, but the moderator, by definition, cannot. Or, they can, but they can never *appear* to take sides.

Linda appears to be taking the side of facts, if and when they are known, or surgical consensus, something she has expertise in given her background. Apparently some view that as bias. If that is bias then I'll take it. I will always choose knowledge over faith.

[jrnyc]

Dear Sharon
Amen! you go, girl...very well said!!

jess

[hdugger]

Moderation is for lazy people who refuse to think for them self or who can't be bothered to control what they read. They are also totalitarian in wanting to control what others write. And it is almost always people who are complaining about other posts that are simply too factual for their taste. Not everyone wants facts as we have seen over and over again.

This is somewhat akin to saying that law is for lazy people who aren't willing to take justice into their own hands. Many political boards thrive on this kind of "frontier" code of conduct where ideas are shouted down and only the strongest survive, but it is simply inappropriate for a health forum.

The reason it is inappropriate is exactly the opposite from what you state above - frontier forums sacrifice fact to feeling. That is, instead of being able to freely pursue ideas, certain lines of thought are shouted down and people are personally attacked until those avenues of thought are closed off to all but the most hardy. It may be good theatre, but it is not conducive to illuminating facts above feeling, and it starves any reasoned discussion of air.

Responding to the discussion on the Torso Rotation thread, this board is by far the most moderated board I participate on. It is moderated in frontier fashion by innuendo and invective, and the purpose of the moderation is to shut down discussion on certain topics. The role of the moderator is to supplant that "frontier moderation" with actual moderation which encourages the free exchange of ideas by discouraging personal attacks.

[Pooka1]

The role of the moderator is to supplant that "frontier moderation" with actual moderation which encourages the free exchange of ideas by discouraging personal attacks.

The only role I can see for a moderator is to remove counterfactual material ahead of posters having to point it out, continually at times.

[Pooka1]

This is somewhat akin to saying that law is for lazy people who aren't willing to take justice into their own hands. Many political boards thrive on this kind of "frontier" code of conduct where ideas are shouted down and only the strongest survive, but it is simply inappropriate for a health forum.

What is completely inappropriate in a health forum is counterfactual and misleading information.

That stuff gets by on other health fora but not so much here because the moderator is extremely experienced in the subject. So when we see the moderator questioning comments, it is not out of a bias but out of a body of knowledge and experience. People don't seem to realize this.

Folks who focus on form tend to not want the substance no matter how factual. For example there is no appropriate way to question someone's religious belief. The substance will be rejected irrespective of the tone.

[Pooka1]

I don't mean to suggest an in and out crowd, but in and out ideas. Whatever else you and Linda and differ on, you are in agreement in this thread.

Yes that's how science works. For example, evolution and a few billion year old earth is "in" and creationism is "out" based on the evidence.

For medicine, plenty is unknown so all you can do is state what is known and what is not known and what is the state of the evidence.

[hdugger]

That stuff gets by on other health fora but not so much here because the moderator is extremely experienced in the subject. So when we see the moderator questioning comments, it is not out of a bias but out of a body of knowledge and experience. People don't seem to realize this.

Questioning by moderators is useful. Innuendo is not. One of the lines I responded to - "I'm guessing that he's not as popular a surgeon as you've lead us to believe" - was not a fact or a question, but a vieled suggestion that the poster was either uninformed or outright lying. If you're trying to encourage rather then shut down discussion, the approach is to honestly clear the air and state your concerns - "I know that people will be influenced by what a well-regarded SRS doctor says, and I'm a little concerned, based on the information that you've provided, that the specialist you're referring to might not be a well-regarded SRS doctor. Can you help clear that up?"

OK, not perfect, but you get the point. You give the person (and yourself if, as in this case, the mistake turns out to be your own) a graceful out while still attempting to elucidate information. The innuendo approach suffers from both being less factually clear as well as tending to put people's backs up.

Folks who focus on form tend to not want the substance no matter how factual. For example there is no appropriate way to question someone's religious belief. The substance will be rejected irrespective of the tone.

You're setting up a false dichotomy here. All substance has form. Some form encourages discussion and other form discourages it. Personal invective dampens discussion. That's why scientific articles do not generally start with "That idiot Dr. so and so has his head up his backside." The statement is not useful because it focuses negatively on the indvidual instead of exploring the topic. Factual information is low in heat. On this board, topics about anything but surgery are almost *all* heat and very little fact. The form (heat) is stifling the free exchange of ideas and ends up making the topics almost unreadable.