snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Medical

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17 May 2008, 08:48 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,633
Ponder Woman with large cyst told to lose weight

A Swedish doctor who overlooked a nearly 18-pound cyst on one of his female patients recommended she lose weight instead, the woman has alleged.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/...e_weight/9355/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17 May 2008, 11:22 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,855
Icon24

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
A Swedish doctor who overlooked a nearly 18-pound cyst on one of his female patients recommended she lose weight instead, the woman has alleged.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/...e_weight/9355/
Much like many of the 100 word stories we get fed on a daily basis, this one is totally devoid of the details that will allow us to see that this doctor is not a quack.

To wit, she showed up at a clinic, not a hospital. What was her complaint? What are her risk factors for cysts? For other maladies? What did she expect the doctor to do? According to this story, she demanded an ultrasound in subsequent visits. Do patients usually arrive with diagnosis methods in mind, and are Swedish clinics usually in the habit to follow the direction of the patient when it comes to arranging diagnoses? How long was her initial visit? How long between the initial visit and the final diagnosis?

Without this information, I cannot condemn a doctor for being a quack.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26 May 2008, 10:12 AM
DevilBunny's Avatar
DevilBunny DevilBunny is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2002
Location: Newbury, UK
Posts: 1,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
To wit, she showed up at a clinic, not a hospital. What was her complaint?
Err, that her abdomen was swollen?

Quote:
According to this story, she demanded an ultrasound in subsequent visits. Do patients usually arrive with diagnosis methods in mind
Probably not. But if a doctor seems to be running off into the blue yonder with the wrong end of the stick, I can see why they might start demanding some actual engagement with the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26 May 2008, 02:09 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilBunny View Post
Err, that her abdomen was swollen?
My point was:

- is there a constant pain?
- is it tender?
- did it grow within a very short period of time?

It was not to acknowledge that her abdomen was swollen.

I stated in my earlier post that the complete lack of details makes the condemning of this doctor impossible. And I still stand by it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26 May 2008, 07:21 PM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Can I just say "Ewwww"? An 18-pound cyst? Yeesh.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26 May 2008, 07:23 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,633
Blow Your Top

It's interesting that if you Google ""18-pound cyst," this thread ranks higher in the search results than the UPI article that prompted it.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26 May 2008, 11:01 PM
DevilBunny's Avatar
DevilBunny DevilBunny is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2002
Location: Newbury, UK
Posts: 1,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
My point was:

- is there a constant pain?
- is it tender?
- did it grow within a very short period of time?

It was not to acknowledge that her abdomen was swollen.
Even if none of the above were true, telling the patient that she just needed to lose weight showed a quite terrifying dismissal of the patient's knowledge of her own body. Most women are very much aware of the patterns of their own weight gain and loss (some might say obsessive), which deserve to be listened to.

I too would like to know more. For example, what tests the doctor did perform. If there were none, I stand by my condemnation.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26 May 2008, 11:10 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Would an 18lb cyst be felt on palpation?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26 May 2008, 11:24 PM
tribrats's Avatar
tribrats tribrats is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2004
Location: Webster, NH
Posts: 6,531
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Would an 18lb cyst be felt on palpation?
Depends on the size of the person. Case in point, my SIL was a very big woman (She's since lost a lot of weight and looks great!). She had a 20lb tumor removed from her abdomen but it wasn't found during palpitations. They wouldn't have known it was there if it wasn't for other symptoms.

On the other hand, someone as skinny as my mother, the same tumor would have been visible even to the untrained eye.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27 May 2008, 12:50 AM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post

I stated in my earlier post that the complete lack of details makes the condemning of this doctor impossible. And I still stand by it.
[rant]

Agreed, this is not the first time that a condemnation of the medical profession by "laymen" has been handed out on this board with only the evidence of a less than explicit short press piece with no other details given.

Quite frankly, the reactionary judgmentalism of these threads has begun to dissapoint and depress me. On this board of all others, I would have hoped for better.

[/rant]
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 27 May 2008, 01:12 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Off View Post
[rant]

Agreed, this is not the first time that a condemnation of the medical profession by "laymen" has been handed out on this board with only the evidence of a less than explicit short press piece with no other details given.

Quite frankly, the reactionary judgmentalism of these threads has begun to dissapoint and depress me. On this board of all others, I would have hoped for better.

[/rant]
Condemnation? Really? I totally missed that.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27 May 2008, 01:20 AM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Condemnation? Really? I totally missed that.
e.g. Post #7

and most of the posts in This thread
...

It just gets me down...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27 May 2008, 01:45 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Off View Post
e.g. Post #7

and most of the posts in This thread
...

It just gets me down...
I'm not sure how you expect people to post. A conversation that consisted of people saying, "I reserve judgment" would be rather pointless. People express their opinions based on the facts they do have and on, yes, things they assume or guess at. So long as they're willing to revise their opinions and admit their errors if proved wrong, what's the problem? It's speculation. It's discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27 May 2008, 01:46 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Off View Post
e.g. Post #7
Even though she used the word "condemnation" in her post, I think it was a pretty mild one--I might be more likely to call it a rebuke.

Quote:
and most of the posts in This thread
But in that one, there is a court case in which the doctor was found negligent. Is that not sufficient evidence?

Quote:
It just gets me down...
What is it that gets you down? Is it that doctors should be exempt from criticism? Or is it that the criticism is based on short newspaper articles?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27 May 2008, 02:05 PM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Even though she used the word "condemnation" in her post, I think it was a pretty mild one--I might be more likely to call it a rebuke.
Then why use the word then?
Quote:

But in that one, there is a court case in which the doctor was found negligent. Is that not sufficient evidence?
Evidence of negligence probably, but all the comments along the lines of "they should have done something sooner" or "should have given a C-section first" are totally speculative, no one on the board has any insight into the actual sequence of events in there, yet all are quick to jump on the descisions made or not made by doctors and attendants involved without (in most cases) any relevant experience at all and without any specific detail.



Quote:
What is it that gets you down? Is it that doctors should be exempt from criticism? Or is it that the criticism is based on short newspaper articles?
Probably the latter, the "filling in the gaps and passing judgement on specifics" without attempting to find out first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laine
I'm not sure how you expect people to post. A conversation that consisted of people saying, "I reserve judgment" would be rather pointless. People express their opinions based on the facts they do have and on, yes, things they assume or guess at.
Agreed but (Bolding mine) The And in that statement is very important, some reponses seem to be based entirely on the latter without a nod to the lack of the former.

Quote:
So long as they're willing to revise their opinions and admit their errors if proved wrong, what's the problem? It's speculation. It's discussion.
I'm a fan of speculation, but it is redundant speculation. It is making basless accusations and judgements without any attempt to actually apply it to the topic in hand and also without even acknowledging it as pure speculation in the first place.



I am sure I am guilty of it myself, but it feels like some principals that make this board more sane than most are thrown out the window on medical threads.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 27 May 2008, 02:23 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Off View Post
Evidence of negligence probably, but all the comments along the lines of "they should have done something sooner" or "should have given a C-section first" are totally speculative, no one on the board has any insight into the actual sequence of events in there, yet all are quick to jump on the descisions made or not made by doctors and attendants involved without (in most cases) any relevant experience at all and without any specific detail.
Suggesting that a C-section should have been done sooner, or to begin with, is hardly wild speculation. Are you aware of some other alternative to vaginal birth?

And we had two specific, and very relevant, details: the child was large, and the doctor knew the mother had a small pelvic arch.

One of the first posters asked what else the doctor could have done, and the comments about C-sections were in response to that question.

And finally, one of the posters who said a C-section should have been done was Dr. Dave, who is, in fact, a medical doctor.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 27 May 2008, 02:34 PM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Suggesting that a C-section should have been done sooner, or to begin with, is hardly wild speculation. Are you aware of some other alternative to vaginal birth?
Are you aware of the reasons that the C section was not done sooner or to begin with?

No.

Quote:
And we had two specific, and very relevant, details: the child was large, and the doctor knew the mother had a small pelvic arch.
The only two details, nothing about the wishes of the mother, the advice given or not given by the doctors, what contingencies were or were not in place, what caused the baby to get stuck in the first place...The list of relevant details not given is huge

Quote:
One of the first posters asked what else the doctor could have done, and the comments about C-sections were in response to that question.

And finally, one of the posters who said a C-section should have been done was Dr. Dave, who is, in fact, a medical doctor.
No he didn't I am aware of Dr Dave's profession at at no point did he say "they should have" or "they were wrong to" most likley because he didn't have enough details to make such a judgement. (which is my whole point)

An example to be followed I think.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 27 May 2008, 02:42 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Off View Post
Are you aware of the reasons that the C section was not done sooner or to begin with?

No.
Again: someone asked what else the doctor could have done, and I answered. The only alternative to vaginal birth is a c-section.

Quote:
The only two details, nothing about the wishes of the mother,
the advice given or not given by the doctors, what contingencies were or were not in place, what caused the baby to get stuck in the first place...The list of relevant details not given is huge
I didn't say it was huge. I said we had two relevant details. And none of the points you mention above are relevant to what I posted, which was an answer to a hypothetical question.

Quote:
No he didn't I am aware of Dr Dave's profession at at no point did he say "they should have" or "they were wrong to" most likley because he didn't have enough details to make such a judgement. (which is my whole point)

An example to be followed I think.
I did follow his example. We both answered a hypothetical question.

Artemis posted, "So are they arguing the doctor should have arrnaged for the C-section sooner?" and Dr. Dave quoted that post and said, "Basically, yeah." Here's the thread.

Are you seriously suggesting it is somehow unethical to answer a hypothetical question?

ETA: Of course, we are seeing the case with 20/20 hindsight. In answering a hypothetical question about something that has already happened, I assume the person asking the question has the sense to understand that. It's hardly the same thing as condemning the medical profession.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 27 May 2008, 02:47 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Off View Post
Are you aware of the reasons that the C section was not done sooner or to begin with?

No.



The only two details, nothing about the wishes of the mother, the advice given or not given by the doctors, what contingencies were or were not in place, what caused the baby to get stuck in the first place...The list of relevant details not given is huge
But the pertinent finding by a jury is that the doctor was negligent.

I would assume that the jury was privy to more details than we got in a short news article.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 27 May 2008, 06:42 PM
Hans Off's Avatar
Hans Off Hans Off is offline
 
Join Date: 14 May 2004
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 4,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
I didn't say it was huge. I said we had two relevant details. And none of the points you mention above are relevant to what I posted, which was an answer to a hypothetical question.



I did follow his example. We both answered a hypothetical question.
That isn't the part I was having trouble with..

Quote:
Artemis posted, "So are they arguing the doctor should have arrnaged for the C-section sooner?" and Dr. Dave quoted that post and said, "Basically, yeah." Here's the thread.
As in, "Yes they are arguing that..."

not

"Yes they should have..."

It's a huge difference.

Quote:

Are you seriously suggesting it is somehow unethical to answer a hypothetical question?
I have neither claimed that any of these posts were "unethical" nor have I raised any objections to hypothetical questions, so, no.

Quote:

ETA: Of course, we are seeing the case with 20/20 hindsight. In answering a hypothetical question about something that has already happened, I assume the person asking the question has the sense to understand that. It's hardly the same thing as condemning the medical profession.
I understand where you are coming from, but you (and others) seemed to be claiming that the doctors just stood around and did nothing for 13 hours, and then decided to do the C section. *

(*Now, I'm not saying that this is not the case, but you were basing this claim on nothing.)

even saying
Quote:
they didn't try the right (and IMO, obvious) thing -- an emergency c-section.
I think it is a gross oversimplification, and (I mean this in the most polite way) they have almost certainly got infinite more experience in delivering babies and dealing with complications than you do. e.g. Off the top of your head, can you think of a list of reasons when attempting to complete a vaginal birth is the preferable option to performing a C section when the baby is stuck in the Birth canal?

All this confused me, because there was no detail given in the OP about the sequence of events other than:
labour -> baby stuck -> 13 hours -> C-section -> damages awarded.

I was wondering what you, and others were basing these "obviously they should have done the ceaser straight away" posts on I really thought there was access to a more detailed report on the proceedings of the case, but there wasn't.

Last edited by Hans Off; 27 May 2008 at 06:48 PM. Reason: clarification of point 283!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.