Joy & Austin 27 - Joy and Austin lost baby Annabell, TRIGGER WARNING miscarriage and stillbirth

[ViolaSebastian]

I might come off sounding like a paranoid person, but given my experiment with influencing the commercials on a streaming service, there's no way that my phone isn't listening in on me. And when I say "listening in," I don't necessarily think there's a person on the other end physically listening, I just mean that some sort of computer program or app is processing the audio information it's collecting and using that to determine the advertisements I see. There is just absolutely no way that we can be sitting there, talking about diving watches (a product that neither of us is even remotely in the market for, as neither of us wear watches or scuba dive or anything of that nature) and have an advertisement pop up for them. And that's a specific example. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, Someone Out There said:

There are a lot of articles about it.  Some I found in a brief search:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4295350/did-you-know-google-has-been-secretly-recording-you-heres-how-to-find-the-creepy-audio-files-that-are-monitoring-your-conversations-every-day/

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2015/10/so-google-records-all-the-microphone-audio-all-the-time-after-all/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-voice-search-records-stores-conversation-people-have-around-their-phones-but-files-can-be-a7059376.html

It, as with the Alexa/Google Home devices has to do with the keywords used.

Here's an article about deleting the recorded conversations from your Google Home device:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/20/17594802/google-home-how-to-delete-conversations-recorded

Edited to add:

Here's an article from 2013 about stores tracking you via WiFi.

https://lifehacker.com/how-retail-stores-track-you-using-your-smartphone-and-827512308?IR=T

I'm not even commenting on the Sun article, it's a tabloid with less credibility than fox news. The second link is more interesting, but first I have to underline that the writer is the founder of the Pirate Party and that actually qualifies him as an overly paranoid individual with an ax to grind towards Google and some political aims. Nevertheless, even he acknowledges this

Quote

You’ll recall from the previous privacy discussion, that Google having access to microphones in pretty much every room gives Google the ability to eavesdrop on those each and every rooms continuously. It should be pointed out that this is a technical ability; there’s no indication this is happening, but the presence of the capability is cause for serious privacy concerns.

He's harping on the possibility, not actually demonstrating that it happens. 

I trust the Independent, they usually do good reporting so I did as they explained. I found the registrations of all my Google searches as I expected, I don't know you but my IT teacher told us that all searches were going to be noted in middle school, I don't see why I should expect differently.

As for voice recordings, premised that I never ever use Google Voice, I found a whopping 4 recordings, 3 of which were me setting up Google Voice on different devices. And one was that time I was trying to make a video work and I was messing around with the touchscreen and accidentally starting Google Voice. Btw Google is convinced that in that occasion I said "Lady Diana" when from the recording it's clear I say "il video non funziona" meaning "the video doesn't work". That's all, scary I know.

I don't have Google Home exactly because I don't trust them with my privacy. But again, people were talking about smartphones that's another thing. I don't know you, but while I fully expect Google Home to record me talking (and that's why I don't have it) I have yet to see evidence that my phone does too.

As for the last link, people you have to disable Geolocation on your device, pretty easy.

ETA and if y'all are right and my phone is listening to my conversations, it's doing a superbly shitty job lol

Edited May 29, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna

[melon]

I think the number of C sections a woman can have would vary.

My mother had 4 C sections.Her OB Gyn asked her why she was having a fourth child.At the time,in the 60's she could have had her tubes tied,without my father's consent,after her second C section.Her doctor told her she could never carry another child,after my brother was born.When the incision was made,everything was visible.She,my mother,claimed it was a miracle that nothing bad happened to her when she was pregnant with my younger brother.

Also,my OB Gyn refused to do VBACs,,I had a friend who went to the same doctor,she said he,our OB, saw a woman's uterus rupture,she then had to have an emergency hysterectomy,and evidently it affected my doctor.

 

[Johannah]

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I once was at a Starbucks, reading on my phone, sitting right next to a couple having a pretty loud conversation in Russian. As I was reading, ads started popping up in Russian, in addition to ads for English translators, ads for ESL programs, etc. ?

[VelociRapture]

5 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

In my understanding (which to be fair is pretty limited) the patient has much less ability to sue their doctor for an undesirable outcome in Germany compared to the US.  The possibility of medical malpractice suits are one of the biggest reasons doctors won't accept higher-risk patients in the US, and I believe the insurance they have to carry against such lawsuits is one of the reasons medical care is so much more expensive than in other places. (In my experience the cost of health care without insurance in the US is about 10 times what it is without insurance in Germany.) 

If I remember correctly, Obstetrics is the department most likely to see malpractice lawsuits as well. So that could help explain why a very high risk woman with a history of not following Doctor’s advice might be fired as a patient or have difficult finding a provider.

I can’t say I blame Doctors for firing patients who don’t stay in the guidelines, especially if it’s on an issue like vaccinations that could put other patients at risk. If you aren’t listening to the Doctor then that’s a sign they aren’t the right Doctor for you and everyone would be better off if you try finding another Doctor. 

[viii]

4 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Let me guess, she is your friend on Facebook too.

Nope - she's not even on Facebook. 

[Rachel333]

I actually support the right of a doctor to refuse to accept patients into their practice or to fire non-compliant patients. Again, this does not apply to emergencies and you can't refuse a patient for just any reason, but I think it is entirely reasonable for a doctor to refuse to take on a patient who wouldn't be a good fit for their practice. For example, a number of pediatricians won't take on non-vaccinated children because those children threaten the health of their other patients. Doctors don't have the time to take on an unlimited number of patients too and they shouldn't have to accept patients who will refuse to accept the doctors' recommendations. Another issue is patients being abusive to the staff (which happens more often than you might think*), in which case I absolutely think a doctor should be able to refuse to see that patient again.

*At least in an outpatient practice you can fire a patient but this is a huge issue in inpatient medicine as well and you have fewer options for dealing with those patients there since you can't just get rid of a patient who would die without treatment unless you can get another service to take them on. It's disturbingly common for nurses especially to be physically and sexually assaulted by patient. A hospital near me actually had a patient rape a nurse and in the wake of that incident a lot of nurses in multiple hospitals told their own stories of being assaulted by patients and having administration do nothing about it.

[Longhairedheathen]

16 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I actually support the right of a doctor to refuse to accept patients into their practice or to fire non-compliant patients. Again, this does not apply to emergencies and you can't refuse a patient for just any reason, but I think it is entirely reasonable for a doctor to refuse to take on a patient who wouldn't be a good fit for their practice. For example, a number of pediatricians won't take on non-vaccinated children because those children threaten the health of their other patients. Doctors don't have the time to take on an unlimited number of patients too and they shouldn't have to accept patients who will refuse to accept the doctors' recommendations. Another issue is patients being abusive to the staff (which happens more often than you might think*), in which case I absolutely think a doctor should be able to refuse to see that patient again.

*At least in an outpatient practice you can fire a patient but this is a huge issue in inpatient medicine as well and you have fewer options for dealing with those patients there since you can't just get rid of a patient who would die without treatment unless you can get another service to take them on. It's disturbingly common for nurses especially to be physically and sexually assaulted by patient. A hospital near me actually had a patient rape a nurse and in the wake of that incident a lot of nurses in multiple hospitals told their own stories of being assaulted by patients and having administration do nothing about it.

I work in healthcare and quit after 5 years because I was bitten by a patient and admin did not want me to go to occupational med. We had gotten just bought over and their admin made a hue stink about me getting blood test and wanting precautionary meds. Some many hospital and healthcare facilities have 0% policy about defending yourself if a patient is combative and dangerous.  I think there has to be middle ground. 

[Sullie06]

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Guys- am I reading this right? Your doctors can refuse to take care of you???? What the hell? I mean, it’s fine to refuse medical action to help her GET pregnant again (or one more plastic surgery) but if she falls pregnant she should be able to get a doctor to care for her. That’s is some messed up shit. I mean can a doctor refuse to treat people after a sport accident? Because no one had to do a potentially dangerous activity. Or if you’ve been in a car accident?

Sorry but that is just wrong on so many levels, morally, ethically (and in my country thank god legally). 

Yes if you refuse to follow doctors orders they can chose to not have you as a patient. Same goes if you miss appointments frequently without cancelling they can let you go from their practice as well.

 In the instance of Joy if she has multiple cesarean deliveries and a doctor out right tells her to not get pregnant again due to safety concerns and she does, they do not have to treat her. It was her choice to go against doctors orders and get pregnant again, the doctor is then not forced to treat a high risk pregnancy or they might not have the training or resources to do so. Just like some surgeons won't operate on people over a certain weight due to risks with anesthesia or might be referred to a specialist if you need specific treatment. 

[feministxtian]

I am currently weighing filing 2 malpractice suits against the VA and the hospital my husband was transferred to, Why?

VA:

refusal to act in a timely manner regarding his cancer diagnosis. Diagnosis on 1/11. Biopsy 2 weeks later. Had to call a congresscritter to get an oncology appointment within the 14 days the PCP recommended. Even then it was almost 21 days. From there it took about a month to have the PET scan done. 2 weeks to receive the results. 4 weeks to consult with the VA surgeon who stated they could not operate on him within the VA system. Another 3-4 weeks to get an appointment with an outside surgeon. By then the cancer had spread to his brain. 

Outside hospital:

Lack of communication. Mismanagement of his diabetes. The discharging doctor "forgot" to write prescriptions for the Dexamethasone and Keppra. 

I will be contacting attorneys soon.

[front hugs > duggs]

Phones/Alexa have to listen. At least the iPhone. iPhone always has to be listening to recognize someone saying "hey siri" and Google Alexa is always listening ready for you to call out to her. Without the tech "listening", we wouldn't be able to have these voice activated assistants. 

[ViolaSebastian]

2 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

Yes if you refuse to follow doctors orders they can chose to not have you as a patient. 

I think the practice of medicine needs to  realize that a lack of full and complete, unquestioning compliance is not necessarily the best way to go about treating people. People are imperfect, and part of successfully treating people for their ailments is figuring out what’s keeping them from following medical orders. I’ve found recently that doctor’s are quick to give a patient marching orders if they disagree or question a doctor’s decisions or express opinions in their course of care. It sucks, quite frankly, because I think there are cases where this ability to dispose of patients is abused. That said, no one should have to put up with being physically assaulted or verbally abused. 

[Eponine]

13 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I think the practice of medicine needs to  realize that a lack of full and complete, unquestioning compliance is not necessarily the best way to go about treating people. People are imperfect, and part of successfully treating people for their ailments is figuring out what’s keeping them from following medical orders. I’ve found recently that doctor’s are quick to give a patient marching orders if they disagree or question a doctor’s decisions or express opinions in their course of care. It sucks, quite frankly, because I think there are cases where this ability to dispose of patients is abused. That said, no one should have to put up with being physically assaulted or verbally abused. 

It's a fine line, though. With an anti-vaxxer, for example, a doctor can fully understand why the parents aren't vaccinating, but that won't change the fact that their presence puts other patients at risk. Or they can understand that a woman is continuing to have more children in a dangerous medical situation because of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that the doctor could be held responsible if something goes wrong because of that situation. I don't think doctors should be forced to treat people who knowingly refuse to follow medical orders when it puts others at risk or puts the doctors at undue risk of being sued.

On the other hand, there are doctors out there who won't treat someone who hasn't lost x amount of weight, hasn't changed something about their lifestyle, or things like that. In those types of situations I absolutely agree that there should be emphasis on figuring out what is preventing the patient from, say, quitting smoking, changing their diet, etc etc. It would be nice if the patient gets the opportunity to go to therapy, for example, instead of being refused treatment.

[Rachel333]

I actually had a conversation recently with my psychiatrist who was talking about the time a lawyer came in to advise the doctors there. The lawyer suggested they refuse to treat any patient who isn't 100% compliant, and the doctors just laughed because almost no patient is ever going to be completely compliant, and particularly not in their field.

Anyway, I don't doubt that it happens but I really don't think it's common to fire a patient for minor issues of non-compliance. You have to have a good reason to fire a patient, too, and continuity of care means that you can't, say, just refuse to treat 34 week pregnant patient you had been following throughout her pregnancy. It's easier to decline to accept a patient into your service in the first place.

[ViolaSebastian]

6 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I actually had a conversation recently with my psychiatrist who was talking about the time a lawyer came in to advise the doctors there. The lawyer suggested they refuse to treat any patient who isn't 100% compliant, and the doctors just laughed because almost no patient is ever going to be completely compliant, and particularly not in their field.

Anyway, I don't doubt that it happens but I really don't think it's common to fire a patient for minor issues of non-compliance. You have to have a good reason to fire a patient, too, and continuity of care means that you can't, say, just refuse to treat 34 week pregnant patient you had been following throughout her pregnancy. It's easier to decline to accept a patient into your service in the first place.

I'm finding that to be true right now. I'm starting to look into bariatric surgery and the amount of hoops I have to jump through before they even see me is absolutely UNREAL. I completely understand why they're requiring it (I've watched enough 'My 600 Pound Life'...), but I have to attend classes, turn up with a crazy amount of all of my past medical records, etc. and that's even before I can schedule an appointment. Again, I completely understand, especially given the nature of the weight-loss and surgical weight-loss, why they do it, but it's also a barrier to care for me. This shit is expensive to do, and it's all just proving I'm fit to be even spoken with about my weight. 

[nolongerIFBx]

14 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

If it's an emergency situation where your life is in danger (a bad car accident, etc), then they cannot refuse to treat you in the ER. But healthcare providers here in the US can dump you for a lot of reasons. Clearly, issues related to religion, race, ethnicity, etc. aren't legal reasons. But reasons such as inability to pay for a non-emergency office appointment, being unpleasant or aggressive during a visit, or feeling that the patient may sue them are all legal here, I'm afraid. 

My chart at my doctor's (well, the last time I went) has me listed as "non-compliant" because I do refuse tests that I don't feel are necessary in my circumstances. Due to my non-compliance or the fact I haven't been to see her in 2 or so years, if I were to call her today, she would be legally justified in refusing to see me. If my non-compliance led me to need emergency care (i.e. I'm dying), the emergency room could not refuse me care.

[Rachel333]

57 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I'm finding that to be true right now. I'm starting to look into bariatric surgery and the amount of hoops I have to jump through before they even see me is absolutely UNREAL. I completely understand why they're requiring it (I've watched enough 'My 600 Pound Life'...), but I have to attend classes, turn up with a crazy amount of all of my past medical records, etc. and that's even before I can schedule an appointment. Again, I completely understand, especially given the nature of the weight-loss and surgical weight-loss, why they do it, but it's also a barrier to care for me. This shit is expensive to do, and it's all just proving I'm fit to be even spoken with about my weight. 

Ah, that makes a lot of sense for something so specialized with unique risks like that, as opposed to just seeing a GP. I also thought you were talking about doctors firing patients as opposed to not accepting a patient in the first place, and I think in the latter case it's a lot more common to encounter the obstacles you're facing. It still sucks though that you have to jump through so many hoops. I hope it works out for you if you decide that's the way you want to go!

Edited May 29, 2019 by Rachel333

[ViolaSebastian]

3 minutes ago, nolongerIFBx said:

My chart at my doctor's (well, the last time I went) has me listed as "non-compliant" because I do refuse tests that I don't feel are necessary in my circumstances. Due to my non-compliance or the fact I haven't been to see her in 2 or so years, if I were to call her today, she would be legally justified in refusing to see me. If my non-compliance led me to need emergency care (i.e. I'm dying), the emergency room could not refuse me care.

I, too, have had this happen to me--and I am so sorry it happened to you. In my situation, it was a treatment that I felt wasn't in my best interest. My therapist and I joke about that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine gets blacklisted as a "difficult patient" when we talk about as a way to help me cope with it, but it's honestly messed up the relationships I've had with other medical professionals since that time. It is very difficult for me to speak up about my treatment plans now and it is a frankly horrible position to be in when you feel like things are being done to you and you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. In any case, I hope that you've found a medical professional who listens to you and respects your opinion on your course of treatment. ?

 

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I think the practice of medicine needs to  realize that a lack of full and complete, unquestioning compliance is not necessarily the best way to go about treating people. People are imperfect, and part of successfully treating people for their ailments is figuring out what’s keeping them from following medical orders. I’ve found recently that doctor’s are quick to give a patient marching orders if they disagree or question a doctor’s decisions or express opinions in their course of care. It sucks, quite frankly, because I think there are cases where this ability to dispose of patients is abused. That said, no one should have to put up with being physically assaulted or verbally abused. 

I have a wonderful doctor. She suggests treatments or screenings and I, as the informed patient and my #1 advocate, get to make the final decision. She has backed down on a couple of things because I’ve been able to bring recent research + my individual health history to explain Why I will not do X, but will do Y. She has congratulated me on the work that I do and the intellect used to communicate my position. I think medical respect is earned. I doubt the young Duggar women are using scientifically based, current research or literature to support their positions or decisions. Apples and oranges between most people and the young Duggars when it comes to making informed medical decisions.

[Rachel333]

5 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

In any case, I hope that you've found a medical professional who listens to you and respects your opinion on your course of treatment. 

That definitely matters. I've been seeing a doctor at my current facility for over 5 years now. The first doctor I was assigned to was awful and didn't listen to me at all (I left my appointment with two different potentially addictive prescriptions I had explicitly said I didn't want). I changed doctors and have been with the second one ever since. He thought I would benefit from one of the medications the first doctor prescribed and said that knowing me and the fact that I was concerned about addiction at all meant that he thought I was at a very low risk for addiction but he listened to me and didn't prescribe me a medication I didn't want. Eventually (like two years later) I did decide that he was right that I would benefit from that medication and he worked with me to start in a way that I felt comfortable with. For example, at first I was prescribed only 10 pills at a time so there was no physical way I could get addicted. In the end he was right; it helped a lot to have that medication available for emergencies and I've had no issues with addiction. The fact that he listened to me and worked with me made a huge difference, though.

[Peaches-n-Beans]

12 hours ago, 3splenty said:

That being said, doctors are able to "fire" you as a patient if you continually disregard their rules, so to speak.  It becomes a legal issue very quickly--the patient can sue the physician--and win, even though the patient did not stay within guidelines.  .

This scares me so much, and I'm American. I want my doctor to be able to refuse antivax parents and patients. I don't want them near me or my future kids and frankly I feel like that should be within the doctor's rights. 

[Casserole]

8 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I actually support the right of a doctor to refuse to accept patients into their practice or to fire non-compliant patients. Again, this does not apply to emergencies and you can't refuse a patient for just any reason, but I think it is entirely reasonable for a doctor to refuse to take on a patient who wouldn't be a good fit for their practice. For example, a number of pediatricians won't take on non-vaccinated children because those children threaten the health of their other patients. Doctors don't have the time to take on an unlimited number of patients too and they shouldn't have to accept patients who will refuse to accept the doctors' recommendations. Another issue is patients being abusive to the staff (which happens more often than you might think*), in which case I absolutely think a doctor should be able to refuse to see that patient again.

*At least in an outpatient practice you can fire a patient but this is a huge issue in inpatient medicine as well and you have fewer options for dealing with those patients there since you can't just get rid of a patient who would die without treatment unless you can get another service to take them on. It's disturbingly common for nurses especially to be physically and sexually assaulted by patient. A hospital near me actually had a patient rape a nurse and in the wake of that incident a lot of nurses in multiple hospitals told their own stories of being assaulted by patients and having administration do nothing about it.

I've refused 2 patients in my career thus far:

#1 slapped my ass and told me to bend over. Sexual harassment suit coming your way or find a new doctor. 

#2 I took x-rays in office and there was a diagnosis happening that required immediate attention in the emergency room. I offered to call the ambulance, she refused. I told her and her husband who was with her it was an emergency. I handed her the copy of x-rays and pleaded with her to follow up. She refused. Since she was a ticking time bomb who could die in my office at any moment, she was refused - not in an "I won't help you" way, but in a "take care of this issue and you're more than welcome back but until you take care of this issue I won't see you" way. I called her PCP to inform them, I sent notice to every doctor she gave me in her history. Can't help people who won't help themselves, and she was a liability. 

[3splenty]

41 minutes ago, Peaches-n-Beans said:

This scares me so much, and I'm American. I want my doctor to be able to refuse antivax parents and patients. I don't want them near me or my future kids and frankly I feel like that should be within the doctor's rights. 

Our pediatrician will not accept anti-vax kids, and I'm fine with that.  Actions lead to consequences.  However, i also feel that good communication is vital.  If I can't afford a test and explain this, I would hope they understand. 

[Hisey]

20 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Guys- am I reading this right? Your doctors can refuse to take care of you???? What the hell? I mean, it’s fine to refuse medical action to help her GET pregnant again (or one more plastic surgery) but if she falls pregnant she should be able to get a doctor to care for her. That’s is some messed up shit. I mean can a doctor refuse to treat people after a sport accident? Because no one had to do a potentially dangerous activity. Or if you’ve been in a car accident?

Sorry but that is just wrong on so many levels, morally, ethically (and in my country thank god legally). 

There'd be far fewer people going to med school in the US if there was a rule that doctors had to treat everyone that comes along.

Doctors are not our slaves. They have a right to make choices about who they see, just like everyone else. 

I don't think a doctor should have to treat someone who is abusive (like a drunk) or a deadbeat. Should a doctor have to spend hours of his time treating someone's eczema or migraine or allergies, when that person hasn't paid his bill in years? (I mean, he can if he wants to, but should he *have to*?)

I'm talking about doctors in private practice, obviously. Doctors who work for a large corporation (or for the NHS) generally have to do what their employer tells them to do.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Hisey

[feministxtian]

I've been labeled "difficult" by my husband's doctors. Mostly because I can see through their bullshit and ignorance on how to treat my husband, what meds he needs, etc. I've found most of them are quite ignorant when it comes to managing type 1 diabetes in an inpatient setting. They ASSUME he's a type 2 w/o consulting the records that state he had a total pancreatectomy and is a brittle Type 3c diabetic. I usually demand an endocrinologist to consult (board certified) or tell them they can do what I tell them to do because they obviously have never dealt with his type of diabetes. 

Honestly, I don't give a shit. Some dumb-ass resident house officer fucks shit up, it's their ass not mine. I fight to keep my husband ALIVE and out of the hands of the idiot butchers.