Maximum safe dose for nail surgery... calculation.

I was just multi tasking away when I saw Blindas' postings, so so true. Ah! I hear my man calling "yes dear I'll come and find them for you in a minute"!
Ros

 

Oh for goodness sake. Against my better judgement, I logged out. Wish I hadn`t bothered.

For the record; I did NOT interpret Bill`s remarks as "sexist". The sketches I posted were tongue-in-cheek and intended as harmless banter between colleagues. I enjoy Bill`s, often out-of-the-box, inoffensive musings.

Matthew, if you find my posts as obnoxious as I find yours, then follow this tip; Don`t read posts until you have logged in. That way you will not be exposed to my remarks.

BTW, Bill. You`re right about the writers of Harry `n friends being predominately male, although Kathy Burke and Louisa Rix played no small part in their contributions.

Cheers,
Bel

 

I hope the file loads. I have tried before without success.

Regards, Mandy.

 

If there is a substantial infection present, you should be considering a regional rather than local anaesthesia.

 

`tis a good point, well put.

 

Yes, I know how you feel. However, curiosity gets the better of me... a double edge sword at times. This whole "ignore List" function tends to work more under principle than practice.

Once again the issue here is poor comprehension of the dialogue. It's not so much that Bill's remarks are sexist but whether or not he is accusing others here of unfounded sexist conduct towards the OP due to comments he made earlier at posts 27 & 30. The very fact you followed with sexist related videos highlights that you too noticed the sexist point being made. Frankly the videos don't bother me per se (they are humorous within this PC world) but it is the apparent accusations of sexist conduct that bothers me... of which I have asked Bill to clarify on. That's it... & he hasn't.

Yes, I've already highlighted this tip previously as well as your comprehension of the issues at play here (i.e. your chosen videos aren't the issue here!).

Yes I would... but wasn't in keeping with nature of the discussion. Maybe this issue should have been addressed.

 

I think that quite frequently the lack of understanding that can arise on these forums is more a manifestation of what George bernard Shaw described as,"two countries divided by the same language". Although Shaw was talking about Britain and America I think it probably extends to Britain and Australia.

I also think that misunderstanding is further exacerbated by the relative insensitivity of the written word as a form of communication, ie there is no body language, no tone in the voice, no opportunity for immediate questioning, no opportunity to interrupt, no opportunity for immediate clarification, etc.. All you've got is these bare words and your own little head to interpret them with.

Blast it! I pressed the post button by mistake and I haven't even started.

Just take this as an introduction.


I'll be back. As someone said.


Bill

 

When this thread started my initial response was very similar to that of the other respondents, ie

Post 2 “Where were you trained?”
Post 3 “ ..the request is a bit vague..”
Post 4 ” ….why do you need to ask this?”
Post 5 ” …. Do some legwork first.”
Post 12 “There is a real potential danger in this ”kid’s” vagueness/ignorance which does not warrant an answer by this medium/context! It is disturbing… and I wouldn’t feel comfortable providing such an answer in light of the original question (little background info and competence).”
Post 15 “Thus Mhairi Curle look into this issue a bit deeper…..”
Post 18 “If that’s not it then I’d be concerned too”

Then something happened which for me was a game changer.
In post 19 The wrong formula is posted and the poster is thanked.

Having tried to write the correct formula and found it impossible to get the denominator onto the right hand side of the equation I empathized with the writer of post 19’s predicament.

However I asked myself which is more disturbing, a vague request for information or being supplied with a wrong formula? For me it’s a no brainer. It is potentially far more dangerous to apply the wrong formula than to ask, no matter how vaguely, for more information.
In this particular case the error in the formula reduced the apparent SMV but had the error placed the ten above the dividing line rather than below it would have multiplied the answer by 100.

The nearest anyone came to commenting upon this was

Post 23 “This may reduce the confusion”

No question of competence or the potentially vital importance of double checking even triple checking when sending this type of information. After that the focus was back onto questioning aspects of Mhairi’s competence.

Post 25 “ All really a matter of clinical judgement, hence the very valid query of why the question was posed in the first place ie is there some problem with clinical judgement here?”

At this stage it seems to me that the thread had become farcical.

I also asked myself why this apparent single focus, ie on Mhairi, should occur? My own answer, which I thought I would try on for size with my colleagues was that, it might be related to a difference in the way men and women think or at least the way they behave, ie men have a need to answer things themselves where women are happy to ask (based probably on sex difference) plus the apparent inability of men to focus on more than one thing at a time. Mairhi asked her question, which was interpreted by the men in a male sort of way, ie before asking a question you should try to find out the answer on your own and if you ask a question it has to be comprehensive or you will be judged. But when a potentially greater problem manifests, it is ignored, maintaining the single focus on MC.

In my own inimitable way I thought I would develop the farcical aspect of the thread but stating part of what I was seeing first.

Post 27 “After the torrent of testosterone fuelled incredulity and derision the ‘kid’ has been subjected to …….”

As an aside “torrent” was teamed with “testosterone” for the alliteration (the same reason I used “teamed” in this sentence). The rest of posts 27 & 29 expanded upon the farcical aspect of the thread and took it in a direction that suited me.

In Post 30 I tried to summarize the rationale of my view that what I was witnessing, within the thread, was evidence of male female difference.

My view of what was happening within the thread is that it is based on sex difference.

The idea of sexism however is an interesting one. Taking the Wiki definition of sexism as “prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex.”

So if I wanted to do I think that from the contents of the thread I could make a case for sexism?

As I see it to do that I would have to demonstrate evidence of prejudice and yes I think I could do that. Secondly I would have to demonstrate discrimination and yes I think that I could do that. Thirdly I would have to find evidence that they were based on the person’s sex. Now that would be more difficult but if I was in the right mood I would make a good stab at it. My argument would hinge around the necessity of knowing the sex of the person allegedly being discriminated against. If it is only possible to sexually discriminate against a person on grounds of their sex if you consciously and explicitly know their sex that might be more difficult but not impossible.

But if I wanted to insinuate sexism within this thread what level of sexism would it be on my own Lickert sexism scale. For me it would be so close to zero that, as a man, it wouldn’t count. If I was a woman my opinion might be different.

Also and more importantly if I thought that I was witnessing significant sexism in this or any thread I wouldn’t be insinuating anything. I would clearly and unambiguously state that I considered that I was witnessing sexism.

One final post that might be of some significance.

Post 6 “.. answer the kid’s question.”

From the beginning of the thread it is apparent that everyone wanted to help which I suppose is not too surprising in a caring profession. However post 6 added another dimension. I am assuming that this is a contribution from someone probably a man in the USA, where using the word ‘kid’ to describe another professional might not carry the same connotation of paternalism, derision and condescension that it carrries in Britain.

I am now expecting Matt to get the big wooden chariot with the squeaiy wheels out of the garage and attempt to trundle all over me. Will I be pleasantly surprised?

Tune in later for another thrilling installment of “………. …. ……..”.(fill in the blank).

That’s enough mental effort for today.

Bill

 

Thank you Bill for putting in the effort in explaining your thoughts (views, intentions) & clearing the air.

I thoroughly agree with the above. I have stated similar on this forum when thoughts/intentions gets misinterpreted (& things get heated). This writing type medium can be ambiguous at times - particularly on controversial topics. Case in point: there was another thread recently where someone stated that those who oppose women wearing high heel shoes had misogynistic intentions (on this, a Podiatry forum). Anyway, no doubt the above aspect applied to some extent on that thread as well - from both sides of the fence. However, I will state that controversial points need to be carefully explained to ward off the potential for misinterpretation.

Agreed here as well Bill. Like I said, providing information of this nature to the nature of the original query can potentially cause further confusion & subsequent harm (in drug administration)... thus care needs to be taken.

Interesting take on the discussion & interesting thoughts Bill. However, I think the "single focus on Mhairi" was simply because she (we've established the OP is female?) was asking the question of which was the reason for the thread. I should state now that I'm sure everyone here had good/sincere intentions.

As for the differences in the way male & female brains work... I think you've made some pretty valid observations. I've noticed similar... but must confess haven't thought too deeply on the topic (hey, maybe I should ). Is this why I don't like asking for directions?

There is this very clever video which tends to highlight some of the issues (I think)... guys prefer to fix things... & girls prefer to talk about them (???). I really don't want to open up another can of worms here, so here's the vid...

Hmmm... that's fine Bill, but I think that's where I personally lost the direction of logic... if you had explained your intentions & views clearer I would have understood your direction. (Remember that high heel thread - the confusion & subsequent controversy it created - it was still fairly fresh on my mind).

I be honest Bill, the sex (male/female) cognitive processing differences just didn't enter my mind. The words you used in the sentence in question just wasn't reflective of this direction (well, not for me). I was still pondering on the original query i.e. MSD, anaesthetic agent & calculations.

Yes, thoroughly agree Bill... hence my frustration. I couldn't see any evidence for sexism... yet, to be honest your comments at post 26 was giving me that impression i.e. the wording (putting aside your now above explanation pertaining to cognitive differences between male & females)... hence my question at post 27. Now if you had given me the above answer all would have been cleared.

Quite possibly true. I remember when a famous Australian TV presenter referred to Muhammad Ali as "boy" when they were on stage together - Mr Ali wasn't too happy with that... but all was explained & all was cool ("boy" directed to an African American is considered condescending).

There was just recently an American celebrity visit Australia & refer to "fanny" in a discussion... well "fanny" in OZ & "fanny" in the US are quite different parts of the human anatomy... which can & does make for either embarrassing &/or concerned looks .

Well Bill, you've explained yourself... & quite well... & as you can see, I now understand & even agree with your points (albeit, I probably would have used different words &/or explained myself clearer). Hence there is no need for thinking the above (sarcasm ???)... then again... maybe it's a play on words i.e. Ben-Hur, chariot (???)...



Is all cool now... are you "pleasantly surprised"?

 

Dude. Enough already.

Please.

 

As the author of the pdf cited by Ben-Hur, it should be noted it is a bullet point summary of a lecture, and so gives very basic information. I am happy to be contacted for advice, but would suggest that local anaesthesia should only be administered where the practitioner has a good understanding of all associated aspects and risks, not just the MSD. I would therefore encourage thourough revision prior to injecting, and recommend "Foot and Ankle Injection Techniques" by Metcalfe and Reilly.

 

Should be good - taught them both pedal anatomy! Rob

 

Thank you Jackie for your views & your willingness to be contacted for advice - all above points are important (i.e. "good understanding of all associated aspects and risks, not just the MSD. I would therefore encourage thourough revision prior to injecting") of which I also advised - particularly when the OP (Mhairi) looks to come from your neck of the woods i.e. Glasgow, Scotland.

:welcome: :good:


Now we can get back on topic... with hopefully that other stuff now behind us.