support the site ⋅ become a member ⋅ unscramble the egg
(tag_directory)
free120  nbme24  nbme23  nbme22  nbme21  nbme20  nbme19  nbme18  nbme17  nbme16  nbme15  nbme13 
Welcome to jcrll’s page.
Contributor score: 12


Comments ...




Subcomments ...

unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

It isda it aws afatl ot esaml ni eur,ot and hte tensqoiu easkd boaut eilv bron gpff.rsnio Seinc teh almse rean’t biegn robn in eht tfisr ,apcle I iasd %05 famlsee dan 0% .lesma

hungrybox  fuck i got baited +25  
jcrll  "live-born offspring" ← baited +11  
sympathetikey  Same :/ +  
arkmoses  smh +  
niboonsh  why is it 50% females tho? +2  
imgdoc  felt like an idiot after i figured out why i got this wrong. +1  
temmy  oh shit! +  
suckitnbme  This isn't exactly right as males can still be born as evidenced by individuals III 6,9,11. This basically an x-linked recessive disease. A carrier mother can still pass her normal X chromosome to a son (50% chance). It's just that the other 50% chance of passing an affected X chromosome results in death of the fetus in utero. Thus all males actually born will not be affected. +2  
makinallkindzofgainz  @suckitnbme, Correct, but if you're a live-born male, you 100% for sure do NOT have the disease, so the chance of a live-born male "being affected" is 0. +3  
spow  @suckitnbme it's not X-linked recessive, otherwise every single son would be affected and therefore have died in utero. It's X-linked dominant +2  
qball  Jail-baited +  


submitted by taway(24),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

oDse byaynod nntrsdaeud yhw ew are elladow to rfrnieete twih hte lailnicc nikmaidignceos fo wto herto ctspalssiie ?rctleiyd ltonudW' tath mdudy eht astwer vnee moer yb danigd ruo ?npoiion I to'nd ees hte ienlrnyudg rplpineci atht naexlips eht olatienar in tsih n.eawrs

jcrll  I think it's about adding our opinion and more about seeing what the situation is because a patient contacted you in distress. The others are about contacting management off hearsay; that could also "muddy the waters," I Is this question also addressing quaternary prevention? +1  
meningitis  I agree with jcrll. My same thought process but then I changed it to psychiatric consultation in order to first attend the patient's distress and anxiety since it was hindering her decision making. Besides, the whole ordeal about her treatments and ineffectiveness was emotionally and physically exhausting her. +2  
vi_capsule  Referral is NEVER a answer +10  
tsl19  Going straight to the chair of the ethics committee without having spoken to the other physicians would be inappropriate because it would be jumping a bunch of steps in communication first - like jcrll said, you want to get the picture of what's going on from the other physicians first. Maybe the gynecologic oncologist isn't actually as opposed to palliative measures as the patient perceives him to be and thinks he's doing what the patient wants, etc. It could just be miscommunication, which you could help clear up without getting ethics involved ... better to start there. +10