Tanning Consent: Fill & Download for Free

Many great replies here. The common traits in patients you will find most Doctors disliking fall into 3 categories (in order of decreasing dislike-ness)1. The one who causes problems for other patients. Anyone and I mean anyone steps into my clinic is stepping into my house. They are under my care and they _will_ be safe and they will be cared for fairly, equally and without prejudice. Coming late to an appointment (without reason) and trying to squeeze in front of that elderly lady who's been waiting her turn since the morning by shouting and raving thus causing someone to have an anxiety or angina attack? Not so great.2. The one who causes problems for the staff. The rude, violent or racist. We are here to help you, and we do understand that you may be emotional or ill but shouting is rather counterproductive. My staff already place themselves in an environment filled with pathogens, they hardly need to be dodging magazines and, yes, used diapers. Not so great.3. The one who causes problems for you. This is the category which is most subjective. Yes, it is grating to hear a Google diagnosis, yes the irritation increases when our opinion after a full history and examination is blatantly ignored and yes, irritation reaches Winnebago man’s levels when the individual then proceeds to instruct us exactly to do things which are wholly inappropriate. However, majority of patients do not reach the “Winnebago” stage and with logic and sound communication skills most Doctors are able to resolve things amicably.4! A bonus category… After some thought I realised there is one more category for patients who actually fulfil the above 3 categories but are so special they deserve a special category all to themselves:The ones who cannot understand why their inappropriate demands are not fulfilled.This encompasses legal issues- no I can’t sign off on a death certificate if certain criteria are met… For example, recent surgery. It's the law. I didnt write it, I don't have control over it and shouting at me at how inconvenient and the injustice of it all is unlikely to alter the outcome.This also encompasses professional issues- sorry, I cannoy write a sick note to cover you as you skipped your exams because you have no medical issues whatsoever and you just told me you are well but didn't revise enough so couldn't be bothered to attend.And finally, privacy issues- sorry, without the patients consent I cannot reveal any information. Sorry teacher, I cannot and will not tell you the result of the individuals xyz test. In fact I won't even acknowledge there was a test in the first place.- ok I admit this last one isn't technically a “patient” but still.However, it doesn't matter if I dislike or like you. You came to my clinic and barring the most extreme of cases, you _will_ be safe and you _will_ be cared for equally, fairly and without prejudice.-302.2k Views · 987 Upvotes.- Many thanks!-700k View. 1557 Upvotes.- wow, thanks!-I've added a few comments at the end after my expanded answer on Google diagnosis in response to some comments.-I should expand a little more on my comment regarding google diagnoses. I should have explained this fully- it is not the fact someone has researched their own symptoms- that is laudable.It is that most of the diagnoses are incorrect, due to the difference between how Google MD. and Dr Physician MD work. This means… more time in trying to explain why Google is unlikely to be correct. This means 2 things:A 15 min slot is now a 20 min slot- I am likely to be delayed and hence delay the patients thereafter. This may throw the queue out of whack. But that is more of an administrative matter.The longer time means higher cost overall. A higher cost for the patient (which is fine if the patients are agreeable). A higher cost in terms of overall healthcare costs (when many are screaming blue murder about health costs).-regarding those who feel they had arrived at a diagnosis through own research and despite a Doctors adviceThis is entirely plausible and likely the case.The problem with medicine is the nature of practise. We know that the way we train Doctors to consider common things first will result in some rarer conditions to be missed. We mitigate this by teaching and drilling in certain rare but potentially life threatening condition need to be excluded first.Sometimes we practice in the same way. Take for instance, the approach to a minor head injury. We know through various studies that 3% of people after a minor head injury develop a bleed in the brain. Furthermore, this bleed may not be detectable through history or examination for up to 48hours after the injury.This poses a resource issue- it is impractical to admit everyone with a minor brain injury for 48hr observation. There are simply not enough beds to do that. Or to scan everyone for a bleed- there aren't enough machines to cope.So, some guidelines suggest that as Long as the patient meets the criteria (including no blood thinners and having a responsible Adult to care and watch them), they can be sent home with strict advice on things not to do, what to watch out for.Now if you are one of the unlucky 3%, this will sound like a terrible course of action and I fully sympathise.The problem is that jurisdictions expect Doctors to bear in mind the public good- for nationalised healthcare such as the NHS this means effective use of resources as well as public safety. Roy Porter’s book “The greatest benefit to mankind” should really be describing medicine as “The greatest benefit to most of mankind”.As I have moved out into private practise, the requirement to utilise resources is much less of a concern so I am moving more towards a different model where the patient was more options (which is good) although I do spend more time explaining the probabilities and the risk/benefits (which may be good, may be bad). Additionally I always, well almost always take the time to explain to my patients that I feel we should pursue something common first in the knowledge that it may be something rarer and leave the decision up to them.

Trump is not a great orator. He’s acerbic, brash, and opinionated. He took the power from the elites and handed it to the people. While being racially insensitive, he has helped create better opportunities for minorities and women. He’s a womanizer, but he’s had consent. The world hates him because he made them accountable for paying their fair share. He pretty much obliterated ISIS, and his tax cuts brought some welcome relief. His COVID response was adequate…it was the hatred of him that brought about all the COVID deaths, not he himself.Biden is not a great orator either, but thank God for speech writers and teleprompters. He believes that what the people cannot do for themselves should be done by the government, oblivious that in doing so, people have to give up liberties for it. His record shows that his policies have hurt minorities more than helped. He’s not a womanizer, but he does have a skeleton in his closet. He says women should be believed unless they are Tara Reade. He said Trump’s travel ban was xenophobic, but then said Trump didn’t act fast enough. Can’t be both.Trump is a hammer. Blunt, forceful, but usually hits the nail on the head.Biden is a dog with no teeth. He snarls at the right times, but has become useless as a method of defending your home. Easily overlooked by his peers, he brings nothing to the table, and follows the herd, and barks when they tell him to.We’ve traded an alleged racist, womanizer, and non-orator with a fake tan for a bona fide racist, alleged sexual assaulter, and non-orator with no tan. We aren’t better off. We are probably actually worse off. In the best case scenario, we have laterally transitioned.Trump was the surgeon, Biden is the guy who finishes up the stitching, but leaves implements inside the body.We’ve traded the drunk uncle for the senile grandpa.

Yes.We caught someone embezzling money from our company. She had access to the petty cash and had taken somewhere in excess of 30k USD over several years before we found out.We did not have proof of the exact amount since the accounting prior to us taking over was non-existent. Some estimates were as high as 80k USD.The number we came up with was based on bills we had to discard as bad debt since companies would tell us they don’t owe us anything. (The employees would pay in cash and this would go into petty cash as a general holding place.)I’m sure it was higher but the lack of accounting prior meant that we could not definitely prove the amount, so that was a safe number to go by.I prepared all the documents and proof over a week before confronting her with the evidence. Over the objections of several people, I also filed a police report on her for embezzlement and theft.A month later, she filed a wrongful termination suit, contested the fact that we denied her unemployment, and tried to file a worker’s compensation case against us.I was the one who had to field these calls. With each of the adjusters/case handlers for these things, I informed them that there was a police report filed on her for embezzlement of funds. I gave them the police department and the number we were given to identify the case.Unemployment denied, worker’s compensation denied, wrongful termination mediation denied. Never heard from them again after they found out about the police report.And to think, if I hadn’t been firm and overridden everyone’s advice not to file a police report, those cases by her probably would have been approved or been dragged out unnecessarily.Edit : Additional information in response to a comments.When we confronted her I had 2 witnesses with me. HR and another administrator.She confessed to stealing money when we confronted her with the evidence saying she needed it to save her house. (Always have witnesses to back you up when these things happen)So it was not simply my word v hers. She confessed it to two other people.That house reasoning was a lie. She recently bought a car and didn’t know we had heard about it through the employee grapevine.Since we were in California, a recording would have been illegal unfortunately unless we had her consent even though we have cctv cameras and warning we record in the area.We gave the evidence to the police, so while it was an allegation, we had enough proof where we could have taken her to court and jailed her.We chose not to since the time necessary v. Money spent would not have been worth it.We filed the police report and collected the data for proof solely to protect ourselves against any future problems. Which was the most important thing to us since wrongful termination, worker’s compensation cases, etc can drag out and cost even more.And no we are not a non-profit.