Am doctor. Outside of very rare and specific causes of headache, no this wouldn't fix anything, just put you at risk for infections.

Am a doctor, this wasn't actually a migraine and is not how migraines happen. Shunts are placed for elevated intracranial pressure, which can occur for a number of reasons, and do cause headaches. But it's a very uncommon cause of headaches and a shunt will not fix your actual migraines or tension headaches.

It's so funny because it is criminal activity for regular non-corporation people. Transferring assets to family/hiding assets for the purposes of declaring bankruptcy but not losing the assets is illegal. Functionally identical to what is going on here, except they're somehow transferring the liability instead of the assets.

I mean if the only way they're gonna have jobs is through predatory hiring practices that could leave them fired and without severance, then yeah. Because if the company is planning on hiring these younger workers for the long-haul, then this shouldn't be a significant change. I think overall national policy should discourage unnecessary high-turnover and predatory hiring. I'm sure there will be situations this is still unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse it by way of law/policy.

I'm going to digress from the economics a tad and focus on the ethics of this. I feel like companies should be on the hook for this. You should invest in capital (including human labor) based on your confidence in its expected return. Companies should not be able to hire a myriad of workers for funzies and not have to meaningfully consider if that person will be necessary in 6 months. If it is a legitimate business venture, then the cost of potential severance for new hires should be folded into the economics of the decision to pursue that venture. Larger severance pay/worker protections encourage employers to not utilize exploitative hiring practices.

EMS communication over unencrypted channels is limited by HIPAA, patient information must be kept vague to protect patient privacy. In the event that, say, an individuals name needs to be given to the receiving facility to facilitate review of records prior to arrival by the ER physician, some other method of communication has to be used.

You make physics come alive!

You know I felt this way for years. I felt that way through psychopharmacology in pharmacy school, and I felt that way during our psychiatry and behavior lectures in medical school. I felt like psychiatry was minimizing behavior to these boxes was far too reductionist. Then I spent a month in an inpatient psychiatry facility as a third year medical student.

While I completely agree that each individual is unique and people are more than their diagnosis, you'd be absolutely shocked by just how similar patients' overall stories, maladaptive coping mechanisms, and behaviors are within the same psychiatric illness. I can spot mania from a doorway, and it takes less than five minutes to have a high suspicion for borderline personality disorder. These classifications aren't some arbitrary grouping of symptoms: they're an attempt to create standard criteria for a relatively well preserved set of phenotypic behaviors. The hard part is understanding pathology vs culturally appropriate behavior in cultures you don't belong, and differentiating within illness spectra (Bipolar I vs II; schizophrenia vs bipolar disorder with psychotic features vs schizoaffective)

Except these physicians are often completing something called a "peer-to-peer" on behalf of the insurance companies, not just making broad treatment decisions. This is a process by which an ordering physician is required to call a physician employed by the insurance company to justify a testing or treatment course to their "peer". Unfortunately these "peers" are often composed of physicians who did not complete residency and/or who do not currently practice, let alone in the specialty of the physician who is required to call for the peer-to-peer.

This leads to rather absurd results in which a board certified, practicing sub specialist (cardiologist, neurosurgeon, oncologist, etc) with 5+ years of specialized training after medical school has to convince a physician who may never have even practiced that they know what they're doing. I personally think if you're not a neurosurgeon, neuroradiologist, or neurologist then you aren't really qualified to cancel a neurosurgeons MRI, but hey, I don't get a bonus for denying claims.

• A Fourth Year Medical Student and Pharmacist

If you were somewhere else you could use MakeMKV to break the region lock/DRM on the disc and give you playable files. Unfortunately, within the USA (depending on who you ask) cracking DRM is illegal. Though I am not aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for breaking DRM on discs for personal use copies of media they legally own. IANAL

I think the point is more so why are digital purchased DRM'ed and prohibited from local storage in so many ways. The historical argument is "well you're not buying it, you're buying a license to use it for as long as we wish to provide it", but why does it necessarily need to be that way. And more generally, from the standpoint of artistic/media preservation, as BluRay releases continue to decrease and console video game releases become continually more digital-only, these non-archivable or locked-without-server-license-validation media results in IP that at some point in time, this media could be permanently lost.

Personally, I feel this is unacceptable. The media we consume forms a huge portion of our culture, and is just as much an example of artistic expression as painting. While I thoroughly believe artists/companies should be able to charge for these properties, I do not believe that when it is no longer profitable for them to support the system, that these pieces of media should simply be discarded with no method for future recovery and preservation.

Pharmacist and 4th year medical student here. Medical tests are ordered based upon their statistical ability to alter your likelihood of a diagnosis. No test is perfect in either direction (negative result meaning you don't have disease or positive result indicating you have disease). Tests cost money, take resources of the healthcare system, and have the potential to be wrong. When a test is wrong, it can result in financial, emotional, and physical harm to an individual.

Example: you're an otherwise healthy 34 year old and you feel a little under the weather and are coughing. It's only been going on a few days, mild fever, but you're worried and you go to the doctor. Your doctor thinks this is most likely a viral infection, recommends Tylenol and ibuprofen and sends you home. You imply to the doctor you'll sue if you don't get antibiotics and a chest x-ray just to be safe. The doctor, rather than argue with you when they have a dozen other patients to see, just orders the stuff and moves on. The chest X ray doesn't explain your cough, but there's a small lesion of undetermined significance on the X-ray. Now you need a CT. The CT says "probably a self-limited granuloma from a fungal infection, can't rule out cancer, correlate with biopsy". Then you have to go get sedated, put a camera down your throat, and have a pulmonologist take a sample of your lung to see if you have cancer. Maybe you end up with a complication from the sedation or a pneumothorax. Meanwhile the antibiotics you took didn't really improve your cough but now you have this uncomfortable itchy rash. Are you allergic to the amoxicillin? Or did you just develop the typical rash seen in people who have mononucleosis that also take amoxicillin? Will you get allergy testing for the amoxicillin? Just avoid amoxicillin, an awesome antibiotic, for the rest of your life?

We are restrictive in our prescribing of medications and tests not because we don't care about you, not because we want to save the hospital or the insurance company money (in fact the hospital prefers we order more things because they make money on testing). We are restrictive because we want to maximize benefit while minimizing risk, and everything we do has risks and benefits.