How to Trip Rapid Review

Step 1: Select articles relevant to your search (remember the system is only optimised for single intervention studies)

Step 2: press

Step 3: review the result, and maybe amend the or if you know better! If we're unsure of the overall sentiment of the trial we will display the conclusion under the article title. We then require you to tell us what the correct sentiment is.

95 results for

Lawyer Jokes

by
...
Latest & greatest
Alerts

Export results

Use check boxes to select individual results below

SmartSearch available

Trip's SmartSearch engine has discovered connected searches & results. Click to show

81. Trending issues in medicine 2015 – #2 Regulations

40 years developing VISTA/CPRS – they should just say we all have to use that and give it to us. (it is already available in some form for free due to FOI requests) 2. Approval forms – I think I should be paid for everything I fill out. Lawyers bill for all paperwork. We should as well. 3. Prior authorization – You do of course recognize that ‘prior authorization’ is purely devised to save the insurance companies money, right? It is an entirely meaningless hoop to jump through, because (...) the studies prove that adding hoops/regulations means that you get less of that activity. They know that a good percentage of studies will just not be done because it is too much of a hassle. 4. Billing requirements (E&M coding) was put into place to try to compensate appropriately due to complexity but it is a joke. Templates have made the notes meaningless. The only way to do away with this is to have some TRUST in the doctors. How about the old Reagan doctrine of TRUST but VERIFY. Doctors can write

2015 db's Medical Rants blog

82. Patient Modesty: Volume 73

initial comment to me about confidentiality in medicine and followed by my now publishable response. ..Maurice. Maurice, You do realize that confidentiality is a joke! I respond here with: Banterings, I was speaking about what I teach first and second year medical students and how they relate to their patients and the documents they write. All students from the first day know not to identify the patient's name on the writeup. Their writeups are read by no one but myself. The details of the history (...) on the cape of a super being then errors become glaring and perhaps more shocking. Lawyers have not helped - they have made millions off of this growing mistrust. Had the medical profession been more willing to self-censure with humility I'm sure public trust would have remained higher. When docs are sworn to cause no harm but we know that many pts die each year from mistakes or are given diseases like MRSA and C. difficile while under care we lose trust. The numbers are staggering; every person hurt

2015 Bioethics Discussion Blog

83. Patient Modesty: Volume 70

administrators, we should be addressing the state trial lawyers associations. Just a thought, and it is evidence-based --Banterings At , Anonymous said... Allowing us to bring our own chaperones with video cameras to keep doctors in line, and make sure our wishes were followed wouldn't cost the hospital anything. (unless the hospital did something wrong, and there was someone other than an intubated and anesthetized patient in the room to speak up against the doctor and their employees / coworkers

2015 Bioethics Discussion Blog

84. Patient Modesty: Volume 72

get to pick the doctor I want and most are probably not trained to deal with this sort of thing. Maybe I should just bring it up in confidence on my next physical check up and see what he/she says... At , said... Here's an another marked difference between our two countries... When I read that a growing number of physicians in the United States are imposing a chaperone for physical examinations, I thought it was a joke at first. I simply could not believe it. My initial reaction was “Gaaaaah (...) enough written on this blog, especially about Trauma Informed Care as recognizing the harm that can happen. All the guidelines call for discussing the use of a chaperone, hence you have a legitimate case. If nothing else, it will never happen to another patient. Even if you ask for no money other than lawyers fees, you can ask that he follow guidelines. Do this by asking for money, but settle for legal fees and him follow guidelines. -Banterings At , Anonymous said... Thanks to Dr. Bernstein

2015 Bioethics Discussion Blog

85. The Saatchi bill won’t find a cure for cancer, but it will encourage charlatans

that standard procedure. But as innovation is deviation, non-deviation is non-innovation. This is why there is no cure for cancer.” This statement is utterly bizarre. Evidently Lord Saatchi knows much more about how to sell cigarettes than he does about how to discover new drugs. The reason there is no cure is that it’s a very difficult problem. It has nothing to do with litigation Almost every medical organisation, and many lawyers, have pointed out the flaws in his ideas,. But slick, and often mendacious (...) will be lawyers, quacks and big pharma. “Innovation” is undefined –the bill is based on the myth that there exists a miraculous cure waiting to be found. Sadly, the probability of this happening is vanishingly small. To some extent, medicine is victim of its own hype. The public feels it has a right to demand the latest miracle cure. Too often, they don’t exist. There is no need for the bill because doctors can already prescribe whatever they want. The Medical Defence Union says it has no reason to think

2014 DC's Improbable Science blog

86. What a paean from Ben Goldacre can do

with “academic integrity” in the wider sense. And they should seek to recoup their adminstrative and legal costs against frivolous complainants like Walker and Lakin. …the point being that if people think complaining and shouting “lawyer” will get them an undeserved second or third chance at an exam resit, or a website taken down, or whatever, people will keep doing it. As igb says, you have to give them a real potential DOWNSIDE to doing it, as well as a potential upside. Incidentally, it is worth noting (...) .”), but if UCL are deemed to be publishers, removing the content does not alter the past; if it was illegal, stopping doing it doesn’t redeem them. To paraphrase an old joke, “Have you stopped hosting allegedly defamatory material on your website?” – both answers get you in trouble. I wonder how much a lawsuit would actually cost if it came to it, and I wonder how much monetary value could be ascribed to DC’s RAE contribution. Dr Aust said, June 10, 2007 at Mojo wrote: “While legal costs are recoverable

2014 DC's Improbable Science blog

87. Patient Modesty: Volume 66

of all shocks they list "all male staff". they deal with mainly sexual issues for males, it is so logical they would have an all male staff, yet the fact that it is such a surprise says a lot. I sent them a comment recognizing this and thanking them, If I get a reply i will forward don At , Anonymous said... Currently many hospitals use a company called PressGaney to survey their patients, what a joke. This company charges millions of dollars to call a few of the hospital's discharged patients to ask

2014 Bioethics Discussion Blog

88. Patient Modesty: Volume 64

made claims of unprofessional behavior about them. This is clearly an "door left open" to the exam room and this is addition to the environment should be one of the important issues to discuss with the medical system as the patients are attempting to educate the system about the need to attend to patient modesty issues. ..Maurice. At , StayingFit said... I am no lawyer, but I have to believe that the use of a camera in an examination room, such as Jason describes, would be illegal, unless (...) of our organization, on chaperones to defend against allegations is now in doubt." Misty At , said... I just realized I made a typo in this sentence: In fact, doctors who want to do something inappropriate could install those video cameras so they can do inappropriate things to patients and then alter the videos in case the patient takes them to the doctor . I meant to say court instead of the doctor in this sentence. Misty At , said... From Misty's link to a speech by a lawyer for American

2014 Bioethics Discussion Blog

89. Patient Modesty: Volume 69

not refer to the exams in the patients' hospital records." "(B) For many years while she was performing Ear, Nose and Throat surgeries at the Gila Regional Medical Center, Respondent wrote messages and created artistic images on the bodies of many of her patients while they were under anesthesia without obtaining the patients' prior written informed consent." It was alleged that this behavior took place for many years and was the subject of many long running jokes in the hospital. It was well known (...) . It is not and it is not recognized that there is a problem to fixed. It's just ridiculous. belinda At , Anonymous said... *** "It was alleged that this behavior took place for many years and was the subject of many long running jokes in the hospital. It was well known among the staff that this was happening."*** Perfect example... "one bad doc", but the ENTIRE HOSPITAL was part of it. Jason At , said... Both Banterings and Belinda made some good points and observations. ENT doctors should never see a patients’ genitals

2014 Bioethics Discussion Blog

92. Samuel Johnson's health

Swynfen, a physician and graduate of Pembroke College, and Richard Wakefield, a lawyer, coroner, and Lichfield town clerk. Johnson's health improved and he was placed in the nursing care of Joan Marklew. During this period he contracted what is believed to have been , known at that time as the "King's Evil". , a former physician to , recommended that the young Johnson should receive the " ", which he received from on 30 March 1712 at . Johnson was given a ribbon in memory of the event, which he (...) reported, Boswell wrote: "There is, I am convinced, great exaggeration in this, not probably on Smith's part, who was one of the most truthful of men, but on his reporter's." Early on, when Johnson was unable to pay off his debts, he began to work with professional writers and identified his own situation with theirs. During this time, Johnson witnessed 's decline into "penury and the madhouse", and feared that he might share the same fate. In joking about Christopher Smart's madness, his writing

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2012 Wikipedia

93. Tom Cruise Purple

this particular kind of marijuana. Why don't celebrities occasionally just laugh - just laugh at things? This is obviously supposed to be a joke. There's a picture of him laughing on it. He's clearly not making any money off of it. He's not endorsing it. I say, just let it go." editor of , Michael Cohen, stated "...it's well-known in the industry you don't mess with Tom Cruise. And so, that's all I can say. I'm sure his lawyers are on this like white on rice. But I'm sure he's actually not as affected (...) the matter, and the product was the subject of a on a website. American lawyer commented that it would not be prudent for Cruise to sue over the product, and writer stated it was not a good idea from a legal standpoint to utilize Cruise's image in such a fashion. Contents Cannabis strain [ ] The strain is very potent, and is reported to have . The marijuana is being sold in vials which have a picture of laughing hysterically. Tom Cruise Purple is sold by cannabis purveyors in Northern California

2012 Wikipedia

94. Andrew Wakefield

center in Austin, Texas. Wakefield served as Executive Director of Thoughtful House until February 2010, when he resigned in the wake of findings against him by the British . In February 2004, the controversy resurfaced when Wakefield was accused of a conflict of interest. Brian Deer, writing in , reported that some of the parents of the 12 children in the study in The Lancet were recruited via a UK lawyer preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers, and that the Royal Free Hospital had received (...) , the lawyers responsible for the MMR lawsuit had paid Wakefield personally more than £400,000, which he had not previously disclosed. Twenty-four hours before the 2004 Sunday Times report by Deer, The Lancet ' s editor Richard Horton responded to the investigation in a public statement, describing Wakefield's research as "fatally flawed" and said he believed the paper would have been rejected as biased if the peer reviewers had been aware of Wakefield's conflict of interest. Ten of Wakefield's twelve co

2012 Wikipedia

To help you find the content you need quickly, you can filter your results via the categories on the right-hand side >>>>