Second question: We're talking about how staph infections get resistant to antibiotics, and whether doctors should be held liable for over-prescribing antibiotics. But really, do we need to see a slide of pictures of staph infections?
This discussion is interesting to me because it may be relevant to something that happened last year. During exams I was sick, but I brushed it off as just a cold (law students are pretty susceptible to getting sick, especially during exam time, because of stress). The bottom line is that I let it go too long before I went to the doctor and when I finally went I had a fever of almost 105 degrees. I ended up in the hospital for 3 days while they pumped me full of antibiotics, did a spinal tap, and ultimately never figured out what was wrong.
So, did an extra-virulent strain of bacteria have something to do with that? Maybe, but we'll never know.
2 comments:
That's what we get for Congress having shot down Clinton's health care plan in 1993 and then W as our leader for eight years. No universal healthcare.
So you stayed away from the hospital. Then, you got worse and eventually got stuck with a big fat bill. Luckily, in a few days, things will be very different.
I think it's both.
1. "What I need is a job that offers sufficient benefits, including a kick-ass healthcare plan that includes dental."
2. "The people in the village do not receive sufficient health care."
And no, you shouldn't have to see Staph infections unless you're the one who can diagnose it.
Post a Comment