He most certainly is of "this generation". So is my GP. I'm old enough to be their dad. Even if they were closer to my age, I find it hard to believe they would be unaware of the latest practices. Staying informed goes with the profession, so I can't credit your claim of irrelevancy, and I certainly would hate to think you would actually fall back on the unbecoming prejudice of ageism in this otherwise enlightened time. Since you like to engage in conjecture about motivations, perhaps you can tell me why they would have a stake in obfuscating over such a little thing. If it were indeed true that the stethoscope has little real use any more beyond a skin-of-the-teeth peripheral role and even a bit of medical theater, why hide that? I'd accept that revelation and be satisfied with it, even if I thought the theater part was actually rather a bit silly. Since it doesn't have any real impact on my own treatment, such supposed superfluities would be their business, not mine.s1m0n wrote:In any case, unless your cardiologist is of this generation, his opinion on the question is irrelevant.
Boss? Sample size? You seem to have missed when I said that this is in a hospital, not a private practice. Nor is the hospital small. That nurse, along with the rest of her station, serves a population of practitioners, not just one. I don't see why I should even have to point this out, much less repeat myself. And either way, as to budget, if the stethoscope's irrelevancy makes it a financial burden that could be eliminated, why retain it, then? Just for the theater of it? I really don't think that angle makes enough compelling sense. I think that if it is indeed a prop, it would be for actors alone.s1m0n wrote:The nurse is going to use the equipment her boss uses, if only because he controls the equipment budget, so really, the sample size is 1.
For the purposes of this conversation, I really would rather you actually read - and retain - what I have written in this thread when you take it upon yourself to address things you think I've said. We'd waste less time, and I wouldn't have to wonder if you weren't actually misrepresenting me on purpose despite what I have laid out for all to see. You seem to jump on my omissions just fine, so one has to wonder how much convenient cherry-picking is going on, here. A bit of advice, s1m0n: You would do better to ask questions than only utter pronouncements. Just a thought. You know.
We're back to precision again. And, I might add, what is the best use of it.