From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Link to Shear Pressure demonstration

I'm new to posting to Wikipedia and got a nasty gram when I posted a link to a shear pressure video demonstration saying I should ask first...so I'm asking...does anyone have a problem with me posting a link to a shear pressure relief video. Shear pressure is a strong contributory factor to decubitus ulcers.

The link is: Shear Pressure Relief Video Demo

[edit] ==

I feel VERY strongly about the posting of a lady whose unfortunate condition left her 'grafted' to a couch. I feel it is wrong medically and ethically to do this. Using the link is one thing (and I'm not sure I'm comfortable (as a physician nor as a human being) with that one. If the intent was educational then the reference would suffice; if the attempt was other than that this part of the page should be deleted. Using reference or signal cases is done in medicine with most references to identity hidden or protected.

Although C.R. is a public figure in all respects, perhaps the reference using his initials would have sufficed (done frequently in medicine). I'm not sure that reference should be used here either but will leave it and defer to others in the ethics field.

It may serve bedsores as a 'subcategory' of ulceration. Thinking about move and change DrGnu 22:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DrGnu, I follow your logic, but the case of G.L.G. is a matter of public record and was extensively reported in international media. I added the reference as perhaps the most extreme public example of pressure sore complications. I'm not sure why C.R. should be treated any differently; though he made himself a "public figure," the precise circumstances of his demise are much less a matter of public record than those of G.L.G., so it would seem the case is stronger for removing him than it is for removing G.L.G.

Perhaps we need someone experienced in Wikipedia ethics to weigh in on whether afflicted individuals should ever be mentioned in connection with their pathologies. Do we strike even the seminal cases, such as removing Phineas_Gage from Traumatic_brain_injury and Yushchenko from Chloracne? What is the distinction? --Pontifex 21:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that including the celebrities name adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. I don't see any reason to include the names of famous patients in the article about a disease. I know that it is not legally wrong (when something is a matter of public record) but the fact that it is legal, does not make it ethical or moral. My reasoning is that it is wrong to hurt someone if it serves no value. I would probably make an exception only if the instance is for some reason news worthy. For example, maybe I would mention Yushchenko in an article about Chloracne or dioxin. I would probably mention Lou Gehrig in an article about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, because it is often called "Lou Gehrig disease". I draw the distinction because although C.R. is a celebrity, there is nothing news worthy about him suffering from bedsores. The two cases I bring up, the person suffering from the disease is newsworty in an of itself. Morris 00:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree about another weigh in from the 'medical ethics' standpoint. There are seminal cases and in the case of Lou Gehrig, the pseudonym for the disease more well known than the disease itself. I found the GLG case more 'sensational' than of any medical value. The C.R. reference is more one of 'commonality' for the public. However, I'm not sure that outside CONUS that he is as well known which of course brings us to the OTHER sets of medical pseudonyms and para-pseudonyms. I'm going to ask the medical people to take a look here. Thanks however for a rather thought provoking set of ideas. DrGnu 03:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My 2 cents: If the sources use the full name, use the full name. If the sources use the initials, use the initials. Same for aliases or not mentioned names. But in generally i'd rather have more information than less. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:14, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Chris. This is not about source and information. I suppose medicine tends to err on the side of the conservative. Exploitative Enquirer type stories, or those which exploit the point being made seem hardly informative. I'm planning to post some pictures for the site. These may cool the ardour but will be more true to the subject matter. DrGnu 02:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. I agree that it is wrong to hurt someone if it serves no value. But since both of these people are dead, I don't see how anyone would be hurt. I only skimmed the article, but it appears to me that if the GLG case is kept, it could be written in a less sensationalistic way. Here's a rough example of what I mean: "Bedsores can cause death. In one case, blah blah ..." Maurreen 05:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Minor technicality

The emedicine article "Pressure Ulcers, Surgical Treatment and Principles" by Wilhelmi, listed in external links of this article, mentions that the phrase 'decubitus ulcer' refers only to ulcers gotten from lying supine, so they aren't exactly synonymous with pressure ulcers, as the first sentence suggests. Anyone care to fix this minor detail? Delldot 04:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I changed it Delldot 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Aside from using C.R.'s full name and the ethics surrounding that - does anyone think it's a little over-simplified to say he "died from a heart attack brought on as a result of an infected pressure sore." The public is aware of C.R.'s other healthcare issues, but is every reader aware of the numerous other symptoms associated, namely respiratory disorder directly related to tetraplegia, which (I'm assuming - MD's please correct me if I'm wrong) complicated overall health leading to the MI, thus leading to poor prognosis and death.