Talk:Intubation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magill and Macintosh links didn't go anywhere relevant. Someone should probably add citation or appropriate link. MKV 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent additions
I have removed them for now, and put them here on the talk page. Whilst I don't particularly disagree with much of what is said, it is important that it is properly referenced, and presented in an encyclopaedic manner (i.e. the "warning" to over 80s). Perhaps other editors can help with this? --John24601 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Content is accurate and sources were cited, the added content is significantly more relavent to those on the tube-end seeking medical research on the topic then the technical aspects previously on the page; it is not discussion. I reformatted the part John24601 mentions as questionable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.198.87 (talk • contribs).
- I'm still not happy... I can't see any proper citing of references, and I'm not convinced that it is NPOV or particularly encyclopaedic either, however I'll leave it pending the opinion of others --John24601 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the medical industry is attempting to sensor the reality of how ineffective inutbation is in elderly patients, by repeatedly deleting the sections about RISKS. Other than nurses in training like John24601 or others in the medical profession MOST people coming to this page will want to read about the risks. Almost everybody will read the risks on a bottle of medication before the ingredients since most people will not be familiar with the names of the ingredients. Just the same, most will care significantly more about the risks then the process, that makes the comments relavent. If you think something is wrong, then correct it; but if you have nothing to add then don't just delete it because medical school has not taught it to you yet. That is rude and by restricting information to only the positive aspects you may be jeapordizing people's lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.198.87 (talk • contribs).
- I'm sorry you feel frustrated. However, your edits are not conforming to Wikipedia policies. Specifically, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." You have repeatedly failed to provide any references for the statements you are adding. In addition, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandates a point of view "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject". Please take some time to carefully consider these policies and try making edits more in line with the Wikipedia paradigm. — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 08:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I too, am sorry that you feel frustrated. I have already said that I do, on a personal and professional basis, agree with the thrust of most of what you say. It is perfectly proper to talk about the risks associated with intubation, because, as you say, it is not the medical cure-all which some make it out be. It's really all about presentation, and what is considered encyclopaedic. --John24601 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Heck, I'm as big a proponent of DNI orders as anyone but the additions to the article simply are not true and have not been referenced. Painting a realistic picture is important. What is being asserted in the edits is not realistic. InvictaHOG 09:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
