welcome redditors!to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to taway's page.
Contributor score: 7

Comments ...

 +1  (nbme21#8)

Does anybody understand why we are allowed to interfere with the clinical decisionmaking of two other specialists directly? Wouldn't that muddy the waters even more by adding our opinion? I don't see the underlying principle that explains the rationale in this answer.

jcrll  I think it's about adding our opinion and more about seeing what the situation is because a patient contacted you in distress. The others are about contacting management off hearsay; that could also "muddy the waters," I Is this question also addressing quaternary prevention?
meningitis  I agree with jcrll. My same thought process but then I changed it to psychiatric consultation in order to first attend the patient's distress and anxiety since it was hindering her decision making. Besides, the whole ordeal about her treatments and ineffectiveness was emotionally and physically exhausting her.
vi_capsule  Referral is NEVER a answer
tsl19  Going straight to the chair of the ethics committee without having spoken to the other physicians would be inappropriate because it would be jumping a bunch of steps in communication first - like jcrll said, you want to get the picture of what's going on from the other physicians first. Maybe the gynecologic oncologist isn't actually as opposed to palliative measures as the patient perceives him to be and thinks he's doing what the patient wants, etc. It could just be miscommunication, which you could help clear up without getting ethics involved ... better to start there.

 +3  (nbme21#39)

Just as a note for anybody else who was WTF at how 2(29/30)(30/30) = 1/15...a lot of question banks round 29/30 (or any similarly large fraction) out to 1

gh889  I think you meant 2(29/30)(1/30) just to clarify!
niboonsh  i am confusion
arkmoses  You have to use the hardy weinberg formula (1=p^2+2qp+q^2)and p + q = 1 they basically tell you that q^2=1/900 which makes q=1/30 now you can figure out (p=1-q) so p=1-(1/30), p=29/30 then to figure out carrier you solve for 2qp, 2(29/30)(1/30)=1/15 I got it wrong cuz I forgot how to figure out p but hopefully wont happen on the real deal.
garibay92  2pq= 2(29/30)(1/30).... Transform this to 2 1 1 2 1 x x = _ = ____ 1 1 30 30 15
garibay92  Nevermind :/ It didn't come out as planned :(
garibay92  /Users/carlosgutierrez/Desktop/IMG_2423.jpg

 +3  (nbme21#14)

This question is phrased strangely, but it's essentially asking "what would happen if this woman's hypothyroidism became uncontrolled over the course of her pregnancy?"

currently her TSH is good --> well-controlled hypothryoidism HYPOTHETICAL high TSH --> her hypothyroidism must NOT be well-controlled (due to disruption of the T3/T4/TRH/TSH endocrine axis)

So, now that we understand that the question is asking "what would happen if her hypothyroidism was uncontrolled?"

Answer: cretinism

I think that this question is phrased atrociously, but far be it from me to criticize the USMLE licensing board...

yotsubato  I think that this question is phrased atrociously, Just like the rest of the NBME

Subcomments ...