Rudynate

It seems hard to find guys that are into that deep French kissing - it has fallen out of popularity. Time was when almost everyone liked it - probing each other's mouths with the tongue, contacting the back of the throat with the tip the tongue. I have had to learn to like gentle soft kissing with just a little tongue because it seems to be what most people like.

Forever?

As soon as they regain a little fat and some H2O, they fill out again. That was kind of a silly observation on my part, because even pro bodybuilders don't go around contest lean all the time. When I get contest lean, it freaks my husband out.

He looks good in his lean pics, but he could be a lot leaner - he's a long way from contest lean.

I like bearish men - I would be happy with either version of him.

We stayed at the Westin at SFO recently. It was pretty much full service. You had to book an appointment to get your room made up, though. But it wasn't otherwise limited.

We had the same proctor every day of the exam. They were mostly sweet older people who proctored the bar exam for something to do and the little extra cash they earned. At the beginning of the third day, mine was teasing me a little - saying "Don't let me see you back here again." At the end of the exam, just before they released us, everyone stood and applauded the proctors, and the proctors stood and applauded us. It went on for several minutes - great moment.

No, I didn't find it that difficult, but I was really well prepared. My school had a mentoring program wherein they would match you with a mentor to guide your bar prep, if you wanted. I asked them to find me a real ass-kicker because I had a focus problem - - and they found me an ass-kicker. He called me and told me that he would kick my ass and hold me to account if he thought he needed to. I believed him - and I didn't want to find out, so I always did what I said I would do. He was really great to look at - it almost had a BDSM feel to it. He even gave me an occasional day off if I had been working really hard. I knew at the end of the first day of the exam that I had it made.

I always enjoy female Uber drivers. They're a little friendlier than they guys and I extend them a little extra measure of respect.

I certainly appreciate your effort, but systemic thrombolysis is usually used only in one of three scenarios - pulmonary embolism, massive stroke, and massive heart attack. These are the only scenarios that justify the risk of intracranial hemorrhage that it entails. VTE (venous thromboembolism) is treated every day in IR suites all over the world with catheter-directed thrombolysis and has been since the late 90's. The risk of bleeding from catheter-directed thrombolysis is slightly greater than that from anti-coagulation. I notice from your chart that one of the factors to be considered in diagnosing and treating VTE is "severity of thrombosis." A minor clot in the calf is a whole different thing from a massive unexplained ileo-caval clot. The minor clot in the calf can be treated with six weeks of anticoagulation. I had the massive unexplained ileo-caval clot - my entire leg looked like a salami. The ER doc who admitted me and the hospitalist who wrote the transfer order both assumed that the treatment would be thrombolysis and they were gob-smacked when the receiving hospital refused the transfer request.

There's no such thing as a complete recovery when the deep veins in your leg and your pelvis are permanently obstructed with webs of scar tissue that have reduced your venous outflow by 85%. But I do appreciate your good wishes PK.

"What I can say is that multiple professionals have looked at this matter, according to his own words, and seem to come to the conclusion that his care was reasonable given the circumstances." But I already stipulated to that. Yer beating a dead horse. What can be learned from this, is that you can have a horrible outcome from a treatment and be left with no recourse against the treating physician if the treatment you received meets the low bar of having been "reasonable." Fortunately, for people in backward states where they are still practicing medicine from the middle of the last century, a national standard is applied in determining reasonableness, rather than the local standard that used to be used.

But you choose to ignore the important fact that other doctors at the treating HMO agreed with the Stanford doctor. One of them actually apologized that the treatment had been so inadequate.

I didn't say that I knew more than the attorneys. I didn't like what they had to say, but I realized they were probably right when they said that, poor as it was, the care I received would meet the legal test for reasonable. I reviewed my contract with my provider and saw, that it said, right in there, in so many words, that they agreed to provide "reasonable" care and treatment. Based on what the attorneys said and my review of the contract, I could only agree with them that I had a weak case, and stopped looking for lawyers. Once again Unicorn, your fatal attraction to speculation has bit you in the ass.

Things could be worse. My hematologist and vascular surgeon are that kind of Dr. where you know immediately that you're in good hands and can trust them.

anticoagulation may have been restarted too soon.

I'm really sorry to hear that.

Who said I had bleeding? Read my initial post again. I clearly said that I had a massive blood clot. What is a thrombus, but a blood clot? I don't know about you, but I try to stay on topic as much as possible when I post to a thread.

It was one of the best experiences of my life - making myself sit down and study eight hours every day whether I wanted to or not. I knew two weeks before that I was going to be successful.

I never said that I was a victim of malpractice. I was relating my story for whatever use it might have been for the OP - to give him an idea that a bad outcome doesnt mean that under the law you have been a victim of malpractice. I had a bad outcome yes, one which was foreseeable and preventable. The only reason it wasnt malpractice was that the treatment offered, however inadequate, was "reasonable" at the time. It wasn't just the specialist at Stanford who told me I should have been treated differently - doctors within the organization providing the treatment have told me that they would have used thrombolysis in that circumstance.

Of course there was an adverse outcome. Because they didn't follow the original treatment, they discharged me with the deep veins in my leg and my pelvis obstructed with clot. There was a a time window of two weeks or less in which the clot could have been treated with thrombolytics. They squandered that, virtually guaranteeing that I would have lifelong circulatory problems in that leg. Flash forward to twenty years later, the venous outflow in that leg is 15% of normal and I have venous insufficiency - injuries which were all foreseeable and preventable if they had acted as they had originally intended to. Once again, Unicorn, you have embarrassed yourself by trying to sound authoritative regarding something you know nothing about. You don't know anything about the law of torts and I doubt whether you know much about vascular medicine - PCP's usually don't.

Of course, I know that. One of them even explained it in terms of the case's investment value.

20 years ago, I experienced a massive blood clot - it went from the back of my knee up the leg into my femoral vein, into my iliac veins and into my vena cava to the level of my kidneys. They were dumbfounded, no one had seen anything like it. The original treatment plan was to transfer me to a larger hospital that had a good vascular lab and dissolve the clot using thrombolytics. Everything was put in motion for the transfer and suddenly, someone at the receiving hospital put the brakes on, saying that the risk level was unacceptable, it couldn't be reliably managed. So, they put me on a blood thinner and discharged me. Weeks later, I went to the Stanford Vascular Center for a second opinion. The doc I saw at Stanford just shook his head and said , "THEY couldn't manage the risk, but it WAS manageable." Of course I was furious. I talked to three malpractice attorneys and none of them thought I had a case. They said "you're alive, you still have use of your leg, a judge would probably throw this out of court." They all said that the treatment had been "reasonable." They agreed that treatment with thrombolytics would have been optimal, but that the law didn't require that you have "optimal" treatment. The treatment only needed to have been "reasonable."