What's up, Doc?

[Trixie]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

Dear Bobby,

It's true, what Bilbo said... my post was awkwardly phrased. I did not mean to imply that you, specifically, have HIV... I only meant that as an example as why an escort might overreact in a situation such as that which you faced (so bravely) recently. I will gladly recant my misunderstood statement here:

To the best of my knowledge, the said escort Bobby Thompson, whom I have never met, nor with whom have I had any previous communication, does not have nor has ever had the human immunodeficiency virus.

And I apologize for defaming you character. Now, please excuse me... I simply must go and fix myself a gin and tonic.

 

La Trix

[Guest arbee]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

Many state laws and the (Federal) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 make unauthorized sharing of patient data with any parties (including unauthorized family) illegal and impose nasty sanctions. Any physician who is proven guilty places his career at risk. The canons of medical ethics (which, unfortunately, some of my colleagues view as "optional") also forbid such behavior.

 

Any physician who would jeopardize his career by violating confidentiality (particularly, I think, in the context suggested above) is nuts or dangerous or both and should be enjoined from practice.

 

Several years ago, I assumed the care of a gorgeous hunk. During one visit, I asked him if he was gay. (I kinda knew he was.) He answered affirmatively and we chatted about it a bit and finished the visit. During his follow up visit, I informed him that I would not be able to take care of him because I was gay,too. I didn't elaborate my thoughts though I think he knew what they were. (He is the only patient I've ever been attracted to.) I found him a new doc. We have subsequently become *very* good friends.

[Flower]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>Flower, you missed the point of Erik's post. It has nothing

>to do with the doctor's anomimity, but rather that if he were

>to use confidential information

 

This post reminds me of a poetry class I had in college where the fairly new professor was trying to tell us what some classical poet long dead for a few centuries meant by what he said, as if he somehow had the inside track as to the man's thinking.

 

Here, however, Erik isn't long dead, and if I was wrong in my interpretation, he can say so, however a clear reading of his question and the context in which it was written certainly negates your interpretation.:*

[Flower]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>Don't get sore with me just because I think your little

>favorite is a huge hypocrite of a drama queen.

>Thanks!

 

You're welcome. But I wasn't "sore" with you.

 

I was just surprised at someone as intelligent as you ( not at all meant to be sarcastic, btw) and with your training, to have made such a careless statement

 

I was just pretending I was one of your professors slapping your hand with a ruler }(

[Bilbo]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

Flower - All the other posters here have an anonimity that an escort doesn't? Excuse me? Even as I am typing this in, I am awaiting a client, and have another one coming tomorrow morning. Just because I don't use my escort nom de plume as my board name doesn't mean you can't find my escort web site at the bottom of my postings. Sheesh! }(

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

I see nothing careless about anything I said. Care to elaborate?

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

Nope. That's precisely what I was saying. Bobby seems to think that to suggest that a doctor might violate patient confidentiality wouldn't hurt a doctor's business, but cried like Nancy Kerrigan when someone said that the only scenario in which it might matter if the doctor has personal info is if the patient is HIV positive.

He's a crybaby, but thinks it should be okay for him to say & do anything he wants.

If that's your bag, great.

[Luv2play]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

Maybe you should have paid more attention to that prof. You might have learned something useful about interpreting the language people use.:+

[Doug69]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>Maybe you should have paid more attention to that prof. You

>might have learned something useful about interpreting the

>language people use.:+

 

The last person whose side I want to take is Flower's (whose bulging gaps in logic make me genuinely fear for the California Bar), and the second to last is Bobby's, but Flower's point is so blatantly clear and true that watching other people (namely, you and Erik) not comprehend it again and again is almost enough to make someone's head explode.

 

The difference between: (a) what Bobby wrote here about this UNKNOWN doctor and (b) what would happen if this doctor disclosed damaging medical information about Bobby, is as bleedingly obvious as it is fundamental:

 

None of us have any clue as to who this doctor is, because Bobby protected his anonymity and disclosed absolutely no information about him which would enable us to identify the doctor. Therefore, anything Bobby wrote here about this doctor - indeed, even if he had accused him of being a child molester - could not possibly have any detrimental effect on the doctor, since he's talking about a person who is anonymous. You can't defame someone unless you identify who it is you are talking about. That's pretty self-evident, isn't it?

 

By rather stark contrast, if the doctor ran around disclosing damaging personal information ABOUT BOBBY, that would have a rather detrimental effect on Bobby, since Bobby would not be anonymous; he, instead, would be identified.

 

The situations are therefore not just different; they are opposites.

 

To suggest - as you and Erik are confoundingly suggesting - that Bobby is some sort of hypocrite because he is concerned that the doctor would engage in Behavior (B) above (disclosing medical information about Bobby) while, at the time time, Bobboy is engaging in behavior (A) above (writing about this anonymous doctor), is the height of illogic.

 

A hypocrite is someone who condemns a behavior while engaging in the same behavior. Here, the behavior Bobby is criticizing (disclosing damaging information about someone) is not the same as the behavior in which he's engaging (disclosing information or expressing a concern about someone who remains ANONYMOUS). To the contrary, they are opposites.

 

Now, look at what you wrote (what Erik said was an accurate summary of his "point"):

 

<<Bobby, in his original post, seemed very concerned about ensuring his own privacy, but did not seem to be troubled about impugning the doctor's professional and ethical standards by suggesting, however obliquely, that the doctor might divulge his private info to third parties. In this case, I have to agree with Erik that there appears to be little difference between the two concerns.>>

 

How can you possibly say that Bobby impugned the doctor's "professional and ethical standards" in the same way that the doctor would have damaged Bobby's reputation by disclosing his medical information - if nobody has ANY IDEA who the doctor is who Bobby is talking about? No rational person could find these situations even remotely comparable, let alone to say "that there appears to be little difference between the two concerns."

 

Is there really anyone who doesn't see that? Kind of hard to believe. Even Flower got it.

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

Did I say that Bobby damaged the doctor's career?

No... surely even you can put down your obsession for long enough to understand that.

What DID I say?

I said that suggesting that a doctor (any doctor) might violate patient confidentiality & privilege would be at least as damaging to that doctor's career as for someone (anyone) to allege that an escort was HIV + (and presumably did not alert clients to his status).

I said that it is hypocritical to cry about it when a poster did NOT say that that Bobby HAS HIV, but said that would be the only situation to cause concern about privacy, yet to find nothing wrong with suggesting that a doctor might break the legal & ethical strictures of confidentiality/privilege.

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

"The situations are therefore not just different; they are opposites. "

 

The situations are HYPOTHETICAL, and each is hypothetically as damaging to the relevant party's "career" as the other!

The doctor, as far as we know, violated no patient confidentiality.

Bobby didn't say that the doctor did so, but merely launched into an overly dramatic refrain about his fears that he might.

Why you people are so consumed with cult-like devotion that you can't admit that hurling accusations about a doctor would be (if DONE) as damaging to a doctor's career as alleging infection with HIV would be (IF DONE) to an escort's "career" is really disturbing.

[Doug69]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>Did I say that Bobby damaged the doctor's career?

>No... surely even you can put down your obsession for long

>enough to understand that.

 

The concern Bobby was expressing - which should be rather obvious - is that he would be harmed if a doctor disclosed derogatory medical information about him. And clearly, such conduct WOULD cause harm to Bobby.

 

Therefore, if - as you now admit - Bobby did nothing to harm the doctor's career or harm the doctor in any way, then the two actions cannot be identical.

 

Indeed, they are opposites. One (the behavior Bobby is worried about) harms someone. The other (the behavior Bobby actually engaged in) harms nobody.

 

The first rule of logic is "'A' and 'not A' cannot be the same." Try to learn that rule.

 

>What DID I say?

>I said that suggesting that a doctor (any doctor) might

>violate patient confidentiality & privilege would be at least

>as damaging to that doctor's career as for someone (anyone) to

>allege that an escort was HIV + (and presumably did not alert

>clients to his status).

>I said that it is hypocritical to cry about it when a poster

>did NOT say that that Bobby HAS HIV, but said that would be

>the only situation to cause concern about privacy, yet to find

>nothing wrong with suggesting that a doctor might break the

>legal & ethical strictures of confidentiality/privilege.

 

The difference - which is fucking glaring despite your inability to see it - is that the poster in question attached "his" speculation to a specific, identified person - in this case, Bobby.

 

BY FUNDAMENTAL CONTRAST, nobody knows who the fuck Bobby is talking about, because - unlike the poster in question - Bobby did not identify the person about whom he was speculating.

 

CONSEQUENTLY, the former behavior is fundamentally different than the latter, and anyone who says they are similar or, even more idiotically, identical, has some serious problems with elementary logic.

[Doug69]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>The situations are HYPOTHETICAL, and each is hypothetically as

>damaging to the relevant party's "career" as the other!

>The doctor, as far as we know, violated no patient

>confidentiality.

 

LOL! Here's a little tip: you can't criticize a person for a behavior which you admit they did NOT engage in, at least not rationally. And you also can't invent hypothetical behavior, attribute it to someone, and then criticize the person for that behavior - at least not without being delusional.

 

You are right about one thing: IF, hypothetically, Bobby had identified a specific doctor and speculated that the doctor may disclose negative medical information about him, that WOULD BE as damaging to the doctor's career as the disclosure of such information would be to an escort's career.

 

If that's your only point - as you now absurdly claim - that's pretty fucking obvious, and nobody disputed this painfully obvious point.

 

But guess what? Bobby did NOT do that. Bobby did NOT single out any specific doctor and speculate negatively on his conduct. So whether or not that behavior is just as bad, is worse, or is better than the behavior Bobby criticized is rather fucking irrelevant, isn't it?

 

It's true - IF Bobby had engaged in this behavior, he'd be hypcritical. But since he did NOT engage in this behavior, he isn't.

 

Isn't that simple enough for you to get? Squint your eyes really hard and concentrate - I have faith that it will come to you.

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>The concern Bobby was expressing - which should be rather

>obvious - is that he would be harmed if a doctor disclosed

>derogatory medical information about him. And clearly, such

>conduct WOULD cause harm to Bobby.

 

And just as clearly, if Bobby made public allegations concerning the doctor, his conduct WOULD cause harm to the doctor.

 

 

>Therefore, if - as you now admit - Bobby did nothing to harm

>the doctor's career or harm the doctor in any way,

 

I never said he did. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

>the

>two actions cannot be identical.

 

No one suggested that the actions are identical. I said both if done in reality could cause harm to the relevant party's "career."

 

>Try to learn that rule.

 

Try to kiss my ass.

 

>The difference - which is fucking glaring despite your

>inability to see it - is that the poster in question attached

>"his" speculation to a specific, identified person - in this

>case, Bobby.

 

No, he didn't. He attached it to a hypothetical escort being hypothetically worried about a hypothetical disclosure of hypothetical serostatus. Try to learn the difference.

 

>CONSEQUENTLY, the former behavior is fundamentally different

>than the latter,

 

CONSEQUENTLY, I don't agree with you, but you will PATENTLY continue this until someone or something else annoys you.

 

You don't like yourself much, do you? That's why you're such a complete ass to people. That way, they won't like you because of the persona, and not because they don't like the real you.

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: The Awkward Song of Awkwardness

 

>But guess what? Bobby did NOT do that.

 

Guess what? XXXXXXXXXXXX and you are tedious.

 

>So whether or not that behavior is just as bad, is

>worse, or is better than the behavior Bobby criticized is

>rather fucking irrelevant, isn't it?

 

Then for Christ's sake stop discussing it in detail.

 

>Isn't that simple enough for you to get? Squint your eyes

>really hard and concentrate - I have faith that it will come

>to you.

 

Golly... your wit astounds!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Acorns and Oak Trees

 

Isn’t nature wonderful Bobby? From minute acorns do massive oak trees grow! All on the fertilizer of speculation.

 

Let’s see. You post about a chance meeting with a former client in the client’s professional capacity as physician that puts you, the person, front and center. Your personal identification is revealed -- data that resides on cold paper. And that personal data is important to you in an intellectual sense for obvious reasons. But it also is important in an emotional sense. It establishes the third dimension of the real person behind the role-playing service providing stage character. That on-the-spot revelation produces a warming of the flesh with pulsating blood that causes a blush to your cheeks, a nervous tingle along your spine and possibly a little perspiration in the palms.

 

You profess a feeling of awkward uneasiness at the encounter but don’t elaborate why. Some assume it stems from feelings of vulnerability to risk on your part. Well it may, but nowhere do you express that. There is risk and there is risk. Some speculate about the risk of your personal identity or other personal information being revealed.

 

With all this busy speculation going on I’ll offer mine. Knowing you I as well as I do, from the tenor of your post I suspect that your awkward feeling of awkwardness stems not from the prospect of being revealed but from the prospect of being discovered. Uppermost on your list of concerns was simply the embarrassment of meeting a former client in HIS very public and also very private professional setting that you had met previously in an anonymous/semi-anonymous setting for very intimate intreaction. That is the long and the short of it IMO.

 

What caught my eye (and tickled my sense of humor) was not so much the recounting of your ‘drama of discovery’ as it was your incredulous take that he couldn’t remember you until prompted... lol.

[BobbyThompson]

RE: Acorns and Oak Trees

 

Guys, chill out. This thread took on a life of it's own and I didn't mean to start all those fights. *ALL* that I wanted to do was post what I thought was a funny story about an odd confluence of events...no subtext or accusations. Here is how I think I should have posted my last story:

 

"Woah. Guess what happened today! Me and my escort friend both went to get our trimonthly checkups at the STD clinic, and the doctor was BOTH of our clients? Isn't that an awkward coincidence times two? Man, was I embarassed! I mean, going to get your ass inspected, blood drawn, and throat swabbed is embarassing enough, let alone if it's done by someone that you know AND have slept with!!! When I got to the doctor, I asked if I could make an appointment another day because I was uncomfortable with that situation. I danced around the subject for a minute, not wanting to come out and say how we knew each other, and then I realized he had no idea who I was. Naturally I thought my awkward moment would be his awkward moment as well, since he remembered my friend, but I guess I was wrong. It is really weird that when I met this guy, all he knew was my psuedonym, and now he has information like my social security number, full first name, address, etc. Jeez. Isn't it funny when your paths cross with people you NEVER expect to see again?

-- Whew. I'll run my next post through the innocuous-machine next time as well.