mikecsh

Do you not see the irony? If it's not your responsibility, why should it be the responsibility of the author of this tutorial?

People write tutorials on what they are interested in, what they have knowledge of, and what they want to share.

Accessibility is an important topic, to be sure, and is clearly of particularly high importance to you. Others might complain that they didn't include how to create a high performance table view, or embed an OpenGL view. I think most people, however, will take it as what it is - a well written, helpful contribution.

Your comment specifically asked if you were being harsh, and the consensus appears to be "yes". Perhaps if you worded things differently you might get a different response.

Please can you post a link to your own tutorial on this?

I don't follow - can you elaborate?

Some medications are prescribed with this taken into account actually.

For example if a medication has sedating effects (such as some antidepressants) it may be advised to be taken before bed so this side effect is turned into something generally beneficial (more sleep) and less prevalent during waking hours).

Statins (cholesterol lowering medications) are usually prescribed at night time as this is when your cholesterol catabolism is most active.

Pain relief is often varied around sleep schedules

Insulin is scheduled around meals and sleep

Etc etc.

UK pharmacists are able to to do blister packs but this is a hugely labour intensive endeavour. Specific quantities of each medication need to be dispensed, placed in the correct pocket, checked and double checked. Compared to dispensing a factory sealed box of $X units. As a manual process it does not scale to providing this service for more than a small percentage of patients where the benefit is greatest (memory impairment, etc).

Also in my experience pharmacists dislike having to do this laborious process.

Do you mind sharing what UI / component framework you use? It looks great!

Then use Cmd-H to hide it.

It's a different model to what you are used to and IMHO more flexible and powerful. If you try and keep operating in a manner learned on a different model you will inevitably be frustrated.

Agreed, I stopped using it as soon as they introduced this pricing model. A shame.

To clarify for you (again), my comment was regarding your unfounded derision of existing, proven, lifesaving technologies—I was not dismissing of the technique proposed in the article.

I don't think _"F### ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk"_ is really offering an informed or balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation hence my initial reply.

On the contrary, this offers an emotive, highly negative, and uninformed opinion with no balance. We are in a time of a global pandemic with the general public now aware of intubation, ventilation, ECMO, CPAP, BiPAP, and other respiratory interventions. Many people and/or their families are having to face or consider these interventions. Your comment is potentially harmful.

Against to be clear, the medical profession is (spoiler alert) acutely aware of the risks and negatives of ventilation, including extended ventilation, ECMO, surgical and percutaneous traches, and every other intervention that is offered. These risks are discussed with patients and families who often lack the domain expertise, it therefore being part of the role of the doctor to explain to the best of their knowledge what options the patient has before them and likely outcomes of the different options. Ultimately (ideally) the patient makes a decision for themselves based on this information.

You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".

Getting in a car is fraught with peril. Every time somebody gets in a vehicle they're dicing with death.

I think it's important to contextualise the risk. The risk of dying from an anaesthetic is about 1 in 100,000. Compare with risk of dying in a car accident in a given year for example.

And again, it comes down to risk:benefit. Anaesthetics are not given out willy-nilly. The reason for the anaesthetic is considered along with the patient's co-morbidities and personal physiological parameter where relevant. Based on this a reasonable estimate of the personalised risks for that patient for that operation can be given for the patient to choose if they wish to proceed or not.

Angry much? Calm yourself down.

Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.

My comment was regarding your expletive laden derision of devices which save hundreds of thousands of lives.

And you seem to have missed the point. I did. It say hospital acquired infections are not prevalent or problematic. My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit. If you need ECMO you will almost certainly die without it. If you have ECMO there is a compratively small risk of infection that may kill you.

And yes thanks, I did read the article. I’m also a doctor and have spent many months working in ITU, anaesthesia, and operating theatres, and managing acutely unwell COVID-19 patients.

Let us all be glad you’re not making any treatment decisions.

Thanks!

What a bizarre comment. Every patient who goes under general anaesthesia for surgery (life saving or otherwise) is ventilated and usually without issue.

“Laying tubes into the trachea” I presume refers to tracheostomy.

Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell. A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.

As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio. If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator. No ECMO = you die.