Earlier today, I wrote about how Mark Regnerus has decided to trash his academic career in order to bash some gays. The study was paid for by two right wing outlets known for their anti-gay stance, so it is not surprising that the study concludes what the master preaches. The Witherspoon Institute gave two grants, one of $55,000 and a second of $695,000, while the closely linked Bradley Foundation paid $90,000. Combined with his salary from the university, we have a study of about one million dollars. Most highly expensive high tech ground breaking medical studies do not get that much money......
So, what did the Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation get for all that money? They got a piece of crap, that if anything, only showed a single thing, and that is that kids in unstable situation do less good than in more stable situations. That is not new, the only thing that is new is that we now know that if there is some same-sex attraction in the other wise unstable situations, it doesn't make a dime of difference in the outcome. Well, I do not think that that was worth a million bucks.....
Or maybe it is. Lets see. There are already plenty studies showing that kids in stable same-sex families are doing at least as good as their counterparts in heterosexual families. Now we know also that if the same-sex families are less stable, they do less good as well. So, if we want kids to do well, we need to provide them with stable environments. And what is the best form for that, marriage. Same-sex marriage. So, what the Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation have gotten for their expensive study is additional proof that what they want is BAD! Congratulations.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mark Regnerus' slide into the abyss
Last week, Mark Regnerus, managed to publish an abysmal bad and politically motivated study on how kids of gay parents are doing worse than kids of intact biological families. I have read the article, and it is a master piece of gay bashing. Yes, there are the mandatory caveats, but really, the study design is so abysmally bad that you have to wonder how the hell passed his tenure review. Well, I have an idea, by staying away of the highly controversial topics till he had tenure.This means two things.
1. The study was not bad because he does not know better. He knows the ropes of the field, and the bad design has to be deliberate.
2. As he has not yet published anything before on the topic is same-sex parenting, so one can wonder whether he had a long time plan to do this distorted research in order to make his point.
Anyway, his name is now widely linked to abysmal bad research that has the smell of homophobia and deliberate distortion. The academic fall-out will only become visible in the years to come, when researchers prefer to stay away from him because of his overt anti-gay agenda.
1. The study was not bad because he does not know better. He knows the ropes of the field, and the bad design has to be deliberate.
2. As he has not yet published anything before on the topic is same-sex parenting, so one can wonder whether he had a long time plan to do this distorted research in order to make his point.
Anyway, his name is now widely linked to abysmal bad research that has the smell of homophobia and deliberate distortion. The academic fall-out will only become visible in the years to come, when researchers prefer to stay away from him because of his overt anti-gay agenda.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Education reform
Education is the key to the future. Most people will agree on this. But can be capitalize education and get the result we want. Like a previous post about why health care is so outrageous expensive in this country, capitalization of education fails for similar reasons.
The key problem with the dropping effectivity of education is that it serves the wrong customer. Colleges and universities serve the students. And the state and federal government encourages that for the same flawed logic. They demand certain graduation rates, or they cut the budget under the idea that low graduation rates means bad education. I argue that it is much more likely that the opposite is true. Let me explain.
When you measure universities and colleges by their graduation rates, there are two ways to achieve that. One is to do a better job at teaching (which is the hope), and the second is to lower the requirements for graduation. When two options to achieve the same arbitrary goal exist, what does a system do? It finds the easiest way to a solution. And in this case, that is often by lowering the requirements for graduation. Because if you lower the requirements by 1%, you will have instant increased graduation rates. Try doing that by improving teaching.
The core of the problem under all this is the wrong focus on who is the client. As I indicated above, the focus is on students as the client. And rule number one in business is to satisfy the client. So, what to do when too many students fail their class and become dissatisfied clients? Lower the requirements so they can graduate.
But this problem goes deeper. A standard aspect of teacher evaluation at universities is student evaluations. Sounds great. Let the students evaluate the teacher. The client gives feeback to the producer about the quality of the product. Perfect example of consumer driven evaluation. Very capitalistic! And it works. Bad teachers get bad evaluations. And that is how it is supposed to be. Right? really? Does it?
It doesn't. It doesn't because it focuses on the wrong client. Universities traditionally have as a task to produce people who can do certain professions in society. Whether this are public of private institutions, even the later receive most money from the government through grants and loans to students (independent of the student can actually pay those loans back).
So, why is the government paying so much for education? To subsidize the dreams of individuals? No. When dreams of students match up with their major, nice, but ultimately, governments spend money on education to educate people so they can contribute to society. And with that in mind, we should realize that the client the universities need to serve is society.
And what would that change? Well, if we take the needs of society as the benchmark for education, graduation rates as a primary measure of success are useless. Graduation rates are nothing if those students cannot find jobs at the level they are supposedly being trained for. But that should be the criteria for success.
This criteria contains two factors. One is the level at which they are supposed to be trained and the second is whether the university was successful in doing exactly that. Once we step away from student driven quality norms, and go to society driven quality norms, we get a handle to actually reform education and bring it to the level it needs to be at.
Instead of having teachers lowering their standards so they have 70% of the students pass the class, we have to get to setting a priori standard of what students should know, and if 80%, of the students fail for a class, so be it. The students that survive will at least know what they need to know. And once we measure universities by how well their students do instead of have they jumped the hoops in the proper order, maybe we can stop the gradual decline in oblivion.
PS, don't get me going about the practice of grade curving, which is the ultimate tool for students as a group to lower the standards for a class by collectively sitting back and do nothing. Because in the end, if you are just a tad better than the 20% losers, you have a good grade. Students don't compete against each other, they find the best strategy to passing grades that leaves most time for partying.
The key problem with the dropping effectivity of education is that it serves the wrong customer. Colleges and universities serve the students. And the state and federal government encourages that for the same flawed logic. They demand certain graduation rates, or they cut the budget under the idea that low graduation rates means bad education. I argue that it is much more likely that the opposite is true. Let me explain.
When you measure universities and colleges by their graduation rates, there are two ways to achieve that. One is to do a better job at teaching (which is the hope), and the second is to lower the requirements for graduation. When two options to achieve the same arbitrary goal exist, what does a system do? It finds the easiest way to a solution. And in this case, that is often by lowering the requirements for graduation. Because if you lower the requirements by 1%, you will have instant increased graduation rates. Try doing that by improving teaching.
The core of the problem under all this is the wrong focus on who is the client. As I indicated above, the focus is on students as the client. And rule number one in business is to satisfy the client. So, what to do when too many students fail their class and become dissatisfied clients? Lower the requirements so they can graduate.
But this problem goes deeper. A standard aspect of teacher evaluation at universities is student evaluations. Sounds great. Let the students evaluate the teacher. The client gives feeback to the producer about the quality of the product. Perfect example of consumer driven evaluation. Very capitalistic! And it works. Bad teachers get bad evaluations. And that is how it is supposed to be. Right? really? Does it?
It doesn't. It doesn't because it focuses on the wrong client. Universities traditionally have as a task to produce people who can do certain professions in society. Whether this are public of private institutions, even the later receive most money from the government through grants and loans to students (independent of the student can actually pay those loans back).
So, why is the government paying so much for education? To subsidize the dreams of individuals? No. When dreams of students match up with their major, nice, but ultimately, governments spend money on education to educate people so they can contribute to society. And with that in mind, we should realize that the client the universities need to serve is society.
And what would that change? Well, if we take the needs of society as the benchmark for education, graduation rates as a primary measure of success are useless. Graduation rates are nothing if those students cannot find jobs at the level they are supposedly being trained for. But that should be the criteria for success.
This criteria contains two factors. One is the level at which they are supposed to be trained and the second is whether the university was successful in doing exactly that. Once we step away from student driven quality norms, and go to society driven quality norms, we get a handle to actually reform education and bring it to the level it needs to be at.
Instead of having teachers lowering their standards so they have 70% of the students pass the class, we have to get to setting a priori standard of what students should know, and if 80%, of the students fail for a class, so be it. The students that survive will at least know what they need to know. And once we measure universities by how well their students do instead of have they jumped the hoops in the proper order, maybe we can stop the gradual decline in oblivion.
PS, don't get me going about the practice of grade curving, which is the ultimate tool for students as a group to lower the standards for a class by collectively sitting back and do nothing. Because in the end, if you are just a tad better than the 20% losers, you have a good grade. Students don't compete against each other, they find the best strategy to passing grades that leaves most time for partying.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Paying through the nose for emergency room visits so that Americans can proclaim they have freedom of choice when it comes to health care insurance!
Last weekend, I had a wonderful discussion with one of my hard-core republican neighbors about health care insurance and Obama care. She was very much opposed to socialized health care because it was socialism. Eeeuuuwwwwww..... No, you should take care of that yourself, and if you are not working, tough luck, because everybody who can work can have healthcare insurance. Right...... (That's a blog post on its own, I leave that for another time)
Anyway, she was very much surprised when I told here that the socialized health care in the Netherlands was cheaper per capita than in the capitalized US health care 'system'. Of course she didn't believe me. O well.
But the most interesting part was the discussion about why the costs for health care per capita in the US are larger than any other country. There are of course a whole slew of reasons for that, but one that I like to discuss here is the use of Emergency Rooms as last ditch primary care. People without health care insurance often wait with going to the doctor when they are sick in the hope that it will go away with home remedies, over the counter medication, or that the body deals with it by itself. But when that does not happen, people end up in the room when the situation worsens and they need urgent care. That is were the costs come in, because a 100 dollar visit to a primary care physician has now multiplied itself to a 1,000+ dollar bill. A bill they cannot pay anyways.
Here is the crux. My neighbor, who vehemently opposed ObamaCare because it was ugly socialism, really really agreed with the statement that we could not let people die. At the same time, she really really didn't want to have socialized health care because it is evil socialist yuckyness.... This dual choice results in lack of primary care (which is cheap) for many people and racked up emergency room bills (which is really expensive) for those waiting too long in order to avoid large health care bills. So, who is paying those emergency room bills? Well, not the people who tried to avoid using the health care system in the first place because they don't have the money to pay for it. They are more likely to go bankrupt because of it. Wna when that happens, who pays the bill? Exactly, the taxpayer.
In short, her choice to have 'freedom' in whether to have health care insurance resulted in higher costs for society because we were not consistent with our mantra that everybody should take care of themselves. Because when it comes to the point of letting someone die, society at large has decided that letting someone die of a curabvle medical issue is not accaptable, hence we allow gthem to flock the increadible expensive emergeny rooms, but we refuse to provide them with a cheaper option because it infringes on the perceived 'freedom' of choosing yourself whether you want to have health care or not. This inconsitency results in far mo0re tax payer dollars to go to health care then when we would be consistent in our choice. Either we choose to have the freedom to be insurced or not buit we let people die who do not have health care insurance, or we provide a meaningful option so that everybody can have affordable health care. This hybrid system of denying health care when you are not yet almost dead but allowing to use the emergency room as a last ditch effort to prevent someone from becoming a carcass is the most expensive compromise you can imagine. But try to tell that to someone who listen only to the republican propaganda channel to Fox News.
Anyway, she was very much surprised when I told here that the socialized health care in the Netherlands was cheaper per capita than in the capitalized US health care 'system'. Of course she didn't believe me. O well.
But the most interesting part was the discussion about why the costs for health care per capita in the US are larger than any other country. There are of course a whole slew of reasons for that, but one that I like to discuss here is the use of Emergency Rooms as last ditch primary care. People without health care insurance often wait with going to the doctor when they are sick in the hope that it will go away with home remedies, over the counter medication, or that the body deals with it by itself. But when that does not happen, people end up in the room when the situation worsens and they need urgent care. That is were the costs come in, because a 100 dollar visit to a primary care physician has now multiplied itself to a 1,000+ dollar bill. A bill they cannot pay anyways.
Here is the crux. My neighbor, who vehemently opposed ObamaCare because it was ugly socialism, really really agreed with the statement that we could not let people die. At the same time, she really really didn't want to have socialized health care because it is evil socialist yuckyness.... This dual choice results in lack of primary care (which is cheap) for many people and racked up emergency room bills (which is really expensive) for those waiting too long in order to avoid large health care bills. So, who is paying those emergency room bills? Well, not the people who tried to avoid using the health care system in the first place because they don't have the money to pay for it. They are more likely to go bankrupt because of it. Wna when that happens, who pays the bill? Exactly, the taxpayer.
In short, her choice to have 'freedom' in whether to have health care insurance resulted in higher costs for society because we were not consistent with our mantra that everybody should take care of themselves. Because when it comes to the point of letting someone die, society at large has decided that letting someone die of a curabvle medical issue is not accaptable, hence we allow gthem to flock the increadible expensive emergeny rooms, but we refuse to provide them with a cheaper option because it infringes on the perceived 'freedom' of choosing yourself whether you want to have health care or not. This inconsitency results in far mo0re tax payer dollars to go to health care then when we would be consistent in our choice. Either we choose to have the freedom to be insurced or not buit we let people die who do not have health care insurance, or we provide a meaningful option so that everybody can have affordable health care. This hybrid system of denying health care when you are not yet almost dead but allowing to use the emergency room as a last ditch effort to prevent someone from becoming a carcass is the most expensive compromise you can imagine. But try to tell that to someone who listen only to the republican propaganda channel to Fox News.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Pedophilia whitewash at Wikipedia
As some of you know, I regularly edit wikipedia articles. Just for fun. Occasionally, I get dragged into articles far outside my own field. In the recent weeks, while being incapacitated with a replaced hip, I ended up in the discussions related to pedophilia. The Wikipedia article about pedophilia is pretty much a wet dream for lawyers. It is so unilaterally focused on the medical operationalization used by the DSM IV of the term, which by definition will leave out many cases that I would consider pedophile's. For example, if a person has many sexual explicit fantasies about how he has sex with a 11 year old, but those fantasies do not cause him either distress of interpersonal difficulty, guess what, he is not a pedophile.
But it gets better. If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old. James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of self-promotion as in this edit where he links to an interview with himself related to the topic, regularly comments on the talk page of the article. In and by itself, that is a good thing. Wikipedia needs expert editors. The reason you want expert editors is that they often know the field much better than the lay editors that are the bulk of the workforce at wikipedia. When you have such an expert editor, you see it in the width of the sources they use, the nuances they can express, and the skill with which they put in words the controversies, differences of opinion, and unresolved issues in the field. So, when someone added a so-so source, James proposes to replace it with....... You guessed it, an article of himself. A primary source as well. if that had been the ONLY article available, o well, than I understand, but when there are multiple second andtertiary sources available, this is not acceptable.
This provides us with some idea why this article is so biased towards the medical operationalization of the term as used in the DSM IV, and not towards the more general usage of the term which generally is defined as something like:
or how many more examples can be given.
To illustrate how US biased the article is, lets look at the World Health Organizations definition in the ICD10:
Lets see, if we use this definition, our pedophile friend example in the beginning would be properly diagnosed as a pedophile, even when his interest was in somewhat older children. As it should be.
The pedophilia article at wikipedia makes a classic error. It goes completely overboard by focusing on the medical operationalization of the term at the cost of common sense and general definitions that are far more generally used. A good article would start with the general term, and then work towards the more specialized definitions. Wikipedia does it the other way round. When you start reading the wikipedia article, you might think that most people we normally would label a pedophile are just not that. And that is wrong. Medical operationalizations are necessary for research, but they should not eclipse the more general used term and basically free many pedophiles of the label they despise and would like to get rid of. Thanks to wikipedia, an ever increasing primary source of information, they are no longer pedophiles. Good job!
Disclaimer: I tried to change some things for the better, but one editor specific, and several more in general pretty much block any improvement of the article that is not in line with the medical operationalization of the term.
But it gets better. If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old. James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of self-promotion as in this edit where he links to an interview with himself related to the topic, regularly comments on the talk page of the article. In and by itself, that is a good thing. Wikipedia needs expert editors. The reason you want expert editors is that they often know the field much better than the lay editors that are the bulk of the workforce at wikipedia. When you have such an expert editor, you see it in the width of the sources they use, the nuances they can express, and the skill with which they put in words the controversies, differences of opinion, and unresolved issues in the field. So, when someone added a so-so source, James proposes to replace it with....... You guessed it, an article of himself. A primary source as well. if that had been the ONLY article available, o well, than I understand, but when there are multiple second and
This provides us with some idea why this article is so biased towards the medical operationalization of the term as used in the DSM IV, and not towards the more general usage of the term which generally is defined as something like:
"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object" Merrian Webster online
"a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children", Cambridge Dictionary online
or how many more examples can be given.
To illustrate how US biased the article is, lets look at the World Health Organizations definition in the ICD10:
"A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age", ICD 10 F65.4
Lets see, if we use this definition, our pedophile friend example in the beginning would be properly diagnosed as a pedophile, even when his interest was in somewhat older children. As it should be.
The pedophilia article at wikipedia makes a classic error. It goes completely overboard by focusing on the medical operationalization of the term at the cost of common sense and general definitions that are far more generally used. A good article would start with the general term, and then work towards the more specialized definitions. Wikipedia does it the other way round. When you start reading the wikipedia article, you might think that most people we normally would label a pedophile are just not that. And that is wrong. Medical operationalizations are necessary for research, but they should not eclipse the more general used term and basically free many pedophiles of the label they despise and would like to get rid of. Thanks to wikipedia, an ever increasing primary source of information, they are no longer pedophiles. Good job!
Disclaimer: I tried to change some things for the better, but one editor specific, and several more in general pretty much block any improvement of the article that is not in line with the medical operationalization of the term.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Moving on.....
I am amazed. Six days ago, I splintered the head of my left hip by falling of a horse. Due to the severity of the fracture, the doc advised to not even try to fix it, and replace the hip joint immediately. After the surgery, he told me that if he had tried to fix it, I probably in two months time would be back for a replacement anyway. Carolyn saw my X-rays when they were made, and she could even see it was just over with the joint.
This makes me wonder, what the heck did people do in my situation before hip-replacement?
In the meanwhile, I am enjoying the modern wonders of the medical technology that will make it possible for me to basically do the same things again as before the fracture. Like horseback riding. Or climbing.
The day-by-day drill is getting better. Which means, doing the exercises of the physical therapist, drinking enough, taking my blood-thinner shot in time, and give it enough rest so it heals quickly enough.
The day after the surgery, I was already taken out of the bed by the physical therapist to walk a few paces and sit in a somewhat reclining chair. I was very dizzy and sitting up made me nauseous. Nausea turned out to be my biggest issue the next day, because it prevented me from actually doing my walking exercises. After cutting the narcotics, and going on only Tylenol, this problem was solved, but it was not enough because my muscles would cramp up a bit. First a muscle relaxant was added, and now I am on Vicodin, a somewhat stronger painkiller than Tylenol (Paracetamol), but substantially weaker than the Hydromorphone they had me previous on.
Wednesday, 4 days after the surgery, I was discharged from the hospital because I had mastered all the things I needed to know before I could go home. Most people who's hip is replaced go home later, but keep in mind that that most hip replacements are in elder people who break a hip after a low energy fall in combination with osteoporosis. I am the minority, in which high energy trauma results in such a replacement. And I am in excellent physical condition as well as reasonably strong. So, being ahead is somewhat expected.
Now I am planning when to go back to work (part-time!), when I can drive a car again, etc. Longer term recovery includes getting back on the horse's back (I might have to learn to get up at the other side) and eventually, hopefully, rock climbing.....
This makes me wonder, what the heck did people do in my situation before hip-replacement?
In the meanwhile, I am enjoying the modern wonders of the medical technology that will make it possible for me to basically do the same things again as before the fracture. Like horseback riding. Or climbing.
The day-by-day drill is getting better. Which means, doing the exercises of the physical therapist, drinking enough, taking my blood-thinner shot in time, and give it enough rest so it heals quickly enough.
The day after the surgery, I was already taken out of the bed by the physical therapist to walk a few paces and sit in a somewhat reclining chair. I was very dizzy and sitting up made me nauseous. Nausea turned out to be my biggest issue the next day, because it prevented me from actually doing my walking exercises. After cutting the narcotics, and going on only Tylenol, this problem was solved, but it was not enough because my muscles would cramp up a bit. First a muscle relaxant was added, and now I am on Vicodin, a somewhat stronger painkiller than Tylenol (Paracetamol), but substantially weaker than the Hydromorphone they had me previous on.
Wednesday, 4 days after the surgery, I was discharged from the hospital because I had mastered all the things I needed to know before I could go home. Most people who's hip is replaced go home later, but keep in mind that that most hip replacements are in elder people who break a hip after a low energy fall in combination with osteoporosis. I am the minority, in which high energy trauma results in such a replacement. And I am in excellent physical condition as well as reasonably strong. So, being ahead is somewhat expected.
Now I am planning when to go back to work (part-time!), when I can drive a car again, etc. Longer term recovery includes getting back on the horse's back (I might have to learn to get up at the other side) and eventually, hopefully, rock climbing.....
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Snap said the bone......
Yesterday morning, I broke my leg at the hip joined. It happened around 11:00 (am). and by 416:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into surgery for a hit replacement. The hip joined was demolished and the changes of healing were close to zero, so they recommended to replace the hip joint. My legs are now strapped down in a specific position, to keep the artificial joint in place. Not pleasant, but heck, if that means I heal faster or better, I take it.
Yesterday morning, after I had my morning work done (collecting virgins, committing mass murder), I went out to Havana to ride Pate, the favorite horse. After first playing with him a bit using new exciting Natural Horsemanship techniques, I tagged him up. After lunging his a bot, I got on him and while I was adjusting the stirrups, he wandered over to a shady spot with low hanging branches. To late, I noticed we had gotten into them and I tried to turn him around because the low hanging branches was really dense. When I turned him around, I had to bent forward substantially to avoid to many branches. That was not an issue, but what I could not avoid was that Pate got the branches in a nasty way in his face and he responded to that my jumping somewhat away. Or something like that, because I do not recall exactly. Next thing I know is that I am flying of the horse and I land exactly on my left hip joint.
There is immediately a LOT of pain. I manage to role myself on my side in the first aid position but there is no way I could put any weight in that leg. I managed to get Pate close to me so I can take his bridle off. After about ten minutes, The people who live there came home and found me. They were so kind to bring me to patients first where they X-rayed me, Well, the verdict was clear, no more moving and they got an ambulance to move to the first aid of the local hospital.
At the hospital, they made a few more x-rays, and the verdict was rather clear. The neck of the femur leading to the hip joint had snapped of, and if I am correct, the ball of the joint was split. The doc didn't fuss about it, when he said: "This will never heal. The only option is a hip-replacement." With a hip replacement, I had two options, femur part only or both sides. The first option often result in increased arthritis on the cup of the joint, which basically means that you have to fix that part in a year or ten. Benefit, you heal faster. The latter option is more permanent and you are not getting into arthritis issues, but the time to heal is longer. As I do not feel like having major pain and surgery in 10 years time, I opted to take the longer healing time and have the whole thing fixed.
Saturday, at 16:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into the operation room and by 20:00 (8 pm), I was the proud owner of a artificial hip joint. Now, I am resting comfortably and the recovery has started. In about three months time, I will be able to ride again, but for the coming months, I just have to take my time so I heal good.
Suzi check Pate the next morning and he had a bunch of scratches over his face, but he was otherwise fine.
Yesterday morning, after I had my morning work done (collecting virgins, committing mass murder), I went out to Havana to ride Pate, the favorite horse. After first playing with him a bit using new exciting Natural Horsemanship techniques, I tagged him up. After lunging his a bot, I got on him and while I was adjusting the stirrups, he wandered over to a shady spot with low hanging branches. To late, I noticed we had gotten into them and I tried to turn him around because the low hanging branches was really dense. When I turned him around, I had to bent forward substantially to avoid to many branches. That was not an issue, but what I could not avoid was that Pate got the branches in a nasty way in his face and he responded to that my jumping somewhat away. Or something like that, because I do not recall exactly. Next thing I know is that I am flying of the horse and I land exactly on my left hip joint.
There is immediately a LOT of pain. I manage to role myself on my side in the first aid position but there is no way I could put any weight in that leg. I managed to get Pate close to me so I can take his bridle off. After about ten minutes, The people who live there came home and found me. They were so kind to bring me to patients first where they X-rayed me, Well, the verdict was clear, no more moving and they got an ambulance to move to the first aid of the local hospital.
At the hospital, they made a few more x-rays, and the verdict was rather clear. The neck of the femur leading to the hip joint had snapped of, and if I am correct, the ball of the joint was split. The doc didn't fuss about it, when he said: "This will never heal. The only option is a hip-replacement." With a hip replacement, I had two options, femur part only or both sides. The first option often result in increased arthritis on the cup of the joint, which basically means that you have to fix that part in a year or ten. Benefit, you heal faster. The latter option is more permanent and you are not getting into arthritis issues, but the time to heal is longer. As I do not feel like having major pain and surgery in 10 years time, I opted to take the longer healing time and have the whole thing fixed.
Saturday, at 16:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into the operation room and by 20:00 (8 pm), I was the proud owner of a artificial hip joint. Now, I am resting comfortably and the recovery has started. In about three months time, I will be able to ride again, but for the coming months, I just have to take my time so I heal good.
Suzi check Pate the next morning and he had a bunch of scratches over his face, but he was otherwise fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
