I'm not interested in reading the paper or debating the merits of different ways of diagnosing knee injuries; I'm not competent to do that. The point I would make is that we're not talking about cancer. You hurt your knee, you rest your knee until it's better. If it gets better and starts giving way--you've got an ACL tear; an MRI will confirm but people have been fixing ACL's since long before there were MRI's. If it doesn't get better you get an MRI. You're not going to die from an ACL tear; if you don't have an instant diagnosis there's no harm. Sure, it would be nice to know if you should cancel your trip for a month from now. Is that a legitimate use of health care dollars--given what we spend on health care in this country? (If we're talking about Canadians or Europeans we wouldn't be having this conversation.)
I think you are. Give yourself some credit here.
A little curiousity is more interesting than the usual issues about health care which have been discussed ad nauseum.
Too lazy to read, not competent to comment. Of course not being competent doesn't stop most people from commenting. As far as the usual issues being discussed ad nauseum--I'll keep talking about them until they're fixed. How can you possibly understand the motivation behind a medical article or a recommendation for or against surgery without understanding the financial incentives or the unquenchable thirst Americans have for instant medical results and the latest, most expensive technological "miracle". The kind of discussion in this thread just fuels the fire and frankly it reeally pisses me off.