Home » The Crystal Hall » Questions and Answers » Diedrick's Syndrome
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #44555 is a reply to message #44544 ] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 15:21   |
 |
DaWrecka 
Messages: 175
Registered: July 2008 |
|
|
|
| Sir Lee wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 19:18 | | XaltatunOfAcheron wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 11:16 | That wasn't a diagnosis, that was an unfortunately successful attempt to cover up her statements about how Nimbus' minions were screwing her over.
|
Even so, it shows that a doctor can give his "professional opinion" that it's a case of Diedrick's and it will be accepted without backing evidence. If there WAS some sort of objective, reliable test to check for Diedrick's, he would have a much harder time making his assertion stick.
|
I'm sure that under the right circumstances, a concerned parent/teacher/other authority figure could easily question such a diagnosis and demand that/apply legal pressure to force the doctor to support his claim. If, in the real world, a doctor were to say "Your child has bipolar" without any explanation, the parents would have no qualms going "WTF?" and getting the doctor to support his claim or have his licence to practice revoked. (that WOULD be a case, possibly textbook, of malpractice) It's just that in this instance, Merry didn't have anyone around able/willing to do that for her.
That said, yes it does suggest rather strongly that there's no "magic bullet" of a test for Diedrick's. Which likely means it would have to be diagnosed by testimony of the patient and those who are personally-familiar with the patient.
Which actually indicates that the doctor's claim of Diedrick's shouldn't have stood up. How could the doctor have made such a claim without testimony from friends and family to support it? There's no way he could have had enough personal familiarity with Merry to have made an accurate diagnosis.
I think in this case the people he was saying "Yep, she's got Diedrick's" to were as crooked as the doctor.
Jesus loves you. Then again, so does Barney.
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #44558 is a reply to message #44555 ] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 16:38 |
 |
 VeryZenn
Messages: 862
Registered: April 2009
Location: The barren wastes of the ... |
|
|
|
Doctors have a lot of weight behind what they say. If they say "You have cancer." or something the average person will just accept that because the doctor said so and the doctor must know cause he's a doctor. Right?
Bad logic sure but very common none the less.
~Matt
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #44561 is a reply to message #44555 ] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 17:06 |
MitchellTF
Messages: 1087
Registered: January 2009 |
|
|
|
| DaWrecka wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 15:21 | | Sir Lee wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 19:18 | | XaltatunOfAcheron wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 11:16 | That wasn't a diagnosis, that was an unfortunately successful attempt to cover up her statements about how Nimbus' minions were screwing her over.
|
Even so, it shows that a doctor can give his "professional opinion" that it's a case of Diedrick's and it will be accepted without backing evidence. If there WAS some sort of objective, reliable test to check for Diedrick's, he would have a much harder time making his assertion stick.
|
I'm sure that under the right circumstances, a concerned parent/teacher/other authority figure could easily question such a diagnosis and demand that/apply legal pressure to force the doctor to support his claim. If, in the real world, a doctor were to say "Your child has bipolar" without any explanation, the parents would have no qualms going "WTF?" and getting the doctor to support his claim or have his licence to practice revoked. (that WOULD be a case, possibly textbook, of malpractice) It's just that in this instance, Merry didn't have anyone around able/willing to do that for her.
That said, yes it does suggest rather strongly that there's no "magic bullet" of a test for Diedrick's. Which likely means it would have to be diagnosed by testimony of the patient and those who are personally-familiar with the patient.
Which actually indicates that the doctor's claim of Diedrick's shouldn't have stood up. How could the doctor have made such a claim without testimony from friends and family to support it? There's no way he could have had enough personal familiarity with Merry to have made an accurate diagnosis.
I think in this case the people he was saying "Yep, she's got Diedrick's" to were as crooked as the doctor.
|
Actually, even if it's not reliabile, it's possible for a doctor to make a diagnosis of certain things by meeting with the patient. If the person fits the DSM-IV criteria for something, and possibly takes a personality test or something to avoid faking, it's probably that a diagnosis would be reasonable. In Merry's case, not so much.
http://www.msfhigh.com
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #44566 is a reply to message #44561 ] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 17:43 |
|
DaWrecka
Messages: 175
Registered: July 2008 |
|
|
|
| MitchellTF wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 22:06 | Actually, even if it's not reliabile, it's possible for a doctor to make a diagnosis of certain things by meeting with the patient. If the person fits the DSM-IV criteria for something, and possibly takes a personality test or something to avoid faking, it's probably that a diagnosis would be reasonable. In Merry's case, not so much.
|
Point is, if a doctor makes a diagnosis without any consultation with the patient, without running any tests and, ultimately, without any basis in fact, he can and should be called on it. If you went into a GP's office with a sore throat and they said "cancer", the patient and/or their friends/family can and should respond with something along the lines of "lolwut". If you go in, the doctor makes an examination and then refers you to hospital for a tonsilectomy/biopsy/whatever, then THOSE doctors are in a position to say "it's cancer" or "it's tonsilitis" or whatever.
With mental illness like Merry's alleged Diedrick's, the doctor needs to be able to provide evidence in support of it. Personality tests, patient/loved one testimony, SOMETHING with someone could look at and say "okay, this is justified". What did this particular doctor have? One of two things; a) jack shit, b) complete fabrications. Either way, her loved ones, if she'd had any at this point, could and should have called him on it. Sadly, she didn't have anyone in her corner.
Jesus loves you. Then again, so does Barney.
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #44572 is a reply to message #44566 ] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 19:40 |
 |
kd7mvs
Messages: 1081
Registered: March 2009
Location: Oregon |
|
|
|
| DaWrecka wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 14:43 | | MitchellTF wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 22:06 | Actually, even if it's not reliabile, it's possible for a doctor to make a diagnosis of certain things by meeting with the patient. If the person fits the DSM-IV criteria for something, and possibly takes a personality test or something to avoid faking, it's probably that a diagnosis would be reasonable. In Merry's case, not so much.
|
Point is, if a doctor makes a diagnosis without any consultation with the patient, without running any tests and, ultimately, without any basis in fact, he can and should be called on it. If you went into a GP's office with a sore throat and they said "cancer", the patient and/or their friends/family can and should respond with something along the lines of "lolwut". If you go in, the doctor makes an examination and then refers you to hospital for a tonsilectomy/biopsy/whatever, then THOSE doctors are in a position to say "it's cancer" or "it's tonsilitis" or whatever.
With mental illness like Merry's alleged Diedrick's, the doctor needs to be able to provide evidence in support of it. Personality tests, patient/loved one testimony, SOMETHING with someone could look at and say "okay, this is justified". What did this particular doctor have? One of two things; a) jack shit, b) complete fabrications. Either way, her loved ones, if she'd had any at this point, could and should have called him on it. Sadly, she didn't have anyone in her corner.
|
Given his other falsification of records, I'd take his assertion as evidence that there is a definitive test for Diedrick's, and that he entered the appropriate information to support his statement. Just as he entered evidence supporting diabetes to cover installing a device which would cause diabetes...
Nikki Reilly, Sidhe Who Must Be Obeyed |><| Canon Author Longevity: Not just a Good Idea
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #44579 is a reply to message #44572 ] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 23:08 |
 |
Faraway 
Messages: 3043
Registered: January 2009
Location: Russia |
|
|
|
| kd7mvs wrote on Thu, 25 June 2009 05:40 | | DaWrecka wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 14:43 | | MitchellTF wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 22:06 | Actually, even if it's not reliabile, it's possible for a doctor to make a diagnosis of certain things by meeting with the patient. If the person fits the DSM-IV criteria for something, and possibly takes a personality test or something to avoid faking, it's probably that a diagnosis would be reasonable. In Merry's case, not so much.
|
Point is, if a doctor makes a diagnosis without any consultation with the patient, without running any tests and, ultimately, without any basis in fact, he can and should be called on it. If you went into a GP's office with a sore throat and they said "cancer", the patient and/or their friends/family can and should respond with something along the lines of "lolwut". If you go in, the doctor makes an examination and then refers you to hospital for a tonsilectomy/biopsy/whatever, then THOSE doctors are in a position to say "it's cancer" or "it's tonsilitis" or whatever.
With mental illness like Merry's alleged Diedrick's, the doctor needs to be able to provide evidence in support of it. Personality tests, patient/loved one testimony, SOMETHING with someone could look at and say "okay, this is justified". What did this particular doctor have? One of two things; a) jack shit, b) complete fabrications. Either way, her loved ones, if she'd had any at this point, could and should have called him on it. Sadly, she didn't have anyone in her corner.
|
Given his other falsification of records, I'd take his assertion as evidence that there is a definitive test for Diedrick's, and that he entered the appropriate information to support his statement. Just as he entered evidence supporting diabetes to cover installing a device which would cause diabetes...
|
One, Merry was isolated from her supporters, now that you all said it all, partially for the purpose of not letting the doctor be called a fraud.
Two, the evidence was apparent once the doctor injected the first round of diabetes inducing power drug, and possibly installed that one pump even before he presented the evidence. The second one was one part misdirection for Merry and her possible helpers, one part security device, one part experimental drug injector, one part Dierdrick case support (who in one's sane mind tries to get rid of a viable medication), one part life support to let the experiment continue longer, and five parts bull****.
Never mind, I'm just a guy. OTOH, recently I became a self-proclaimed Paragon of Snarkiness.
"Murphy's Law Firm, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and if it hasn't we can ensure that it does. This is Murphy, how can I help you?"
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #52133 is a reply to message #44566 ] |
Mon, 14 September 2009 13:59 |
Supremezero
Messages: 61
Registered: September 2009 |
|
|
|
| DaWrecka wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 17:43 | | MitchellTF wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 22:06 | Actually, even if it's not reliabile, it's possible for a doctor to make a diagnosis of certain things by meeting with the patient. If the person fits the DSM-IV criteria for something, and possibly takes a personality test or something to avoid faking, it's probably that a diagnosis would be reasonable. In Merry's case, not so much.
|
Point is, if a doctor makes a diagnosis without any consultation with the patient, without running any tests and, ultimately, without any basis in fact, he can and should be called on it. If you went into a GP's office with a sore throat and they said "cancer", the patient and/or their friends/family can and should respond with something along the lines of "lolwut". If you go in, the doctor makes an examination and then refers you to hospital for a tonsilectomy/biopsy/whatever, then THOSE doctors are in a position to say "it's cancer" or "it's tonsilitis" or whatever.
With mental illness like Merry's alleged Diedrick's, the doctor needs to be able to provide evidence in support of it. Personality tests, patient/loved one testimony, SOMETHING with someone could look at and say "okay, this is justified". What did this particular doctor have? One of two things; a) jack shit, b) complete fabrications. Either way, her loved ones, if she'd had any at this point, could and should have called him on it. Sadly, she didn't have anyone in her corner.
|
Remember the "magic bullet" test? That's why mister evil doc could get away with it. If there is indeed no magic bullet test for diedrick's, anyway. Cancer is something observable, usually. You can't just name it. Died's seems to be a psychiatric disorder, which is harder to prove. Well, as far as we know, anyway.
|
|
| |
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #52225 is a reply to message #52210 ] |
Tue, 15 September 2009 11:20 |
|
VeryZenn
Messages: 862
Registered: April 2009
Location: The barren wastes of the ... |
|
|
|
It sounds like a chemical disorder to me. It may be an issue of:
Well...you have all the right markers for Diedricks but that also means you have all the markers for a dozen other chemical disorders. So given our observations and your powerset we're going with a tentative diagnosis of Diedricks until we find something to contradict it.
~Matt
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #68069 is a reply to message #52210 ] |
Fri, 05 February 2010 23:23 |
 |
AlphaCaptor2k9
Messages: 159
Registered: November 2009
Location: Minnesota |
|
    
|
|
| Letomo wrote on Tue, 15 September 2009 00:23 | ... horribly intrusive [like multiple biopsy's of the brain]...
|
Hate 2 Necro-ply, but hey that's something high level regens have to worry about...
Doctor: "Sure it can be done(we don't have the proper tools though)...they'll heal up in under an hour(or so, we Hope)....so why wait(for a second opinion), lets see "Whats under the hood"(powers up bone saw ominously). Ha hah, errr lets just get it over with."
| Otterylexa wrote on Thu, 11 December 2008 06:47 | Well, it sure looked like the grinch has it.
|
And the The Grinch had a diagnosable medical reason/condition...his heart was two sizes too small...(not enough blood flow to the brain to really think things out right, duh).
Next thing ya know they'll diagnose Sara Waite with (breast)Cancer...its only a growth spurt by her standards...
[Updated on: Fri, 05 February 2010 23:26]
"With Great Power, come even GREATER problems..."
|
|
| |
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #77812 is a reply to message #77808 ] |
Wed, 28 April 2010 17:05 |
NomDeGuerre
Messages: 372
Registered: March 2010
Location: UK |
|
|
|
| dpragan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 21:51 | I'm wondering if Dricking (which is more common among students with Mental based powers) might not be a case of malnutrition?
Think about it Physical Exemplars, Energizers and Regenerators often have to have a higher Caloric intake.
I postulate that "Mental Exemplars" Such as Devisors, Gadgeteers, Psychics and Mages have similar issues! I imagine if Ayla wasn't such a Foodie she might be suffering from it as well.
Add to this, Devisors and the Like tend to go on extended creativity binges and often forget to eat properly.
I wonder if the Doggy bag that Ayla (Hopefully) brings back MegaDeath will point that out!
|
Given that it's canonically explained as a measurable neurochemical imbalance akin to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, my guess is no 
|
|
|
| Re: Diedrick's Syndrome [message #77813 is a reply to message #77812 ] |
Wed, 28 April 2010 17:08 |
 |
dpragan
Messages: 2781
Registered: December 2008
Location: Texas |
|
|
|
| NomDeGuerre wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 16:05 | | dpragan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 21:51 | I'm wondering if Dricking (which is more common among students with Mental based powers) might not be a case of malnutrition?
Think about it Physical Exemplars, Energizers and Regenerators often have to have a higher Caloric intake.
I postulate that "Mental Exemplars" Such as Devisors, Gadgeteers, Psychics and Mages have similar issues! I imagine if Ayla wasn't such a Foodie she might be suffering from it as well.
Add to this, Devisors and the Like tend to go on extended creativity binges and often forget to eat properly.
I wonder if the Doggy bag that Ayla (Hopefully) brings back MegaDeath will point that out!
|
Given that it's canonically explained as a measurable neurochemical imbalance akin to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, my guess is no
|
Many Nutritionist argue that even that those imbalances (Schizophrenia and bipolar)might also be caused or aggravated by a form of malnutrition, Just many Scientist would rather toss in pills that cause more side effects then it cures.
[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 17:09]
~Despite what they say, reality is in the eyes of the beholder, and therefore up for grabs!
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Sep 9 10:35:18 EDT 2010
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.15220 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
