Re: Critical but stable

It's when someone gets coronated - as I once heard on that charming US
TV proggy about three witch sisters.

I don't recall the death of George VI, but I do remember a tremendous
fuss about something called a "coronation" when I was four years old. I
never discovered what a coronation was until much later.

At 21:40:09 on Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Ildhund <jnllb@removemsn.com> wrote in
<gsddra$mqs$1@news.motzarella.org>:

Since we were not informed as to the style of framing of the first
bulletin (was it gold, or gilt, or plain black wood?) this more detailed
description of the second bulletin is somewhat lost on us.

However, I am pleased to hear of the corrugated iron protecting
stonework repairs to the front of the gateway, even though these were
apparently screened from view;  these days, the opportunities for honest
British working men to exercise the skills of their craft are fewer, and
farther between.

(Because no bugger will pay them.)

What I, me and I remember is not the death of (HMS) Queen Mary, but that
of King George VI (pronounced "vee-eye" by those who are accustomed to
refer to "One Clavdivs").

I remember the occasion vividly.

It occurred, with no prior consultation (to be fair, they didn't consult
his elder daughter either, although she was rather embarrassingly up a
tree in Kenya at the time), when I was a couple of months short of four
years old - *and they cancelled "Listen With Mother" because of it*.
Now, c'mon!  Even I, a pre-school bairn, knew that the King would not
have been paying attention to "Listen With Mother" even if he hadn't
died.

For decades, I wanted to raise the matter with his widow.  Or with his
daughter.  I never had the opportunity for the former;  I was, once, in
company with the latter, but (I am ashamed to say) bottled out.  Let's
face it - when you turn around, all unsuspecting, and find yourself
confronting a wee wummin, five foot tall, with inch-thick make-up, a
large hat, and an expression well-schooled in trying not to look bored -
well, you just kind of fling yourself underneath the nearest trestle
table, don't you?

(Those who have, somehow, never found themselves in this specific
situation are not required to answer.  Those who actually are eligible
to reply should confine themselves to one side of foolscap.)

Peter Duncanson wrote...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/24/newsid_2785000/2785265.stm
describes Queen Mary's last day:

A bulletin released at Marlborough House at 1140 GMT was the first
warning that her condition was causing some anxiety. A second
bulletin, framed like the first and hung on a screen of corrugated
iron protecting stonework repairs to the front of the gateway, was
issued at 1340 GMT. It said: "During the past hours Queen Mary's
condition has become more grave. There has been a serious weakening
of the heart action which gives rise to increasing anxiety." The
third bulletin, at 1900 GMT, was brief: "Queen Mary's strength is
ebbing, but Her Majesty is sleeping peacefully." The fourth and
final bulletin was to announce her death.

This seems to me to communicate the general concepts perfectly
adequately, using terms which anyone should be able to understand,
even pedants.

I sympathise with your point but I also sympathise with the authorities.
They need to have words and phrases that communicate the desired general
concepts to the general public. These words and phrases need not be
pedant-proof.

At least they aren't using a colour code for the conditions.

Let's see what I can invent:

   Black: Deceased
   Double Red: Critical
   Red: Critical but stable
   Double Amber: Stable
   Amber: Satisfactory
   Green-Amber: Comfortable
   Green: Progressing well
   White: Discharged

Peter Duncanson wrote...

...

...

...
Thank you, Peter. I think it's very sad that established authorities
perpetuate the bad language they never learnt to recognize.

Wikipedia has an article on this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_state

   Medical states or medical conditions are used to describe a
   patient's condition in a hospital. These terms are most commonly
   used by the news media and are rarely used by doctors in their daily
   business, preferring to deal with medical problems in greater
   detail.

There are separate sections for USA practice and UK practice.

   UK practice
   
   The release of patient information to the press is strictly
   controlled in the National Health Service (NHS). The Department of
   Health (DH) publishes a Code of Practice for guidance to NHS
   Trusts.[3]
   ....    
   Each NHS Trust has its own guidance for statements to the press. The
   DH Code of Practice has no official definitions of the standard
   phrases in use. However, most NHS Trusts will specify some[4] or
   all[5] of the following phrases in their guidance;
   
   * Deceased
   * Critical
   * Critical but stable
   * Stable
   * Satisfactory
   * Comfortable
   * Progressing well
   * Discharged

   USA practice

   A frequently cited condition is "stable". Typically, stable is not a
   condition on its own; it is usually qualified with a true condition.
   It is commonly used to denote conditions where a patient has a
   favorable prognosis or stable vital signs. The American Hospital
   Association has advised doctors to not use the word "stable" either
   as a condition or in conjunction with another condition, especially
   one that is critical, because a critical condition inherently
   implies unpredictability and the instability of vital signs.[1]
   Despite this, "critical but stable" conditions are frequently
   reported, ...
   
   The use of such conditions in the U.S. media has increased since the
   passing of the HIPAA in 1996. Patient privacy has become more of a
   concern to doctors and hospitals, and they are less likely to
   release specific medical conditions, fearing litigious patient

Theo Markettos wrote...

My understanding is presumably coloured by descriptions of the
course of a feverish illness. As it progresses, the patient
eventually reaches the crisis - the point of decision from which it
could go either way. A crisis is to my mind a momentary situation,
so a stable crisis doesn't make sense. Peter's analogy of the
cliff-edge is perhaps a bit closer to what the hospital spokesman
meant, but I can't help thinking that (a) the usage is a devaluation
of an otherwise useful term, and (b) there must be other ways of
describing the situation that don't make old pedants like me do a
double-take.

Critical = "life-threatening"
stable = "getting neither worse nor better"

Someone whose life is threatened can have their condition worsening or
improving, while at the same time still remaining life-threatening.
Consider someone whose heart is beating irregularly... it can either stop
completely (getting worse) or beat more regularly but still be dangerous
(getting better).  Stable implies there's no change in the condition, even
though that condition remains serious.

Theo

Just to keep this group alive...
Yet again I hear on the wireless that a victim of violence is - and
has been for several days - in a 'critical but stable condition'. To
my ear, these are almost antonyms, a view borne out I think by
dictionaries. How do you understand it?