You ask some valid questions, which I'll attempt to answer briefly...
1) Was the poster "...trying to be helpful in letting those who are concerned about you know that you are doing well?" Not being a mind reader, I can't speak to the poster's intention. I can only talk about the effects of his or her actions. Regardless of any possible good intentions, those effects were generally negative and were wholly due to the poster's failure to think fully and carefully about those effects.
Also, I would note that practically all of my close personal friends and family, especially those who reside in Philadelphia, were fully up to date on the situation through the efforts of my contact people. The announcement on the UCity list served only to publicize the situation to a group of people who are, in general, not that close to me in ways other than geography; they are in the category of "acquaintances" rather than "friends". This is not to suggest that I don't appreciate their concern, because I very much do. But any "need for news" of this group could have been just as well served by an announcement from me, either on the list or by word of mouth, after my return home.
2) You say that "...it seems harsh to be so dismissive of the unknown poster's intent." On this, I have to disagree. Good intentions are a fine and noble thing, but they simply do not excuse a failure to think about the effects of one's actions before taking them.
3) You ask, "To avoid causing all these problems for a patient, should we stand back and wait?" I thought I was clear on this, but I'll try again: No, there is not a need to stand back and wait. There is, however, a very real necessity to be attentive to the needs of the patient, and to give those needs primacy over your own concerns. I would recommend that one always call first to confirm that the patient is ready for visits. While in the hospital, I had phone calls and visitors that were very positive events for all involved, and which certainly benefitted my recovery. I also had several experiences that were unquestionably negative, and many of them were a direct or indirect result of the posting on this list.
4) You also ask, "Do most people who have been hospitalized feel that way?" Before writing my post, I discussed my experiences and thoughts with about a dozen friends and relatives who had undergone hospital stays in the last few years, including several who'd had the exact same operation as I did. They all agreed with me, both in theory and in practice. Several explicitly stated that a post-op patient has a responsibility to be "selfish," especially as regards the time and energy spent on calls and visits, in order to focus on his or her recovery. One told me the story of how she'd had to ask the hospital to evict her parents from her room when they wouldn't let her rest after a painful and exhausting Caesarian section. So, yes, I'd say that most folks who've had similar experiences do, indeed, share my views.
5) As to why I suggested that there might be exceptions to my generalizations for women delivering babies and for the dying, here goes...
Women/babies: I think -- and I stand ready to be corrected by those who've been through it -- that there is a long tradition of brief congratulatory calls and visits in the post-delivery period. I'd also say that the depiction of "the new mother, with her wholly dependent baby" is inaccurate. The baby is staying in the hospital nursery, not the mother's bed.
The dying: I see this as a special situation because time is running out. Those who want and need to say farewell would like to do so before the patient dies, not at the funeral. While I hope there is kindness, respect, and courtesy on all sides, this is a situation where I feel that the needs of those who'll have to carry on after the death will be treated as equal, not subsidiary, to those of the patient.
In a message dated 11/3/04 9:17:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An interesting post for a number of reasons. This really shows another angle on well wishing, being supportive and caring. While all the rationales for criticism of the posted news were laid out, and I appreciate the chance to be sensitized, it seems harsh to be so dismissive of the unknown poster's intent. Wasn't he trying to be helpful in letting those who are concerned about you know that you are doing well? Apparently he screwed up, but is your response really completely on target regardless of good intentions?
Although you don't say so, there is a strong suggestion that you'd rather be left alone. To avoid causing all these problems for a patient, should we stand back and wait? Send a card maybe, but don't call and definitely don't visit. I'll call you or invite you if I want to put up with the hassle. Do most people who have been hospitalized feel that way? Do any patients welcome the healing power of friends and love over the hassle of not being able to rest more?
Finally, why do all these concerns not apply if you just had a baby or are dying? Does the new mother, with her wholly dependent baby, not need the rest of the guy after surgery? Are burglars more respectful of the dying, not to mention the identity thieves?
In a message dated 11/3/2004 12:22:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On September 13th, the following two paragraphs were posted on the UC list:
>
>>At the PSFS meeting this weekend, it was announced that long-time SF fan
>>and UnivCity resident Dave Axler had bypass surgery recently. Since I've
>>run into many local residents who knew Dave, but did not know about
>>this, here's some info.
>>
>>"According to a posting on smofs*, he's at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in
>Boston Massachusetts,
>>and he's recovering well from bypass surgery. He'll be staying at the
>hospital a few more days, and >then staying at an adjacent hotel for about a week
>while his doctors monitor his condition before he >returns home."
>
>*[For those who don't know, "smofs" is a small-circulation moderated
>discussion list for the organizers of science fiction conventions]
>
>I've been debating about the appropriate response to this posting, which had
>me as its subject. To be blunt, it should never have been made. Regardless of
>the intentions of the poster, the end result was that it caused me some
>problems that should have never occurred, and added new, unnecessary stress to an
>experience that was already extremely stressful.
>
>I considered just responding to the poster, off-list. But, after discussing
>this with a number of close friends who have gone through similar hospital
>experiences, it's become clear that some folks out there just don't have a clue
>how to deal with other peoples' medical situations. So, in the hopes that I can
>spare someone else in the future a bit of the aggravation that I experienced,
>I'm going to respond here on the list. (It's a somewhat belated response, but
>that won't affect its accuracy.)
>
>Let me start with some basics. While these are generalizations, my
>conversations with others suggest that they're true for pretty much any extended
>hospital stay, with two possible exceptions: women delivering babies (where
>congratulatory phone calls are rather common) and those patients who go into the
>hospital expecting to die.
>
>To start with, one of the first things that hospitals require when you arrive
>and "check in" is to provide them with the name and phone of a contact
>person. Primarily, that is to ensure that there is someone who can make critical
>decisions while you're unconscious or otherwise incapacitated. In addition, that
>person is also the patient's spokesperson. If someone calls the hospital and
>asks for a patient at a time when the patient is in the operating theatre, the
>ICU, or otherwise incommunicado, the hospital can direct the caller to the
>spokesperson.
>
>[In my particular case, because I was in an out-of-town hospital, I actually
>had more than one contact person. There was one relative who was local to the
>hospital, a second -- my brother -- who had the medical decision-making job,
>and a small collective here in Philly that was taking care of my cats and house
>during my absence.]
>
>Typically, the contact person also takes on the job of notifying selected
>friends and family about the patient's status. The key word there is "selected".
>Unless one is a major public figure (e.g., Bill Clinton, who had his bypass
>two days before mine), there really is no need for everyone in the world to get
>regular updates. My contact people worked together to keep my family and close
>personal friends updated on my status and recovery via email. The list of
>people they notified was something they reviewed with me prior to surgery. It
>deliberately did not include any of the local Philly mailing lists such as this
>one, but did include some limited-circulation mailing lists in the science
>fiction world, simply because I had gone directly from an sf convention to the
>hospital, and many of my friends who were in attendance were thus already aware
>of the overall situation.
>
>Second generalization: A patient, after surgery, has only one real
>responsibility: getting better. While the definition of "better" may vary, the basics
>are the same: Get as much sleep as possible, avoid stress, avoid pain, take your
>meds, and so on. Everything else is secondary. Anything from the external
>universe that works against this goal is to be avoided.
>
>Third generalization: The reason that patients generally go from the
>operating theatre to an ICU, not the public wards of the hospital, is so that they
>will be in a protected environment while the initial healing takes place. I'm not
>just talking about protection in the medical sense, though that's certainly a
>major part of the ICU situation. An ICU patient is typically loaded down with
>monitoring equipment and other "attachments" -- for a cardiac patient, that
>typically includes a blood-pressure cuff that triggers every 10-15 minutes, a
>fingertip oxygen monitor, five or more leads of telemetry, nasal oxygen tubes,
>and, for the first couple of days, a chest-drainage tube and a Foley catheter.
>Movement is very limited in this situation, but the patient is often too
>groggy to be doing much anyway beyond adjusting the tilt of the bed and changing
>channels with the tv remote.
>
>However, I'm really referring to a deliberate isolation from the outside
>world. In the ICU, visitors are very restricted, in terms of both number and
>duration. (In my ICU, it was two visitors at a time, for no more than ten minutes,
>though patients were allowed to extend the visit time to about a half-hour if
>they possessed the desire and energy.) Patients in an ICU do not have
>telephones at their beds. If a truly critical call (or one from the designated contact
>person) comes in, the staff can pass it to the patient via a hand-held phone.
>For less critical attempts to contact the patient, the staff will usually
>either provide a brief, general status report or direct the caller to the
>designated contact person.
>
>The goal here is simple -- cut down the number of interruptions and
>distractions which the patient is experiencing. Let the patient sleep as much as
>possible. This is often hard to do in a hospital, what with the various background
>noises, the repeated nurse visits for drawing blood, the ways in which pain
>medication can muddle both your mind and your bowels (the standard side effect of
>most pain meds is constipation, along with "black, tarry stools"), and so on.
>
>Once the patient is out of the ICU and back to the regular hospital wards,
>s/he will usually have a phone and be allowed more/longer visitations, up until
>the time of discharge. And that leads directly to ...
>
>Fourth generalization: Even when a patient's back on the floor, he or she is
>still dealing with the immediate after-effects of surgery, and his or her
>focus is still on recovery. Therefore, unless you are the designated contact
>person, or you have life-or-death information to impart, there is only ONE valid
>reason for contacting a hospital patient: to help him or her recover. If you are
>doing it to satisfy your curiosity or to ease your own worries, you're doing
>it for the wrong reason. If you are unable to detect when a patient is growing
>tired or distracted, so that you can immediately and politely terminate your
>contact, then you have no business in calling or visiting to begin with.
>
>In general, the concept is simple: let the patient lead the conversation, and
>pay close attention to his or her mental and physical state. Let the patient
>bring up potentially stressful topics, like hospital discharge dates,
>finances, or returning to work. Recognize that the patient may still be using
>pain-killing medications, and is not guaranteed to be clear-headed.
>
>Also, don't wear the patient out -- as soon as the first signs of tiredness
>appear, make your exit. Yeah, the patient probably could ask or tell you to go
>away, but it's likely that s/he doesn't want to insult or offend you, and is
>too exhausted to take on the task of evicting you. Have faith that the patient
>will ask you to stay if that's his or her desire.
>
>So, with all that as background, let's go back to what was posted here, and
>see what's wrong with it...
>
>1) Primarily, the posting publicized information about my situation that
>caused me problems, in two different ways. First, it put my property at risk by
>effectively announcing that my house was going to be unoccupied for an extended
>period of time. Just as there are burglars who go on neighborhood house tours
>in order to scope out potential targets for robbery, so there are folks who
>watch local discussion boards for similar hints. When I found out about this
>posting, I had to arrange for extra precautions on the part of the friends who
>were keeping an eye on the house. This was a time-consuming bit of stress and
>aggravation that I really didn't need.
>
>In addition, the posting led to a number of unnecessary and unwanted phone
>calls while I was still in the hospital during the early stages of recuperation.
>Several of these calls included whiny complaints about how I hadn't been
>available for phone chat while I was still in the ICU. (Gosh, what a surprise!)
>
>The real winner of those inspired (or should I say "instigated"?) by this
>poster was the call that began with "I'll bet you'll never guess who this is!"
>Now there's a mindless and arrogant notion for you: the thing a patient wants to
>do while lying in a hospital bed is to play guessing games over the phone.
>Had I been a tad less groggy at that point, I would have answered "You're
>right." and hung up immediately.
>
>2) It was unauthorized. The poster made no attempt to reach the hospital, my
>contact person, or myself prior to making the post, or to otherwise obtain
>even the most minimal confirmation that a posting on this list was desired. (Had
>the poster asked, the answer would have been a clear and unequivocal refusal.)
>
>3) It was inaccurate. By the time the post was made, I was already in the
>process of moving from hospital to hotel.
>
>4) At the lowest level, the poster was indulging in nothing more or less than
>gossip, under the guise of "reporting" some local news. Note especially the
>second sentence: "I've run into many local residents who knew Dave, but did not
>know about this..." Yes, lots of local residents know me, or at least know of
>me, but that did not justify the poster's going around and chatting "many" of
>them up to find out if they were aware of my situation.
>
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
