2001-11-21 I hear what you are saying, but I doubt even the death of the President from a misdosage will prompt a change. Here are a few reasons I can come up with.
1.) The people taking the readings are not the ones doing the calculations. The ones taking the readings are lower on the totem pole and in my opinion would be the most likely to resist. They will claim that they don't understand kilograms and the patients staring at the numbers on the scale don't either. It isn't their problem or fault if a doctor can't convert to what ever units he needs to perform the calculation. He is the trained guy and the one making big bucks. It is his job to get it right. 2.) We live in a minority rights society. That is the minority rules. I'm sure the majority of health care workers would go along with a change, but the few who won't will make such a big noise, it won't happen. They will claim that metric would frighten them so much, they will not be able to function. They will be stressed. They will sue! They will claim more mistakes will be made if metric must be used instead of English. More chances of error. Again, your fighting the person on the bottom. 3.) Hospitals and care centres will claim they don't have the funds to change scales. Who will pay to change? 4.) A majority of heathcare personel are women. Women are more vocally opposed to SI then in favour. Most women are opposed to change. The few that are in the minority. In this case the minority doesn't rule. Not one I know is in favour of metric, two dollar bills or dollar coins. Ask a male clerk in any store about the dollar coin and they will tell you no one complains if they are given one in change. Ask a woman clerk and they will tell you "NOBODY wants them". Sounds sexist, but true. It is most likely the reason metric is hard to implement in the market place. Most shoppers are women. I'm sure dosage accidents are common. The patient sues, gets his/her money and the hospitals pass the costs on to someone else. As long as someone else is willing to pay, nothing will change. John ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2001-11-21 11:42 Subject: [USMA:16283] milligrams per kilogram dosing--Mars Orbiter in the hospital > Grains aren't a problem in US healthcare, but pounds might be. > > > One scenario that will bring US metrication to the forefront would be the Congresswoman who is admitted to a hospital and has to receive drug therapy which is dosed in milligrams per kilogram of body weight. > > Let's say she is a naturally small, thin woman, and,as is common in many hospitals, the absence of completely SI units causes her "114" to be mistaken for a kilogram weight (despite the labeling on some forms, the healthcare worker will put the number in without checking that kilograms are wanted). When the Congresswoman suffers an overdose which yields her the fate of the Mars Orbiter, hospital administration, the people, and the media, will be asking why this happened. > > Part of the argument regarding SI is that the world of pharmacology is not going to start quoting dosages in kilograms per avoirdupois pound of body weight, and the solution is to use metric in every aspect of healthcare. > > We already use some form of SI in blood pressure measurement (not KPa, but mm of a column of mercury), but the patient's weight, height, and temperature should be universally SI. These pieces of healthcare data have been intractably WOMBAT for centuries in America, and just as it took a life-or-death debacle to fortify US cockpit doors, it will take one to establish SI units of measurement at the patient level in the US. > > > In a message dated Wed, 21 Nov 2001 6:42:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Suppose that some medical personnel that still thinks in grains goes to work > > in a hospital that uses SI but with incorrect symbols. That hospital uses gr > > where it should be g! The abbreviation gr is only too often used in general > > for gram, > > > > Han > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:30 PM > > Subject: [USMA:16261] Re: ml/d > > > > > > > Healthcare personnel are notorious for misusing SI. The standard > > abbreviation for gram, "g", is rarely used. I usually get something like > > "Gms." <OUCH!!!>. > > > > > > > > > In a message dated Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:38:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > "Adrian Jadic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Last night I attended a conference together with my wife. The subject > > was related to a certain drug (medicine) and it's effects/usage. > > > > > > > > The speaker used SI correctly throughout the entire presentation. > > However, one item caught my attention and I decided to bring it up to the > > list since we are also debating things like km/h versus m/s. > > > > > > > > He used ml/d and in another instance written as ml/day. > > > > > > > > You will (hopefully) all agree that it is a useful way to describe the > > drug's dosage as mass or volume per day. However, I don't remember the SI > > allowing the symbol "d" for day (or maybe diem). > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > -- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com > > > > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 cent a minute calls anywhere in the U.S.! > > > > > > > > > > http://www.getpennytalk.com/cgi-bin/adforward.cgi?p_key=RG9853KJ&url=http:// > > www.getpennytalk.com > > > > > > >
