Omelet > wrote:
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Didn't say it "didn't exist", just that it's rare.
>Rare, perhaps... but all it takes is one dead child.
Too vague.
One dead child means it is tragic.
One dead child does NOT mean it is other than rare, and one of the vexing
problems of healthcare in America is that rare conditions sometimes sap
away resources from areas that need much more attention, and/or
lead to confusion in diagnoses.
>Or do you feel like these people do?:
><http://www.koco.com/r/25833473/detail.html>
I think it's a bit of a logical leap from believing that some medical
conditions are rare, to wanting to see child deaths, don't you?
Steve