 |
 |
I've included parts of Jim's original message with this so you will know what I'm referring to. I've been gone for 5 days, and had over 200 messages, so I don't think there is any reason to be concerned with too many people dropping out re: the web. I have known for at least 6 yrs there was something wrong with my body. I break and train horses and balance is critical. I agree with Jim - I had over 16 MRIs, and have seen 9 neurologist, 4 neurosurgeons, and I don't know how many blood tests and other specialists. Both drs who finally confirmed pd did so without knowledge of previous tests. No one should have to go bankrupt and suffer for that long simply because they are "too young to have pd". Sorry to gripe, its late & I'm tired but this really struck a nerve Bob [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Jim Slattery <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Misdiagnosis >Hi Jennifer, > >>what is the problem with >>the medical community that they seem to completely overlook PD as a >>possibility, especially in younger patients? > >In our research (report to be launched 9th February 1999) we identified a >great ignorance of PD, its symptoms, and its effects, among all health >professionals, whether specialist neurologists, general practitioners, >pharmacists, dentists, nurses, physiotherapists, etc., etc. > >Perhaps the main reason for this may be identified from a study commissioned >by the Australian Government from the Australian Science and Technology >Council. > >The report, entitled "Management of neuro-degenerative disorders in older >people 2010", says in part, "The study found that there is grossly >inadequate education and training in the areas of gerontology and aging in >university medical schools. This has resulted in medical practitioners >having poor skills for the management of NDDs (neuro-degenerative disorders) >in older people". > >So true, but notice that even the writers of this report fell into the trap >of identifying NDDs, which include Parkinson's Disease, as being only >disorders of OLDER people! I might point out here that the term "older >people" in medical research-speak usually means those aged 70 and over! >(Perhaps because many researchers are themselves aged 60-70? <grin> ) > >The eventual diagnosis of my own condition was complicated by the fact that >I had had a bad motor accident shortly before I began noticing symptoms of >PD. >I was pursuing an insurance claim, which, before it was settled, resulted in >me being referred by one side or the other in the claim to TWENTY-SEVEN >different doctors, NONE of whom suspected, or even hinted at PD. > >Most seemed to favour a psychological or psychiatric disorder. As for that, >a paper by Lang AE et al, (Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of >Toronto, Ontario, Arch. Neurol. 1995 Aug;52(8):802-10, states that >Parkinson-like symptomology resulting from a primary psychiatric disorder is >a very rare event, if seen at all. Much more common is psychiatric disorder >symptomology masking underlying PD. > >I was 44 at the time, and I think that this is a large part of the problem - >most health professionals taught before, say, 1990 (and many -most?- since), >were taught, in the wording of a popular medical text, that Parkinson's is " >a disease of the sixth decade", in other words, of people 60 and over. > >Yet there is much recent evidence, scientifically researched and published >in major journals such as the "New England Journal of Medicine", stating >that onset before the age of 30 is decidedly rare, but thereafter, both >incidence and prevalence of PD rise with increasing age. > >Within any given studied population, as many as 10% of patients admit to an >onset before the age of 40, and a further 20% develop symptoms of the >disease before the age of 50. The mean age of onset is still in the mid-50s, >with approximately 40% developing the disease between the ages of 50 and 60, >whilst the remaining 30% experience onset over the age of 60. > >In other words, the popular view is the opposite of the truth! > >It will not be until doctors and para-medical health professionals are >educated to the fact that PD is common under 50, that this situation will >change. > >Part of our ongoing commitment to our project will see kits produced for a >number of health specialities, explaining the complexities of PD treatment >and management, and pointing out that young-onset PD is an increasing >incidence. > >Jim > >+---------------------+ >| Jim Slattery | >| [log in to unmask] | >|---------------------| >| Webmaster | >| Central West PD Web | >| [log in to unmask] | >+---------------------+ >