Dosing adviser clarification

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

And sorry to those that don't like that these behind the scenes discussions happen, but truth is it's probably helped your cat at one time or another. Think about that, because THAT is what it's all about, the cats. Would you rather not have had our help?

Yolanda, I think you've hit on a point that is the source of concern for some people; that is, absent some designation/title and the off-the-board discussions, some of the people relied upon most in the ISG's will simply stop participating. I truly hope that will not be the case and that, given the choice between some designation/title and off-the-board discussions versus continuing support for the people (and their kitties) in this community, they will choose to remain and be the positive participants we all know and appreciate them to be.

 

[Joan and Madison]

Yolanda and Patti... I agree that collaboration to come to a positive next step in treatment is a good idea. And anyone can do that. For someone to say, "I've talked to Patti, Yolanda and Janet about this and we think this is the right way to go and here's why and how we came to this conclusion... " is, in my opinion, a fair and open way to go.

As as much as the people that rely on and have relied on Team J and other in LL are freaking out that they might lose that support - even though that was not at all what was said - many more of us understand the ramifications of what one or two grief stricken individuals could do to this entire board and all the other cats and caregivers that depend on it.

Not all cats that get advise in LL live. And though that is not the fault of the people with experience that have given advice... the grief stricken caregiver doesn't know that or care. Eg. One sad wife with an angry husband who never wanted her to talk to those internet whackos anyway... and, well, he figures there's someone to blame and that the fight might make his wife feel better... and you have a recipe for disaster. Even if they don't get Rebecca's home, they may have this place shut down - even temporarily.

As one who actually concentrates her practice in civil litigation, I have to say that this is just silly.

Legal disclaimer here: I am not offering legal "advise" to anyone but merely offering my personal opinion.

Firstly, I'm rather surprise at the legal advice that is so freely being offered here. As any attorney knows, an attorney is only permitted to offer legal advice in the state(s) in which he or she is licensed. As I'm not licensed in the state in which Rebecca resides or which the LLC is organized (to the best of my knowledge), I cannot and will not offer her specific legal advice.

That being said, I can offer a few general thoughts on legal concepts. As this board is owned by a LLC, as long as that LLC follows the legal formalities required by the state in which it is licensed, the owner(s) and/or manager(s) of the LLC are generally insulated from liability. The LLC's financial exposure is generally limited to its capitalization (most often $1000). LLCs are shut down and reformed under new names all the time due to liability issues. Moreover, most, if not all, states unfortunately treat pets as mere personal property. If one were to successfully sue someone for advice given which injured his or her cat, in all likelihood, their financial recovery would be limited to the cost of replacing the cat. The thought of Rebecca or anyone else losing her house because of advice given on this board is quite unlikely.

Also, the thought that some legal liability would arise to the LLC because certain members of the board are referred to as dosing advisers is.....odd. Having practiced law for over 15 years - concentrating in civil litigation - I'm really not familiar with that concept.

If I owned a board where advice was given, I would make sure that everyone had to specifically accept the terms of use by requiring users to physically click and "I accept" or similar button which clearly specifies that the user disclaims all liability against the board, owner, moderators, webmaster, other users, etc. I would also make sure that the LLC owning the board was up to date with all legal requirements of the state(s) in which it is organized. That's my two cents.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

Joan, I sent you a PM but then thought you might now check your inbox, so I'll repeat what I said to you privately here:

I am licensed in Arizona, although I live in a different state. I am concerned about the LLC's liability here, given that in my view it would not be difficult to pearce the LCC under the totality of the circumstances as I understand them.

Fortunately, it appears this discussion is winding down and we can all move on to other things.

 

[Lydia--(Rosie & Basil) GA]

Janet, I agree completely about any possible ratings system. The place I am thinking of lets you rate each instance, not the person in general. So, if I am talking to someone in a thread and s/he gives me 5 pieces of advice, that's 5 items I can rate, but I can only rate interactions between me and that person and only once per interaction. IOW, I can't just randomly rate someone or rate them 1000 times for one interaction. Of course, I do not know how this is made to work. It may well be custom software that is making it happen.

But again, this is just one thought. As I mentioned earlier today, Rebecca could consider asking people to accept the terms of service, so to speak, before joining a group. That might help, too.

BTW, I am SO grateful for your food charts. They are my jumping off point for finding food and I have presented a lot of your info to my vet to show him how the prescription foods compare. I also added lists of ingredients. Don't want to hijack the thread, but I had to mention that.

 

[Victoria & Sundance]

Yolanda, I know what your post was about and I agree... like Janet said, we can't stop people from discussing stuff off the board. As long as the advice is not given off the board, brainstorming and collaborating is likely not too much a risk (that would be something for Jana to determine)... But, it's not just Rebecca here that is at risk when we talk about labels and ranking and such... People giving direct advice and long-term care over the internet put themselves at risk of being sued too. And I don't want to see anyone get into trouble.

It may be hard to comprehend if you've not work in the legal industry before... but people do get mad and they do sue even when they don't have a case... and even if they don't win what they set out to win, they can cause a whole heck of a problem for the people who have to defend themselves. This site has grown and reached a huge size... it's also developed and changed through the years and some of those changes may help more cats, but they put the beans on the site at risk... There is a way to help cats and not put anyone at risk.

I don't know why there is so much worry about this... When I came to the forum four years ago it was clear who had knowledge, what their limits were and what information I should consider. Since that time, we have taken almost all the responsibility AWAY from the caregiver... they can now get advice for each and every dose, they don't even have to weigh the information because we have ranked the advice givers... how are they to learn and pay forward if they don't take responsibility for what they are absorbing from the net?

So many more people in LL could help and give opinions based on what they've learned... but they don't feel they can because they are not experts, or that they have to because the experts are always there. So what happens when Jojo heals and starts to work again?


PS: I get what you are saying, Joan, and certainly didn't mean to be "silly"... But even if someone didn't lose their house... the hassles of a frivolous lawsuit are not nice either.

I just don't see why we can't be careful... I just don't see how this changes ANY of the advice or help.

 

[Joan and Madison]

Joan, I sent you a PM but then thought you might now check your inbox, so I'll repeat what I said to you privately here:

I am licensed in Arizona, although I live in a different state. I am concerned about the LLC's liability here, given that in my view it would not be difficult to pearce the LCC under the totality of the circumstances as I understand them.

Fortunately, it appears this discussion is winding down and we can all move on to other things.

And I'll respond here as well. What circumstances? As you know, piercing the corporate veil has ONLY to do with how the entity and is operated in terms of its corporate charter (i.e. does it file annual reports, have annual meetings, keep its finances completely separate from its owners, etc.).

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

Joan, I responded in detail via PM. However, for the benefit of all, Arizona has a wrinkle in its law regarding piercing the corporate veil of LLC's, one that has the potential to have impact here (and not in a good way).

 

[Patticass & Tyler (GA)]

So many more people in LL could help and give opinions based on what they've learned... but they don't feel they can because they are not experts, or that they have to because the experts are always there. So what happens when Jojo heals and starts to work again?

Who doesn't feel they can give advise because of the other opinion givers (not calling them advisors) out there? jojo has been gone for a few months for the most part due to personal reasons and there are plenty of others helping out.

 

[Victoria & Sundance]

That's great to know, Patti... it wasn't the case several months ago when I saw several posts where experienced people said, "Hang on, Team J will be here soon."

I'm happy to hear that the work is spread out... it's a lot of responsibility for only a few people.

 

[Joan and Madison]

Joan, I responded in detail via PM. However, for the benefit of all, Arizona has a wrinkle in its law regarding piercing the corporate veil of LLC's, one that has the potential to have impact here (and not in a good way).

Very strange. I've never heard of such a thing (other than the very unusual situation of piercing the corporate veil when an owner specifically authorizes or participates in an intentional tort). I wonder why Arizona even allows LLCs. If I were advising Rebecca, I think I would suggest that she reorganize in a state without such an odd law.

 

[Michele and Esse]

(God help me, I'm going to rock the boat...sigh...)

(snipped)

I don't know why there is so much worry about this... When I came to the forum four years ago it was clear who had knowledge, what their limits were and what information I should consider. Since that time, we have taken almost all the responsibility AWAY from the caregiver... they can now get advice for each and every dose, they don't even have to weigh the information because we have ranked the advice givers... how are they to learn and pay forward if they don't take responsibility for what they are absorbing from the net?

Please don't sell me, and others, short. We are learning as fast and as much as we can; we are the ones putting the needle in our cats' bodies, and we're the ones trying to get blood out of an ear that just doesn't want to bleed. We're the ones watching the poop and pee habits, and trying to figure out if a semisolid poop means something or not. It's fully our responsibility. If we didn't want to take that responsibility, not a single one of us here would be posting. We'd've put the cats down, or given them up. I take full, complete responsibility for what I put into my cat; how I put it in there, and what it can do if I don't get it right. I do. You don't. The LLC doesn't. I do. The insulin is in my fridge, the syringes in my cupboard, and the test meter and strips on my counter. So please don't see me short; and don't sell others short, either.

I don't ask for advice for every dose. I don't see anyone who does. I see people saying "oh geez, I don't know what to do with this (high)(low) number...what does the experience of this board think? Do I consider how long a person has dealt with a particular insulin to be an important piece? Absolutely. As we've all seen, vets often have no idea how to treat this disease. So learning at the knees of others who have had not just their own success but have contributed mightily to others success, in a medium which is often a difficult one to communicate accurately in, is something which is very, very valuable.

And bear in mind that to weigh information given one must have a secure base of knowledge to judge from. You can't ask a child who loves chocolate if that's a good diet; he's going to say yes. Once he's grown (experienced) a bit more, he may change his answer...because he now has a base from which to accurately assess and judge the situation.

So where does that secure base of knowledge come from? For me, it has not come from the sources I expected - not one vet understands this like I do that I've spoken with. As a student RN, it behooves me to question and assess and dig, and build my base from where I stand. But I have a headstart...this isn't blindsiding me. And did you know that at my hospital, people make more than $250K a year as - get this - a diabetic educator? The Doctors refer the patients to the DE, and the DE may indeed have no additional title other than RN. But they're the ones doing the education...and doing it well. In other words, they're narrow-field specialists, and that's all they do...educate people. And you know what? They get calls at all hours, for those folks who are new and wondering what a bs of 150 means to them, and how to deal with it.

Compare that to folks (like me) who got a dx of diabetes, handed a vial of insulin, and set out on my own merry way to figure this out. I've explained my experience with vets in a previous post, and won't recount again here. But I have to say, the enormity of my relief was incredible when I found this site...and I've been happy with each and every person's post to each and every one of my posts...be they asking for "advice" or not...

Vic, I'm sorry I'm ranting. But I want you to clearly understand that in no way, shape or form have I not accepted responsibility for my cat's illness. She is mine, and I am hers, and I am utterly, completely responsible for everything I do, feed, inject or test with that cat. If what you're concerned about is that I'll never pay it forward, or not ever become independent, rest assured...I already have. There are two folks who I taught how to test and inject Esse while I was on vacation...and I came home and Esse was just fine. I will contribute to other folks' questions as I gain more experience (expand my knowledge base), but until then, the LL Angels are indeed just that - Angels.

And to my Angels - please do not let this stop you from helping us. We need it. We want it. We come here for it. You spend a lot of time helping folks like me, and someday, having learned from you, I will pay it forward too. Until then, just know that I very, very, very much appreciate everything you have done for me...and you are indeed my Angels.

I'll shut up now. I just didn't want anyone to think that by asking for help it meant that I, or anyone, is a weak sister. All it means is that we're new. We're learning as fast as we can, but we're also new. And there's nothing wrong with being new.

Best-
Michele and Esse

 

[Lisa and Witn (GA)]

I would like to add my 2 cents worth for this discussion. First of all, I don't think that there should be a group called "dosing adviser" mainly for the legal reasons described. However, I would like to see some way that our experience level with caring for diabetic cats somehow noted so anyone can easily see it without having to look at a profile.

I originally found FDMB back in 2003 when my cat Rascal was diagnosed. Even though I was only a lurker at the time, I did receive valuable information from this site. When Witn was diagnosed in 2007, I became an active member of FDMB. I have gained a lot of experience caring for diabetic cats and have even adopted 2 of them. My knowledge was gained through both my personal experience and also the information I received off of this site. I do feel comfortable about the advice I give on this site regarding the general care of a diabetic cat and will not give advice in an area that I do not have experience in.

One thing I have noticed is that the advice we generally give in most posts are consistent and also build on previous posts. I also see the newbies post encouragement to other newbies while admitting they are not able to offer advice, but do encourage the poster to listen to the experience on this board and how it has helped them.

Yes, we do have people on this board that both personal experience in caring for diabetic cats - especially cats with multiple health issues - and that also have medical training in caring for animals. But as we all know, ECID. What may be best for my cat, may not be the best for your cat. But at the same time, there also may be something that is somewhat unique in my cat's treatment that may be helpful to someone else who has a similar situation.

I know that I have personally been able to educate my vet on different insulins and hometesting. Even though my vet and I don't always agree, we do respect each other's advice and opinions.

My concern with designating certain people as "dosing advisors" is that someone could miss out on getting the advice from multiple experienced people. All of our experiences are valuable and can often help another person.

As I said, this is just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

Joan, I responded in detail via PM. However, for the benefit of all, Arizona has a wrinkle in its law regarding piercing the corporate veil of LLC's, one that has the potential to have impact here (and not in a good way).

Very strange. I've never heard of such a thing (other than the very unusual situation of piercing the corporate veil when an owner specifically authorizes or participates in an intentional tort). I wonder why Arizona even allows LLCs. If I were advising Rebecca, I think I would suggest that she reorganize in a state without such an odd law.

It is the interesting wrinkle in Arizona...and one that not every state has. Wrinkle's aside, Arizona law is what Rebecca has to deal with and make decisions based upon that law.

ON EDIT (and with the sincere hope of wrapping this up):

Two things...

First, I notice many people acknowleding their personal responsibility for the care of their cat(s), and I think that is great. However, if I had to sit down with Rebecca a make a list of the chracteristic of folks I thought would present the highest risk for a claim, none of you - or many/most of the people on the board - would not be on it. Who would be on that list would be lurkers or those folks who only post a very few times (usually with a crisis), then are never heard from again. For reasons I suspect are obvious (and if they aren't, I won't bore you anymore with legalese), those are the people I would be most concerned about.

Second, it is true much of what Rebecca has indicated we should all do (or not do) going forward isn't going to be something that can easily be monitored or enforced. I suspect Rebecca's hope is that everyone will cooperate because she has asked us to.

 

[Victoria & Sundance]

Whoa, Michelle... read my post. I never said that you, or any other caregiver, do not take responsibility. Remember... I had a diabetic cat too. She was diet controlled quickly. She was diet controlled for 2 years. She then had multiple issues that brought back the diabetes. During that time (8 months), I did all the tests, shots, oral meds, cream meds and fluids... I did multiple vet visits a month...I came home on my lunch everyday to test. I was here to give and receive advice... and I tried my best. I didn't do it all perfectly. And since Sundance died, I have read more, followed threads in all the ISGs and read more literature than ever before and directed countless people to the LL. I don't think that doing things even slightly differently would have changed the outcome with Sundance because she had cancer, but I know that I now understand the disease and the treatments and the different insulins a lot better... NEVER would I say that any of us that are going through this do not take responsibility. We do, and you are right, that's why we are here.

My posts are not about any one person, about any group of people or about the advice given... they are about the board, the way we help and encourage others. Please don't rant at me.... I haven't made any of this personal and I hope no one else does either.

 

[karen and splash (ga)]

It is the interesting wrinkle in Arizona...and one that not every state has. Wrinkle's aside, Arizona law is what Rebecca has to deal with and make decisions based upon that law.

Do you even know for sure what state the LLC was organized in? Until not too long ago Rebecca lived in Colorado if I am not mistaken. Just because she moved, doesn't automatically mean the LLC changed states as well.

 

[Joan and Madison]

Jana, I cannot find that provision in the Arizona statute. (I can't help myself; I'm curious.) Would you be kind enough to PM the cite to me? Thanks.

 

[LynnLee + Mousie]

so just to sum this up in my brain since i've been out stuffing myself with wonderful cuban food this afternoon and then actually doing some useful stuff around my house, i can still ask for dosing advice as long as i don't say "dose advisor" in my request for it???

 

[Lisa and Witn (GA)]

(God help me, I'm going to rock the boat...sigh...)

(snipped)
I just didn't want anyone to think that by asking for help it meant that I, or anyone, is a weak sister. All it means is that we're new. We're learning as fast as we can, but we're also new. And there's nothing wrong with being new.

No one thinks that. Even those of us that have been caring for diabetic cats for years have questions. I know that I have. And no matter how long you have been on this board, there is always the opportunity to learn something new. Please never feel like you can not ask a question - even if you think that it is something so simple or dumb. Most likely there is someone else who is wondering the same thing and is also afraid to ask.

 

[Miriam and Putty (GA)]

One last point. Each of the insulin groups has always had 1-2, sometimes more, dedicated volunteers available to hold the hands of newbies. Those volunteers come and go depending on their real lives and how burned out they got. What I see as different today is that some people are staying in the study groups for years. Those long-termers shouldn't really continue to need daily advice, but it's gotten comfortable for them to be part of the community (see Anne's post). But they also contribute to the volume of traffic on the Lantus board, and thus the need to have designated "advisors." The title of "advisor" was created, as far as I understand it, to help manage traffic. Removing that title does nothing to solve the traffic volume problem.

Wow....I am quite surprised to see something like this. I for one am so grateful that those "long-termers" stayed in the community. Without their long term knowledge I would have never learned as much as I did when I was a newbie. As far as those long-termers continuing to need daily advice, I do not see how this is a problem. FD as we all know is a very unpredictable disease which can change on any given day. It is the continued posting from those "long-termers that have probably helped me the most.

I don't believe the reason that the Lantus board needs designated advisors because of the traffic of the old timers but rather the influx of newly diagnosed cats that have been prescribed Lantus. As I said in my previous post......legally I worry about the misinformation that I have seen been given to newbies and continues to be given without the newbie having any knowledge of how experienced the person giving that information is. That is where I would worry about a lawsuit. As far as the advisors in the Lantus forum, I think they have always publicly stated they are not vets or vet techs and do not give any medical opinions. Their dosing expertise comes from being one of those "old timers" that have stuck around to help the rest of us.

I have seen old timers refrain from posting so that they do not get in the way of the newbies only to be told that they are part of the Lantus community and have the right to post just as anyone else does, which I couldn't agree more with.

I do not mean to show any disrespect for Rebecca by posting in this thread. I am very grateful for what she has done and continues to do to make this board what it is today.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

so just to sum this up in my brain since i've been out stuffing myself with wonderful cuban food this afternoon and then actually doing some useful stuff around my house, i can still ask for dosing advice as long as i don't say "dose advisor" in my request for it???

Cindy, it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference.

BTW, did you have to mention Cuban food??!!?? I'm starving as it is! :lol:

 

[Terri and Lucy]

I for one am so grateful that those "long-termers" stayed in the community. Without their long term knowledge I would have never learned as much as I did when I was a newbie. As far as those long-termers continuing to need daily advice, I do not see how this is a problem. FD as we all know is a very unpredictable disease which can change on any given day. It is the continued posting from those "long-termers that have probably helped me the most.

I don't believe the reason that the Lantus board needs designated advisors because of the traffic of the old timers but rather the influx of newly diagnosed cats that have been prescribed Lantus.

I didn't say the long-termers shouldn't stay in the community. FDMB is built on the pay it forward concept so of course we want experienced people to stay around. My point was that many of the daily threads on Lantus come from individuals who don't want or need help; they aren't there learning, but they are there socializing. That was not the intent of the ISGs. Please don't take that to mean that I don't think they should post of Lantus. They could offer encourage and support without having to start a new thread daily. That would be more in the spirit with which the ISGs were formed (IMHO). And it would reduce the volume of traffic on Lantus.

 

[Karen & Pearl]

If I owned a board where advice was given, I would make sure that everyone had to specifically accept the terms of use by requiring users to physically click and "I accept" or similar button which clearly specifies that the user disclaims all liability against the board, owner, moderators, webmaster, other users, etc. I would also make sure that the LLC owning the board was up to date with all legal requirements of the state(s) in which it is organized. That's my two cents.

This is IMO the best suggestion yet. I had to sign a waiver absolving my riding instructor of all legalities in the case of injury riding. How would this be any different? This sounds like a good idea. No, it wouldn't cover a lurker who did not register taking advice in health, but then, that would be like any internet advice and non-specific to the person.

 

[Karen & Pearl]

so just to sum this up in my brain since i've been out stuffing myself with wonderful cuban food this afternoon and then actually doing some useful stuff around my house, i can still ask for dosing advice as long as i don't say "dose advisor" in my request for it???

This is what I believe is the real crux of the matter. If people would just carry on I think everything would be fine.

 

[Victoria & Sundance]

When someone is signing in to find help for their dying cat, clicking "I Accept" is a no-brainer... as is not reading the conditions which were just accepted in order to get to the info faster. They want info and they want it now.

I'm not saying that should not be done. It's probably another good safety net.

Are all these suggestions being made so that we can use the term "advisor"? That just opens up a huge can of worms about who is the advisor, who chooses the advisor and such... Individual support for a post or poster in a thread is much more effective overall.

 

[Patticass & Tyler (GA)]

"it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference."

It is easy to ban a term like dose advisor how do you propose to stop the off-the-board discussions that have been part of the process since this beginning? How would that even be monitored?

 

[Karen & Pearl]

When someone is signing in to find help for their dying cat, clicking "I Accept" is a no-brainer... as is not reading the conditions which were just accepted in order to get to the info faster. They want info and they want it now.

I'm not saying that should not be done. It's probably another good safety net.

Are all these suggestions being made so that we can use the term "advisor"? That just opens up a huge can of worms about who is the advisor, who chooses the advisor and such... Individual support for a post or poster in a thread is much more effective overall.

I was thinking the suggestion was made as just another safeguard for Rebecca. Yes, it's a no brainer. I do it all the time though for things that I *want* info on. Including the waiver on riding. I *wanted* riding lessons. End of story.

*sigh* I guess everything just has to be difficult.

 

[Karen & Pearl]

"it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference."

It is easy to ban a term like dose advisor how do you propose to stop the off-the-board discussions that have been part of the process since this beginning? How would that even be monitored?

I'm guessing the *point* is it can't be *but* if the idea of the "formal advising" is formally rejected, not mentioned or followed, things would be ok. Man, this is the point. Someone officially brought this up. It had to be addressed for legalities sake. It's not like people will suddenly be tracked in all points of their life. It's just common sense.

 

[LynnLee + Mousie]

(because i can't seem to get two quotes to work in the same post) from Jana: "Cindy, it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference."

so are you saying prohibition of people giving dose advice or the use of the words "dose advisors"? if you mean prohibition of people giving dose advice, then i think a lot of people will not stay here. taking away dose advising eliminates the need for 99% of the board.

and like someone else said, who can really prohibit off the board discussions?? if anything, this latest brouhaha has or will increase the amount of off the board discussions.

I didn't say the long-termers shouldn't stay in the community. FDMB is built on the pay it forward concept so of course we want experienced people to stay around. My point was that many of the daily threads on Lantus come from individuals who don't want or need help; they aren't there learning, but they are there socializing. That was not the intent of the ISGs. Please don't take that to mean that I don't think they should post of Lantus. They could offer encourage and support without having to start a new thread daily. That would be more in the spirit with which the ISGs were formed (IMHO). And it would reduce the volume of traffic on Lantus.

and why may i ask is it a concern how much traffic there is in lantus?? you don't use lantus nor do you post there, heck for that matter, the people with the biggest itch here about "dose advisors" aren't part of that isg at all, so this is completely irrelevant if you ask me.

and since most of the people complaining here are against the words "dose advisors", and the issue is apparently not actually about giving dose advice, i hereby announce i might want dose advice sometimes from the people I will now refer to as the Holy Ones!

 

[Susie and Moochie]

 

[Janet & Binky (GA)]

i hereby announce i might want dose advice sometimes from the people I will now refer to as the Holy Ones!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I guess the FDMB Wise Ones have just been seriously outranked!

 

[LynnLee + Mousie]

well now, we each can decide on what we each want to call the people we trust and respect with our cats lives i suppose. figure that's how the words "dose advisor" came along to begin with right, Oh Holy Food & Statistician One ;-)

and yes, when it comes to nutrition, there are two people who come to my mind as the advisors in that field, Janet & Dr. Lisa.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

"it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference."

It is easy to ban a term like dose advisor how do you propose to stop the off-the-board discussions that have been part of the process since this beginning? How would that even be monitored?

I said the following in a previous post:

...it is true much of what Rebecca has indicated we should all do (or not do) going forward isn't going to be something that can easily be monitored or enforced. I suspect Rebecca's hope is that everyone will cooperate because she has asked us to.

I suppose there may be a few people for whom Rebecca's request for cooperation just will not be enough. How Rebecca handles that will be up to her.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

(because i can't seem to get two quotes to work in the same post) from Jana: "Cindy, it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference."

so are you saying prohibition of people giving dose advice or the use of the words "dose advisors"? if you mean prohibition of people giving dose advice, then i think a lot of people will not stay here. taking away dose advising eliminates the need for 99% of the board.

and like someone else said, who can really prohibit off the board discussions?? if anything, this latest brouhaha has or will increase the amount of off the board discussions.

I didn't say the long-termers shouldn't stay in the community. FDMB is built on the pay it forward concept so of course we want experienced people to stay around. My point was that many of the daily threads on Lantus come from individuals who don't want or need help; they aren't there learning, but they are there socializing. That was not the intent of the ISGs. Please don't take that to mean that I don't think they should post of Lantus. They could offer encourage and support without having to start a new thread daily. That would be more in the spirit with which the ISGs were formed (IMHO). And it would reduce the volume of traffic on Lantus.

and why may i ask is it a concern how much traffic there is in lantus?? you don't use lantus nor do you post there, heck for that matter, the people with the biggest itch here about "dose advisors" aren't part of that isg at all, so this is completely irrelevant if you ask me.

and since most of the people complaining here are against the words "dose advisors", and the issue is apparently not actually about giving dose advice, i hereby announce i might want dose advice sometimes from the people I will now refer to as the Holy Ones!

Cindy, I don't mean to get snarly with you or anyone else (although I am tired and still starving!), but on behalf of myself, I've said that my interpretation of Rebecca's post was she did not want the term "dose advisor" being used at the same was currently being defined. It is my understanding that was the correct interpretation. Between that, what Rebecca posted, and the discussion that has been ongoing, I don't know what else there is to say that hasn't been said over the last two days...truly, I don't.

I believe my response to Patti above addresses your question about off-the-board discussions.

To be honest, I don't remember exactly who it was the brought up the issue of traffic in LL, but I believe it was one of the reasons given for off-the-board discussion regarding dosing (i.e., to avoid clogging up the forum with multiple posts that could be confusing to some).

 

[Carolyn and Spot]

"it is business as usual with the exception of the prohibition against "dose advisors" and the off-the-board discussions. Neither you (or anyone else) should see any difference."

It is easy to ban a term like dose advisor how do you propose to stop the off-the-board discussions that have been part of the process since this beginning? How would that even be monitored?

I said the following in a previous post:

...it is true much of what Rebecca has indicated we should all do (or not do) going forward isn't going to be something that can easily be monitored or enforced. I suspect Rebecca's hope is that everyone will cooperate because she has asked us to.

I suppose there may be a few people for whom Rebecca's request for cooperation just will not be enough. How Rebecca handles that will be up to her.

Jana, maybe you should read Rebecca's post. Here it is:

There are certainly no official dosing advisers and there CANNOT be. There should not even be UNOFFICIAL dosing advisers and I was totally unaware until now that there were such people or teams. If someone is a veterinarian and wants to take on the professional liability, they can go for it. This is dangerous, this is illegal (practicing veterinary medicine without a license), and it should not be going on. I will speak to the forum moderators about this. Such practices put FelineDiabetes.com, the FDMB, and the whole LLC I operate this shebang under in perilous legal territory by doing this. We do not give medical advice. We can relay stories, we can express opinions, we can point out evidence, we can cite literature. :arrow: WE PERSONALLY GIVE NO ADVICE ON TREATMENT. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR VETERINARIAN. :!:

Of course, we all have people we trust more than others, but that is it. If there is any reference to "dosing adviser" or even saying in a public post that someone's advice should be more trusted than another person's advice, it should be reported to me.

Others have already said it much better than I can: this is an OPEN, PEER review board. If you want to discuss things privately, that is of course your business. But I agree with what someone else said. If you disagree with a post on dosing, you should post & disagree, but there are to be no personal references, and you should support your reason for disagreement with sound evidence, not anecdotes and not dislikes of other people.

If we want to be respected in the world of feline diabetes treatment, we must be professional and we must recommend evidence-based decisions. I know the literature is ever changing (thank goodness!) and it can be hard to keep up - or agree with it. But anecdotal evidence and personal bias are NEVER professional.

Be respectful, be kind, and no dissing of other people's advice or personality or any personal references, even names. I am proud of this board and the people who use it and I want to continue that. Please.

_Rebecca Price
Owner, FelineDiabetes.com, its subsidiary FDMB, and Feline Diabetes USA LLC
owner@felinediabetes.com

You are continually stating that there be no off-board discussions and I believe you may be confusing "discussions" and "advising". There should never be off-board advice, and that has been a statement of FDMB since maybe its inception. Rebecca has stated that these things may be discussed privately, however they must be posted publicly. I think you also seem to not have any idea that this is exactly what has been going on in Lantus, and every other insulin support group. Still not clear on why Lantus ISG is such a target and the others are being ignored. Discussions have always casually happened, where (say for instance) I send a PM to Experienced User A and say "Hey did you notice that Betty's cat Fluffy is having a weird response?" or "Can you take a peek at Betty's cat Fluffy's spreadsheet and see if you notice anything odd?" Then a post goes up to Betty from me saying "hey I talked about this with Experienced User A and we both are wondering if there's something going on with Fluffy's reaction to her insulin, and we are concerned that you should start getting a +2..." I do not see where this is a liability problem, and I do not see why you are telling people that they can no longer do this when the owner of the board is not saying it.

Rebecca: If I have confused something, please tell me.

 

[Cindy and Tritone]

One more perspective:

As one of the very early (and long-term!) users of Levemir (before it was even available here in the US), I tried to stick around and help out new people in Levland, which wasn't getting a whole lot of traffic. At one point someone suggested to a user that they post in the Lantus group instead, because there they would find "people who really knew" (meaning Team J) how to give advice. I was generously invited to stick around by that same person because I have a sense of humor.

That pretty much burst my bubble, as far as hoping to pay it forward. Anyone who read those posts would consider me an incompetent, or at least less competent source of experience. Maybe it was me being paranoid but I felt I lost credibility. I'm not saying I don't have the utmost respect and admiration for those advice givers in LL, I do. And I never did use lantus, so really it had no bearing on my day to day dealings on the board. But indirectly it affected me, and potentially anyone I could help because someone else decided I am not a Wise One.

I don't have the answers to this issue - what about a short standard disclaimer that advice givers could include in their signature - that they are not licensed vets, they are giving advice based on their own experience with their cats, etc.

When I did help, I would usually post such a disclaimer anyway. Especially when talking about my experience with Tritone, who as some of you may remember, was an extremely difficult case.

 

[LynnLee + Mousie]

Cindy, I don't mean to get snarly with you or anyone else (although I am tired and still starving!), but on behalf of myself, I've said that my interpretation of Rebecca's post was she did not want the term "dose advisor" being used at the same was currently being defined. It is my understanding that was the correct interpretation. Between that, what Rebecca posted, and the discussion that has been ongoing, I don't know what else there is to say that hasn't been said over the last two days...truly, I don't.

I believe my response to Patti above addresses your question about off-the-board discussions.

To be honest, I don't remember exactly who it was the brought up the issue of traffic in LL, but I believe it was one of the reasons given for off-the-board discussion regarding dosing (i.e., to avoid clogging up the forum with multiple posts that could be confusing to some).

yes, exactly. i think this thing has been beaten to a dead horse. after all this carpal tunnel forming typing, i think we know that the words "dose advisor" are not going to be used anymore and everything else will go on as it has for several several years.

and if that is how the traffic issue came up, then yes, i'll give you that one except i do want to point out that could you imagine jill and jojo or jill, jojo, and libby or any other group of 2+ people trying to have a conversation via the keyboard about this cat responded this way and their bean is iffy on this part and i think this and i think that, and on this day he did this, etc......my god, yes, not only would it take up tons of space on the board but it would also take so damn long that beans could get impatient waiting and hurt their cat because they had to get to work and couldn't wait any longer. give me off board as fast as humans can move their mouth discussion anyday.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

Carolyn, I'll begin my response with the "easy" part...As I said above, I don't remember who brought up LL specifically, but it was cited as an example of why off-the-board dosing discussions began and it was in an effort to not clog up the forum with multiple posts that some may find confusing. I seriously doubt Rebecca intended her decision regarding "dosing advisors" to be limited only to LL, and I know my posts were not intended to relate only to LL. To the extent anything I've posted appeared to be directed at any one forum, I apologize.

On to the more thorny issues...

I do understand the difference between "discussions" and "advice." Given the feedback I've received, it certainly sounds like dosing advice was being given off the board. Let me be clear...I am not saying you (or anyone else in particular) engaged in off-the-board dosing advise. I am saying that it has become clear it was happening. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that off-the-board dosing advice is a good idea; in fact, I think the fact it is not a good idea is something we can all agree on.

As for "discussions" being conducted off-the-board (and particularly in light of the reason given for the necessity of those discussions), I can only repeat for you what I've posted publically and said privately to Rebecca: Anytime you have a the formation of a cooperative, group, etc., that either immediately or over time becomes known by certain chracteristics, names, members, functions, etc., you are heading down the same road that "dosing advisor" went down...and that is not a good thing. How any one individual interprets the fact that Rebecca appended my opinion on this topic to her original post is up to each individual, I suppose. The question I would ask is this: Is there some particular reason(s) those dosing discussions can't be held on the board? I'm not trying to be snarky...there may be some issue surrounding that practice that I haven't heard about and should be discussed.

 

[Victoria & Sundance]

Carolyn, your example of off-forum discussion or collaboration is exactly what I understand to be ok. It cannot be monitored and there is no need or reason for it to be stopped - or forced underground. People are going to do it. I get PMs often from other members bringing a thread to my attention when someone posts who has a fractious cat and thinks they cannot home test. I thank the person sending the PM and often I then PM a few other people who have fractious cats so we can all share our experiences. Now, I know that is not collaboration on advice, but it's discussing someone's cat off-forum.

Jana, I think there may be reason sometimes to have a discussion off the forum... and ok if the process by which the given advice was determined is disclosed in the subsequent post to the OP. I see what you mean by it being a cooperative or group... but if that "group" is dynamic and it's not a set list of advisors, just a random group of people getting together to ensure their thoughts are sound, I can't see the harm or risk there.

I think Lantus ISG was used as an example only... and due to the heavy traffic there, it seems to affect and, therefore, upset more people in that group who have posted their concerns. Certainly ALL the people who have dedicated themselves to the board and to helping people in those groups, and in the general Health section, on a regular basis should be thanked and protected. People mention Team J all the time with good reason, but Sheila and Kimmee have been a great help to those in the Vetsulin group... as Patti and Carolynn have in High Dose and others have in other ISGs.

Cindy, your perspective is not an anomaly. I won't say it runs rampant, but there are a lot of really good people out there with great experience that get turned off when they are trumped because some other person with experience has more exposure and seems to have a PR team. And that is not at all the fault of the experienced people giving the advice, by the way. It just happens through enthusiasm. But if labeling were permitted, it would happen more often.

 

[Susie and Moochie]

So, this thread is now up to nine pages. Anybody changed their minds yet? Has anything been accomplished besides people picking a side and some talking it to death?

I do apologize for being just a tad facetious but pictures of horses keep running through my head - horses and/or spinning wheels.

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

Jana, I think there may be reason sometimes to have a discussion off the forum... and ok if the process by which the given advice was determined is disclosed in the subsequent post to the OP. I see what you mean by it being a cooperative or group... but if that "group" is dynamic and it's not a set list of advisors, just a random group of people getting together to ensure their thoughts are sound, I can't see the harm or risk there.

Under the conditions you suggest, I think the difficult issues are lessened; however, from what I understand, it was the informal off-the-board give-and-take that ultimately spawned "dosing advisors" as the group of people participating became less dynamic and more set.

 

[Ronnie & Luna]

Somewhere along the way, it was forgotten that this is the community forum, a place to have fun. I'm not really sure why this is still going on either.

COMMUNITY (non-cat health topics)
Social butterflies flock here! DO NOT POST CAT HEALTH TOPICS HERE - go to the Diabetes Health Forum.

Have fun!

 

[Carolyn and Spot]

Carolyn, I'll begin my response with the "easy" part...As I said above, I don't remember who brought up LL specifically, but it was cited as an example of why off-the-board dosing discussions began and it was in an effort to not clog up the forum with multiple posts that some may find confusing. I seriously doubt Rebecca intended her decision regarding "dosing advisors" to be limited only to LL, and I know my posts were not intended to relate only to LL. To the extent anything I've posted appeared to be directed at any one forum, I apologize.

On to the more thorny issues...

I do understand the difference between "discussions" and "advice." Given the feedback I've received, it certainly sounds like dosing advice was being given off the board. Let me be clear...I am not saying you (or anyone else in particular) engaged in off-the-board dosing advise. I am saying that it has become clear it was happening. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that off-the-board dosing advice is a good idea; in fact, I think the fact it is not a good idea is something we can all agree on.

Sounded like?? Show me. No one would ever say it because it is not, nor was it, happening with ANY such teams, on ANY ISGs.

And if you say it's a good idea and we can all agree on it now, why have you been stating that we can't do it throughout this thread? There is no need for this level of confusion and wolf-crying to be put out there. To date, you are the only person who has stated that off-board advice is happening, so I must ask you why on earth you would make a legal argument out of a fictional idea?

As for "discussions" being conducted off-the-board (and particularly in light of the reason given for the necessity of those discussions), I can only repeat for you what I've posted publically and said privately to Rebecca: Anytime you have a the formation of a cooperative, group, etc., that either immediately or over time becomes known by certain chracteristics, names, members, functions, etc., you are heading down the same road that "dosing advisor" went down...and that is not a good thing. How any one individual interprets the fact that Rebecca appended my opinion on this topic to her original post is up to each individual, I suppose. The question I would ask is this: Is there some particular reason(s) those dosing discussions can't be held on the board? I'm not trying to be snarky...there may be some issue surrounding that practice that I haven't heard about and should be discussed.

Well then I guess Rebecca and this board have been "down that same road" since 1996. It has been stated over and over again that these discussions happen offboard to slow down the onboard traffic. I don't know if you were paying any attention but FDMB has been crashing and unstable since the time of the new ISG setup when each ISG got their own specific subforum, rather than just a thread under one subforum. In fact, I don't believe you were a member at that time. Other reasons include inadvertently scaring a newly diagnosed member by stating an observation that this person may not be ready to hear (such as questioning if a cat might needed to be tested for a specific disease) and finally to ease confusion in a person's thread. It's rather obvious (I would think to most people) that if I have a thread and I say "my cat is 900 what should I do?????" and 25 people get on my thread and ask or say 25 different things, I might become overwhelmed by this and not come back. Or I might miss something important that's been posted to me, or I might get confused and misread something that's been posted to me. Making a mountain out of a molehill is making trouble where there is none.

 

[Terri and Lucy]

At one point someone suggested to a user that they post in the Lantus group instead, because there they would find "people who really knew" (meaning Team J) how to give advice. I was generously invited to stick around by that same person because I have a sense of humor....That pretty much burst my bubble, as far as hoping to pay it forward. Anyone who read those posts would consider me an incompetent, or at least less competent source of experience. Maybe it was me being paranoid but I felt I lost credibility.

Oh Cindy---you know from my perspective (and I know I don't speak for myself alone), your advise is pure GOLD. You are the only one of the original Lev users who cared enough to stick around. You bring not just knowledge of the "ideal" protocol, but an understanding of how to use the insulin for toughies like Tritone and Lucy.

As for the off-board discussions, let's bring some reason to the discussion please. If people want to email back and forth about how a certain cat should be treated, it's their business. Rebecca is not responsible for what people do off the board. It's what happens when they post back on FDMB that presents the challenge. I pay $75 a pop for my oncologists to have a "non-face-to-face" conference about my case. From that conference, I get nothing except the bill and the knowledge that they remember my name. It really isn't acceptable, but I don't have a choice.

If it was my vet trying it though, I would be screaming bloody murder. Discussions about my case or Lucy's case need to be laid out for me. I want to know what the various "experts" think, if they don't agree, if they are ambiguous, etc. No one on FDMB should accept anything less than full knowledge of whatever is being discussed. If the off-list discussions return that kind of information, I can't imagine why anyone would object. It leaves the bean the information they need to follow the advice or pursue other avenues. But if those off-list discussions do not return that kind of detail, we should all be objecting--it's no different from all the PM dosing advice many of us have railed against for years.

 

[Patticass & Tyler (GA)]

quoting again this way since I can't seem to master it via the button named quote:
"Under the conditions you suggest, I think the difficult issues are lessened; however, from what I understand, it was the informal off-the-board give-and-take that ultimately spawned "dosing advisors" as the group of people participating became less dynamic and more set."

Where did you get that idea? I have been on this board just short of 4 years and that is not what I saw happen. As many have stated previously in this thread, off board discussion of what advice to give publicly has gone on since the beginning. The "dosing advisors" had not really been a formalish idea until much more recently. And I AM referring to LL because that is where there was more of an established presence of regular advisors. But from what I see, others also share their experiences there.

 

[Sweetgrass & the Furries]

Perhaps it is time to send this thread to think tank for ongoing discussion?

 

[Janet & Binky (GA)]

One more perspective:

As one of the very early (and long-term!) users of Levemir (before it was even available here in the US), I tried to stick around and help out new people in Levland, which wasn't getting a whole lot of traffic. At one point someone suggested to a user that they post in the Lantus group instead, because there they would find "people who really knew" (meaning Team J) how to give advice. I was generously invited to stick around by that same person because I have a sense of humor.

Sobering up . . . I've had that happen, too, and it's beyond annoying. Depending on the circumstances, I've complained offline or confronted the person directly, with varying degrees of niceness depending on my mood (the general message being "What am I, chopped liver?"). Eventually, I publicly called someone out and started a mini-flame war, in part because my more tactful messages of "Hey, there are other people here giving good advice" went completely ignored.

It's a hazard for any large board like this, where so many people don't know a lot of the other participants. The fix, unfortunately*, is for people to be socially aware. You, and even more, people who value your advice, should promptly advise the person that you aren't chopped liver (hopefully being nicer about it than I was when it happened one time too many). And ideally, said experts will also speak up. Additionally, those who are hailed as experts -- or holy ones, gurus, or members of the Unnamed Cabal -- need to be willing to open their ranks when talent appears in a newcomer, and to foster that talent as much as possible.

(*I say unfortunately, because depending on social awareness isn't a recipe for success in my experience.)

 

[Ronnie & Luna]

Like I said......Somewhere along the way, it was forgotten that this is the community forum, a place to have fun. I'm not really sure why this is still going on either.

COMMUNITY (non-cat health topics)
Social butterflies flock here! DO NOT POST CAT HEALTH TOPICS HERE - go to the Diabetes Health Forum.

Have fun

 

[LynnLee + Mousie]

If the off-list discussions return that kind of information, I can't imagine why anyone would object. It leaves the bean the information they need to follow the advice or pursue other avenues. But if those off-list discussions do not return that kind of detail, we should all be objecting--it's no different from all the PM dosing advice many of us have railed against for years.

from what i've seen they do. i don't recall seeing "do this!" with no explanation as to why. come on people, we're talking about some of the smartest people we could ever come across in our lives here. these people know insulin and diabetes better than most of us know our own homes or bodies.

those of you offended by them being referred to as dosing advisors or experts (yes, some of you *****ed about that term being used too in the past) can be happy that they won't be called that anymore. end of conversation it sounds like to me

 

[Jana+BK+Chester(GA)+Wilbur]

Carolyn, I'm going to keep my reply as short as possible and ignore the personal attack.

Yes, it is clear to me that dosing advise was being given off-the-board and that is not an assumption, it is based on information sent to me from other members. I understand you don't like hearing that - I didn't like hearing that - and if nothing else comes of this discussion, hopefully it won't ever happen again. I also made a point of saying I wasn't accusing you or anyone else in particular, and I won't do that now. If the individuals who received off-the-board dosing advice want to discuss it with you further, I'm sure they will contact you.

What I said was a good idea and something we could all agree on was the fact that off-the-board dosing advise should not happen, and that position is entirely consistent with every post I've made in this thread and the one yesterday.

Beyond that, I've made my views regarding off-the-board dosing discussions - as distinguishable from off-the-board dosing advise mentioned above - and the reasoning behind my opinion clear to all. I understand you don't agree with my position; however, to chracterize Rebecca's concerns about liability as "making a mountain out of a molehill" strikes me as unfair to Rebecca. Please remember, it wasn't until another member innocently mentioned "dose advisors" yesterday that Rebecca even became aware of this entire situation (and me too, for that matter). I'm now at the same place I find myself in the discussion of "dosing advisors"...given what Rebecca has posted, what I have posted, and the two-day discussion that has ensued, I can't come up with any better/different/unique way to explain myself. If I could, I would, but I just can't.

 

[Janet & Binky (GA)]

On that note, let's close the thread and feel free to resume the discussion in Think Tank.