|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
remove the reference for the Magna Fortis Stethoscope
Please remove the reference for the Magna Fortis Stethoscope at the bottom of your page. This is a scam. Allnurses.com had a review of the business fraud issues (google stethoscopes.com fraud and you will see). Or go to BBB web site and look up the 31 complaints unresolved over the past year. Philo Calhoun MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- NOT TRUE! I provided ALL transaction records, and WA State AG found NO evidence of any fraud. Unfortunately, I was unable to function to provide customer service during my cancer treatment, arrangements to cover for me were inadequate. I returned to Seattle,WA incapacitated from chemotherapy and proton radiation in Houston, TX, with dyspnea, pain, and constant internal bleeding, and pain from soft tissue necrosis, collateral to radiation procititis, and other etiologies. I lost $2-million business, home, and marriage, and my reputation was damaged. I am terribly sorry for any complaints. 23 (of 31 complaints in total 15 years) were during an unexpectedly prolonged absence for a life-threatening illness, life-changing circumstances, three small children; and ongoing medical recovery processes, and treatments I could not have anticipated. To my knowledge, all complaints were resolved by replacement, refund, or bank card charge back. I survived a broken neck, cancer, slander, and spurious (false) legal charges. If any one still has any unresolved claim, or grievance please let me know: I responsible, and anxious to resolve any outstanding issues. Sincerely, Marc Werblud: firstname.lastname@example.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stethoscope Test (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the letter posted by David Ruben since it was something I had typed into his talk page, not realizing that it would be posted publicly. When I realized that it was public, I deleted it, and then David posted it here. This was the error of a neophyte, and I removed it for privacy reasons. I then posted a note to David on his own talk page to explain the deletion, and he has respected my request thus far to leave it unpublished. I provide below, the note to David that you will find on his Talk page, for your reference.
I thus respectfully request that you do not revert this article. It serves no particular purpose currently. At such time that I have carefully educated myself on the rules of this community, I may choose to post something for discussion, should I feel that I have a meritorious argument that does not violate the spirit of Wikipedia, and that certain external links are of use to readers and do not detract from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.
Until then, if you would respect the privacy of this author and not revert a previously deleted entry, your undestanding would be much appreciated.
Below, the posting on David's Talk page, for your reference:
Thanks for the education on Wikipedia policy. I am working through the referenced documents to gain a better understanding. Wikipedia is a treasure of cumulative human knowledge. Far be it from me to detract from that. What I am grappling with is how to avoid commercialism, but still provide a societal benefit by listing certain links. The last thing we'd want is the commercialization and debasement of Wikipedia. However, sometimes commercial links empower readers to efficiently act on knowledge learned, and given the layout of any given page, it would seem possible to do without detracting from the encyclopedic goals of the entries. But I will study the rules of the game before further participation in it.
(I have removed specific references in this and a Talk posting for privacy reasons. Hope you don't mind. As a neophyte, I was not looking to publicly post certain information, and did so in error. I would be interested in chatting with you, if you would be kind enough to email your contact information to me.)
Once again, please forgive me if any entries or edits are in violation of a Wikipedia policy.
- I concur - if a new user posts something that they wish to have removed and, as in this case, are seeking now to further acquaint themselves with wikipolicies before further participation, then reasonable for their revert to remain. I hope this user, who clearly has detailled knowledge of the subject, later rejoins us in helping to develop the content of this page. David Ruben Talk 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that is not simply a matter of taste. Some are aesthetically more pleasing (I was once ridiculed for using a brightly red stethoscope), some detect subtle sounds (e.g. the notoriously subtle mitral stenosis murmur) more accurately, some are easier to handle (swapping between bell and diaphragm). Some will swear by an amplifier stethoscope (I haven't used one, and can't presently afford one). JFW | T@lk 09:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- PMID 9310022 gives a fairly recent (1997) review of auscultation of the lungs. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup from merges
This is from Sonicaid:
- A sonicaid is a listening device used in the care of pregnancy. Using a highly sensitive microphone the sound of the fetal heartbeat can be amplified and monitored using a small loudspeaker.
- Before the widespread use of sonicaids, and still in many poorer countries, a fetal stethoscope was used. One great advantage of the sonicaid is the loudspeaker, allowing people other than the midwife or doctor using the device to listen to the heartbeat. Some medical practitioners prefer to continue using a fetal stethoscope instead of the electronic device.
- Sonicaids are made by different companies with different specifications, most having a digital display that show the heart rate in beats per minute.
- "Sonicaid" is the brand name of a product line of Doppler ultrasound instruments. --Una Smith (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue that this article is of Top Importance by the guidelines laid out, which state "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." I'm relatively sure that Stethoscopes are well-known internationally as vital tools for doctors.. '''CycloneNimrod''' (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I was hearing on the news a while back that doctors were now using mp3 players against the chest to record the sound of the heart making for a recording which was actually clearer than what you can hear through a stethoscope. I'll have a look around for an article about it, but it would seem important to note. --Shadebug (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- times online article about it There are plenty of others, just google stethoscope mp3 player --Shadebug (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was informed that the purchase of stethescopes is controlled by the US Food and Drug Administration and local ordinances.
Can the vuvuzela be mentioned as a cheaper alternative than buying regular stethoscopes ? Appearantly, the form of the horn is nearly perfect, meaning that it would yield a more efficient stethoscope at a lower price. This, since they're mass-produced for use in soccer stadiums (despite that it causes permanent hearing damage), and they're cheap (2€, ie via vuvuzelahoorn.nl, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "A recent independent review evaluated twelve common acoustic stethoscopes on the basis of loudness, clarity, and ergonomics. They did acoustic laboratory testing and recorded heart sounds on volunteers. The results are listed by brand and model.
 Eli Finkelstein (2008-07-01). "The Ultimate Acoustic Stethoscope Review". Retrieved 2010-01-25." WHY is this in the article? Is it an advertisement for the review website? Why is the result of the review not listed? Either these statements should be expanded to include the methodology and results, or they should be removed from this article. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)