Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Medically, 'shock' is usually an intensive care type problem; fainting
or hyperventilating after seeing some dreadful event is not.

Thank you for the explanation. I've always been under the (wrong) impression
that "having a shock" (at a large gas bill, e.g.) was a synonym for being
"in shock". I thought that all this business about people being "taken
to hospital for shock" was some sort of medical euphemism for "taking them
to a sanatorium for some sort of emotional upset".

I had no idea that "shock" was a specific medical condition.

Richard [in PE12]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:42:11 +0000, Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III
wrote:

Medically, 'shock' is usually an intensive care type problem; fainting
or hyperventilating after seeing some dreadful event is not.

Thank you for the explanation. I've always been under the (wrong) impression
that "having a shock" (at a large gas bill, e.g.) was a synonym for being
"in shock". I thought that all this business about people being "taken
to hospital for shock" was some sort of medical euphemism for "taking them
to a sanatorium for some sort of emotional upset".

I had no idea that "shock" was a specific medical condition.

The danger occurs when the lesser and greater usages get muddled. One
is "shocked" at an incident, then looks around for someone to blame so
as to claim damages for suffering "shock".

Compare all the people who have never suffered anything worse than a
heavy cold queuing up for 'flu jabs.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Compare all the people who have never suffered anything worse than a
heavy cold queuing up for 'flu jabs.

Aren't 'flu jabs the reasons "they have never suffered anything worse
than a heavy cold"?

--
To contact me take a davidhowdon and add a @yahoo.co.uk to the end.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:38:45 GMT, David Howdon
wrote:

Compare all the people who have never suffered anything worse than a
heavy cold queuing up for 'flu jabs.

Aren't 'flu jabs the reasons "they have never suffered anything worse
than a heavy cold"?

Maybe :-)

Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Medically, 'shock' is usually an intensive care type problem; fainting
or hyperventilating after seeing some dreadful event is not.

Thank you for the explanation. I've always been under the (wrong) impression
that "having a shock" (at a large gas bill, e.g.) was a synonym for being
"in shock". I thought that all this business about people being "taken
to hospital for shock" was some sort of medical euphemism for "taking them
to a sanatorium for some sort of emotional upset"

This indeed occurs; it is often safest to transfer those involved though
apparently uninjured to hospital for thorough checking,[1] often
followed by cups of tea.

Those who witness dreadful events sometimes benefit from counselling and
debriefing which may be provided.

I had no idea that "shock" was a specific medical condition.

Usenet has some uses...

[1] It's obviously easier to check someone from head to toe in a warm,
well-lit Emergency department than on a cold, dark, windy, noisy street.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.