Therefore, this study aimed to assess the preference of TBS and associated factors among patients with a fracture which can be an eye opener to integrate them into the primary health care system. However, there was no finding on the efficacy of TBS in comparison to modern medicine. Another study conducted in Addis Ababa showed the TBS as the leading cause of delay for modern treatment. A study from Black Lion Hospital showed 58% of amputations performed for gangrene were caused by TBS tight bamboo splint. The number of trauma patients with a fracture is dramatically increasing in Ethiopia due to majorly sharp rise in the incidence of road traffic accidents. There are increasing complications like gangrene associated with TBS as a result of tightly wrapped bamboo splint application. Įvidences from Ethiopia showed half of the amputations were performed due to gangrene applied by TBS. In several studies, the reason for the preference of TBS includes easy accessibility, cultural belief, quick service, cheaper fee, pressure from friends and families and utilization of incantation and concoctions. Evidences indicated that 80% of the people in SSA use traditional medicine as a first port. Despite the access and availability of modern health care, Traditional Bone Setting (TBS) has a big place as an alternative health care. Traditional bone setter is a lay practitioner who practices management of dislocations and fractures without having had any formal training. TBS, widely practiced all over the world before modern medicine comes into the picture, is also a known procedure among Africans and it involves the use of splints and bamboo stick or rattan cane or palm leaf axis with cotton thread or old cloth. Traditional medicine is a health practice and traditional knowledge and skill of medical aspects that passed over a generation before the era of modern medicine. That argument is null and void these days in my opinion, since any decent modern IDE will rename all occurrences of such a field with a simple keyboard shortcut.Fracture can occur because of trauma like a road traffic accident or a fall. The main argument for using setters / getters everywhere is that it means you can rename the field by just changing its name in 3 places, its definition, the getter / setter methods, and all should compile and be fine. Whilst this shouldn't cause any issues in this simple case, in more complex cases it can cause seriously subtle bugs that take ages to track down. Thirdly, most methods generally assume that the object is already complete when they're executing, not half way through being constructed. Secondly the method may have potentially been overridden unless it's marked final, and calling potentially overridden methods from a constructor is a big no-no in my book. Firstly something like this.x = x is just as clear, if not more so than calling a separate method that does the same thing. My preference is to set them directly in the constructor for a few reasons. Some references about constructors calling non-final, non-private methods: The more non-private, overridable methods that the constructor calls, the greater the risk of leaking this. While the previous rule was about methods inside the class and subclasses accessing ivars, you must also be careful about (even final/private) methods passing this to other classes and utility functions before this is fully initialized. ]Ĭonstructors should be cautious about leaking this before the instance is fully initialized. Is all that extra cognitive baggage worth it? You could allow an exception for simple mutators that only assign a value to an instance variable, since there's little benefit, even that doesn't seem worth it. This problem gets worse the deeper down the inheritance hierarchy the superclass with the "evil" constructor is. the subclasses that override those methods (subclasses that may not even be aware that the superclass constructor is calls those methods) must not assume that the subclass constructor and superclasses' constructors have been fully executed.those methods and any methods they may call must be careful not to assume the instance is fully initialized, and.If you decide to ignore this rule and let the constructor call non-final/non-private methods, then: I follow two rules about constructors to minimize problems which are why I would not use the mutator method:Ĭonstructors (of non-final classes) should call only final or private methods.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |