Bill Johnson, Albuquerque, NM
	With respect to followup studies, it is important to have documented
the location and extent of the thrombus in initial studies.  Regardless of
nomenclature, it can be decidedly difficult to "interpret" the report of a
study done elsewhere if it is not described precisely.  I do not often see
things such as "2 cm from the sapheno-femoral junction" in reporting clot, nor
are our reports consistently precise.  We do use a homunculus on our worksheet,
and carefully draw the location of thrombus, and this is extremely helpful to
us when the question of extension is asked.  If I understand Lee's response,
they include this with the report.  We do not do this routinely, but an
excellent idea, although our computer report system does not yet support
graphics.  Regardless, I think this can be conveyed clearly without the use of
the dangerous "superficial" deep vein nomenclature.  
	As far as Bill Beymer's "dumb down" goes, I must strongly disagree.  
I would not ask my patients if they ever had "scintillating scotomas", few 
would know I meant "flashing lights" in their vision.  One should use 
vocabulary suited to one's audience.  It appears well documented that many 
referring physicians were never taught the terminology we use daily in this 
instance.  And, since their anatomy books do not recognize it either, I would 
think the fault might be ours.  If I talk to collegues, I would not expect 
confusion over this.  But I would rather appear completely stupid if doing so 
prevented mistreatment of a single patient.  Bart, I think, mentioned problems 
HAVE occurred from personal experience.  I am in mind of a ditty that I think 
was a Burma Shave poem (this definitely dates me):
 
		"Here lies the body of John Brown, 
       		He was right, dead right, as he sped along, 
       		Now he's as dead as if he were wrong."  

	I appreciate Bill's concern for his patients, and willingness to
consider this issue, distasteful as it may be.  No I do not think we should 
change "femur" to "thigh bone" (that's ortho jargon, no?)  I would prefer 
"drumstick", as a more tasteful alternative.