You mean he was born with two hands?

We were at the nurses' station discussing the patients we saw yesterday and what interesting signs and symptoms they had.

The patient in Bed 5? The one with the hands?
Yeah, and the patient in the side room has a good abdomen.
What about that man with the toe?

I know exactly what they mean - we're not excited that a patient has, in fact, two intact hands and some toes, but that his hands have something medically relevant to our clinical learning.

Because I'd be very worried if all those patients were suddenly lacking basic anatomical assets.

I find that nowadays with all the need for patient confidentiality I end up referring to the patients I've seen after their main diagnosis; a few examples being Infective Endocarditis Guy, Diverticulitis Woman, Man with Paper Eating Dog.

I sometimes wonder whether this is a good idea, because in a way it encourages the thought of a patient as a diagnosis rather than a person - a notion that seems rather incredulous but sadly true.

On a completely unrelated note, at least I don't refer to the jaundiced patients as part of The Simpsons family.