If I go to a doctor because I'm in pain, and the doctor believes that I need a prescription medication to alleviate that pain, how hard should it be to get that prescription filled? Pretty hard, apparently, if the FDA gets its way. According to an article in today's Times, the Food and Drug Administration, in response to an increase in the number of deaths traced to prescription drug abuse, has recommended new restrictions on hydrocodone, the active ingredient in drugs like Vicodin. Some pharmacists and patients rights groups are concerned about the proposal.
Modern society has a strange relationship to medication: On the one hand, there seem to be pills for everything, from wonder drugs that cure horrific diseases to modern-day snake oil cures for diseases that didn't seem to exist before the "cures" came along (Restless legs syndrome? Insufficient eyelashes?). But when it comes to something as seemingly uncontroversial as pills that alleviate basic human suffering--pain--we tend to become uneasy. It's not just prescription drugs, either, of course: The essential effect of so many of the drugs outlawed by "enlightened"" society--marijuana, heroin--is nothing more insidious than the alleviation of pain. This is not meant as an endorsement of these drugs--although I personally believe in decriminalization of pretty much all narcotics--but merely an observation that in this highly medicated society, we seem uneasy when it comes to drugs that do nothing more than make people feel good.
Maybe that's the problem, though. We have no major problem with drugs that cure diseases, because we usually have some objective proof that (A) the condition exists and (B) that the drug has cured it. "Pain," on the other hand is intangible; it is, quite literally, all in your head. This is not to say that it is not real to the sufferer--simply that there is no objective way to verify that it exists or how bad it is. And for some reason, we as a society have seen fit to regulate the amount of pain relief to which people are entitled--even if a doctor agrees that such relief is needed.
Certainly, if people are abusing prescription drugs to a lethal extent, there is a problem. But I don't think a government agency dictating the way that trained medical professionals dispense necessary medication is the right response. I imagine most doctors are as concerned about drug abuse as your average government bureaucrat. Let them be the ones to determine what is appropriate.
Showing posts with label Medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicine. Show all posts
Friday, October 25, 2013
Friday, August 16, 2013
Overheard at the Doctor
Doctor: Well, yes, according to these numbers, you are suffering from acute renal failure.
Patient: Oh my God!
Doctor: Oh, it's not that bad.
Patient: Renal failure?!?
Doctor: Yes, but. . . I mean, it's not good, but it's not like you need surgery or dialysis.
Patient: But "Renal failure"--
Doctor: Acute renal failure.
Patient: EXACTLY!!!
Doctor: Well, all that means is that this number here (pointing at a chart) has gone up a lot and very suddenly.
Patient: Oh my God!
Doctor: Yes, but that could be due to all kinds of things. . . . Most commonly, it just means you're dehydrated, and you just need to retest in three days. Your number will probably go right back to normal as long as you drink a lot of fluids.
(Pause.)
Patient: You couldn't have opened with that?
Patient: Oh my God!
Doctor: Oh, it's not that bad.
Patient: Renal failure?!?
Doctor: Yes, but. . . I mean, it's not good, but it's not like you need surgery or dialysis.
Patient: But "Renal failure"--
Doctor: Acute renal failure.
Patient: EXACTLY!!!
Doctor: Well, all that means is that this number here (pointing at a chart) has gone up a lot and very suddenly.
Patient: Oh my God!
Doctor: Yes, but that could be due to all kinds of things. . . . Most commonly, it just means you're dehydrated, and you just need to retest in three days. Your number will probably go right back to normal as long as you drink a lot of fluids.
(Pause.)
Patient: You couldn't have opened with that?
Monday, June 3, 2013
Do What You Want to the Girl, But Leave ME Alone
Government officials, medical experts, and others are pushing to expedite the approval process for drugs that can treat "superbugs"--those antibiotic-resistant infections spawned in no small part due to the overuse of previous iterations of drugs. This time, though, government officials are determined to do things right! They might, for example, forbid using such drugs to treat any but the sickest patients. That'll work.
Look, I'm a fairly well-educated and, I like to think, rational person. I understand the concept of "the greater good." But people will not forego life-saving--or even life-improving--treatment for the sake of abstract notions of long-term benefit--at least if that long-term benefit simply benefits other people. Sure, my misuse of antibiotics--combined with the misuse of antibiotics by others--will ultimately give rise to an incurable superflu and lead inevitably to a final confrontation between good and evil on the Las Vegas Strip. But damn it, my tummy hurts!
You all better hope the fate of the world never depends on me. I mean, you know all those movies where the hero realizes that he must sacrifice himself to save others? "So, you're saying that, if I voluntarily jump into the volcano, I can appease the gods and they will spare the village? Yeah, um, sounds great, but what's in it for me?" If I have to choose between my name living on in glory and my body living on in shame, I'll take corporeal shame every time.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Yes, many parents would give their lives for their children, but that's about it. I know plenty of firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and others have died in service to others, and I respect them for it. But I imagine most of those folks had no particular intention of dying. Let's face it, altruistic self-sacrifice--especially the sacrifice of one's actual life--is pretty anti-Darwinian (again, except in the case of parents and children).
Harlan Ellison once speculated that what killed the dinosaurs was basically a failure of imagination--an inability to see what was coming: "Gee it's getting chilly out. Oh, well, what are you going to do? Mmm. . . trilobites!" Ellison also warned that we--modern humankind--didn't look so hot ourselves. But I don't think we suffer from a lack of imagination. We can imagine all too well what will come of our (in)actions. I suspect we just lack the capacity to care.
Look, I'm a fairly well-educated and, I like to think, rational person. I understand the concept of "the greater good." But people will not forego life-saving--or even life-improving--treatment for the sake of abstract notions of long-term benefit--at least if that long-term benefit simply benefits other people. Sure, my misuse of antibiotics--combined with the misuse of antibiotics by others--will ultimately give rise to an incurable superflu and lead inevitably to a final confrontation between good and evil on the Las Vegas Strip. But damn it, my tummy hurts!
You all better hope the fate of the world never depends on me. I mean, you know all those movies where the hero realizes that he must sacrifice himself to save others? "So, you're saying that, if I voluntarily jump into the volcano, I can appease the gods and they will spare the village? Yeah, um, sounds great, but what's in it for me?" If I have to choose between my name living on in glory and my body living on in shame, I'll take corporeal shame every time.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Yes, many parents would give their lives for their children, but that's about it. I know plenty of firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and others have died in service to others, and I respect them for it. But I imagine most of those folks had no particular intention of dying. Let's face it, altruistic self-sacrifice--especially the sacrifice of one's actual life--is pretty anti-Darwinian (again, except in the case of parents and children).
Harlan Ellison once speculated that what killed the dinosaurs was basically a failure of imagination--an inability to see what was coming: "Gee it's getting chilly out. Oh, well, what are you going to do? Mmm. . . trilobites!" Ellison also warned that we--modern humankind--didn't look so hot ourselves. But I don't think we suffer from a lack of imagination. We can imagine all too well what will come of our (in)actions. I suspect we just lack the capacity to care.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Thursday Miscellany
The Food and Drug Administration is considering loosening the rules for approving Alzheimer's drugs: Instead of having to demonstrate that their new drugs improve daily functioning, pharmaceutical companies can receive approval for drugs that simply show effectiveness in improving memory.
In other news, the Food and Drug Administration is considering loosening the rules for approving Alzheimer's drugs: Instead of having to demonstrate that their new drugs improve daily functioning, pharmaceutical companies can receive approval for drugs that simply show effectiveness in improving memory.
I'm sorry, that just never gets old!
**************************
Another current-events trope: Every article about the Papacy must mention that Benedict was the first Pope to resign in almost 600 years. More often than not, in an attempt to sound even more solemn, the phrase will be "nearly six centuries."
In other news, the Food and Drug Administration is considering loosening the rules for approving Alzheimer's drugs: Instead of having to demonstrate that their new drugs improve daily functioning, pharmaceutical companies can receive approval for drugs that simply show effectiveness in improving memory.
I'm sorry, that just never gets old!
**************************
Another current-events trope: Every article about the Papacy must mention that Benedict was the first Pope to resign in almost 600 years. More often than not, in an attempt to sound even more solemn, the phrase will be "nearly six centuries."
Friday, February 8, 2013
The Lunatics Are on the Grass--Or, At Least, the Leaves
A medical facility that encourages smoking?!? Have we somehow traveled to Backwards World, where Republicans care about poor people and randy salmon spawn downstream? Surprisingly, no. For, while frowned upon in most houses of healing, cigarettes have long provided solace to patients in psychiatric hospitals. Cigarettes reward good behavior, provide incentives to comply with treatment, and often soothe the troubled minds of schizophrenics and other sufferers.
Now, however, anti-smoking activists and medical professionals have suggested that smoking in mental hospitals should go the way of smoking in. . . well, everywhere. What use treating the mind if the body will soon succumb to emphysema? Fair enough, but when it comes to the issue of whether or not to provide cigaretees to schizophrenics, I have to say I'm of two minds about it.
Sorry.
Seriously, though, I'm no great fan of the tobacconist's art. I've never smoked, and I derive no pleasure from the second-hand variety. I applaud most campaigns to eliminate smoking in public places, and I certainly understand the desire among medical professionals to ban smoking at hospitals, if for no other reason than the prevalence of oxygen tanks. At the same time, if one advocates (as I do) for the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons (I advocate full legalization, but that's another story)--if one feels people should alleviate their pain through whatever means available, as long as those means don't harm others--then how can I sanction the prohibition of smoking among those who actually do derive significant benefit from it?
Let these people smoke!
Now, however, anti-smoking activists and medical professionals have suggested that smoking in mental hospitals should go the way of smoking in. . . well, everywhere. What use treating the mind if the body will soon succumb to emphysema? Fair enough, but when it comes to the issue of whether or not to provide cigaretees to schizophrenics, I have to say I'm of two minds about it.
Sorry.
Seriously, though, I'm no great fan of the tobacconist's art. I've never smoked, and I derive no pleasure from the second-hand variety. I applaud most campaigns to eliminate smoking in public places, and I certainly understand the desire among medical professionals to ban smoking at hospitals, if for no other reason than the prevalence of oxygen tanks. At the same time, if one advocates (as I do) for the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons (I advocate full legalization, but that's another story)--if one feels people should alleviate their pain through whatever means available, as long as those means don't harm others--then how can I sanction the prohibition of smoking among those who actually do derive significant benefit from it?
Let these people smoke!
Sunday, June 3, 2012
The Solipsist Reads the Times (So You Don't Have To)
84-year-old former Egyptian dictator and Robert De Niro look-alike Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison. He thus has nothing to look forward to but sitting around his room, watching television, and eating bland food, as opposed to your typical octogenarian who's out there windsurfing. The Egyptian people, though, are disappointed in the verdict--some people are just never satisfied!--as the judge only found Mubarak guilty of being an accomplice to the murders of a couple hundred protesters during the early days of the uprising. I suppose this is technically true, in the same way that Hitler was an accomplice to the SS. Interestingly, this disappointing verdict has once again united the country: Islamists, liberals, and bears (oh my) have once again banded together to protest the corruption of the ruling elite. Nothing like a common enemy to bring out the best in people.
In other news, the world economy still sucks. The basic problem seems to be that we live in a globally interconnected world without globally interconnected regulatory systems. (Don't say that out loud, though: People will accuse you of being a New-World Order leftist like, uh, the first President Bush.)
It turns out that Mitt Romney is a "Star Trek" fan. Initially, this news worried me, as I feared it might induce certain people--FOS, for instance--to vote for the man. Then I realized this was unlikely: After all, Romney may be a closet "Trek"-enthusiast (he rejects the "Trekkie" appellation), but Barack Obama is the nation's first Vulcan president. Finding out Mitt Romney likes "Star Trek," though, does make him harder to hate, until I remember his attitudes toward everything that people who value a decent society hold dear; then I regain my urge to hurl tribbles at the man.
Iraq has increased its oil output tremendously, so much so, in fact, that the international community is cautiously optimistic that stronger sanctions against Iran may not prove as disruptive to world oil supplies. Commenting on this news, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, "This is welcome news, of course. Still, I would once again emphasize that increased oil production was never the predominant concern; liberating Iraq from a dictatorial regime and bringing democracy to the Middle East were." Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in contrast, cackled and exclaimed, "Yahtzee!"
I was also disturbed to hear that, despite the fall of Saddam Hussein, the tradition of state-sanctioned torture continues in Iraq. At an auction for oil contracts, "An elevator-music rendition of Lionel Richie's 'Hello' played over and over." Monsters!
The more painkillers are used--and the earlier in treatment they are prescribed--the greater the overall costs to employers. Hm. You know, when you see that sentence typed out, you realize that one of the central premises of this article is that if you take more pills and use them for a longer period of time, it will cost more money. No wonder Times readers are so well-informed!
Finally, the Times provides an interesting discussion of the various controversies and disputes around the Sept. 11 Memorial Museum. One ongoing debate focused on whether or not to include photographs of the 19 hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Those opposed claim that this affords the murderers an undeserved honor. It really doesn't, though. Photographs of criminals don't celebrate the criminals. Think of these as mug shots.
In other news, the world economy still sucks. The basic problem seems to be that we live in a globally interconnected world without globally interconnected regulatory systems. (Don't say that out loud, though: People will accuse you of being a New-World Order leftist like, uh, the first President Bush.)
It turns out that Mitt Romney is a "Star Trek" fan. Initially, this news worried me, as I feared it might induce certain people--FOS, for instance--to vote for the man. Then I realized this was unlikely: After all, Romney may be a closet "Trek"-enthusiast (he rejects the "Trekkie" appellation), but Barack Obama is the nation's first Vulcan president. Finding out Mitt Romney likes "Star Trek," though, does make him harder to hate, until I remember his attitudes toward everything that people who value a decent society hold dear; then I regain my urge to hurl tribbles at the man.
Iraq has increased its oil output tremendously, so much so, in fact, that the international community is cautiously optimistic that stronger sanctions against Iran may not prove as disruptive to world oil supplies. Commenting on this news, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, "This is welcome news, of course. Still, I would once again emphasize that increased oil production was never the predominant concern; liberating Iraq from a dictatorial regime and bringing democracy to the Middle East were." Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in contrast, cackled and exclaimed, "Yahtzee!"
I was also disturbed to hear that, despite the fall of Saddam Hussein, the tradition of state-sanctioned torture continues in Iraq. At an auction for oil contracts, "An elevator-music rendition of Lionel Richie's 'Hello' played over and over." Monsters!
The more painkillers are used--and the earlier in treatment they are prescribed--the greater the overall costs to employers. Hm. You know, when you see that sentence typed out, you realize that one of the central premises of this article is that if you take more pills and use them for a longer period of time, it will cost more money. No wonder Times readers are so well-informed!
Finally, the Times provides an interesting discussion of the various controversies and disputes around the Sept. 11 Memorial Museum. One ongoing debate focused on whether or not to include photographs of the 19 hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Those opposed claim that this affords the murderers an undeserved honor. It really doesn't, though. Photographs of criminals don't celebrate the criminals. Think of these as mug shots.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Twenty Questions Medical Style
Yesterday, I saw a commercial for a medication. I don't remember exactly what the product was--doesn't really matter--but I was struck by the disclaimer. The announcer advised people to tell their doctors about all medications they were currently taking, "even medications for migraines."
Leaving aside for a moment the question of why someone would have to tell their doctors about all medications they are taking when it is presumably their doctors who have prescribed said medications, I was struck by that "even," suggesting, as it does, that people would be somehow disinclined to reveal migraine medications to their doctors. I never suspected migraine meds were so scandalous. For that matter, why would I want to hide any medication from my doctor?
"OK, Solipsist, so I see the medications you're currently taking. . . Any others?"
"Ooooh," I reply, a sly grin on my face and a twinkle in my eye, "Maaay-be."
. . .
"Yes?"
"Well, I'll give you a hint. It comes in caplet form, and possible side effects include sore joints and hip dysplasia."
"Is it. . . Zantac?"
"Nope!"
"Celebrex?"
"No. Strike two!"
"OK. . . OK. . . Can I get another hint?"
"Hmm. . .All right. The FDA is conducting an investigation of this drug's potentially fatal interactions with gelatin."
"Oh! Klavertrazine!"
"Oh, no, doctor! I'm sorry. We were looking for 'danprazadol.' Danprazadol."
"Damn! I knew that one!"
"Well, better luck next time."
Leaving aside for a moment the question of why someone would have to tell their doctors about all medications they are taking when it is presumably their doctors who have prescribed said medications, I was struck by that "even," suggesting, as it does, that people would be somehow disinclined to reveal migraine medications to their doctors. I never suspected migraine meds were so scandalous. For that matter, why would I want to hide any medication from my doctor?
"OK, Solipsist, so I see the medications you're currently taking. . . Any others?"
"Ooooh," I reply, a sly grin on my face and a twinkle in my eye, "Maaay-be."
. . .
"Yes?"
"Well, I'll give you a hint. It comes in caplet form, and possible side effects include sore joints and hip dysplasia."
"Is it. . . Zantac?"
"Nope!"
"Celebrex?"
"No. Strike two!"
"OK. . . OK. . . Can I get another hint?"
"Hmm. . .All right. The FDA is conducting an investigation of this drug's potentially fatal interactions with gelatin."
"Oh! Klavertrazine!"
"Oh, no, doctor! I'm sorry. We were looking for 'danprazadol.' Danprazadol."
"Damn! I knew that one!"
"Well, better luck next time."
Friday, February 10, 2012
And Schizophrenia Makes Really Good Omelettes
Awhile back, I wrote about a commercial for Abilify, an anti-depressant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. The animated commercial featured an obviously depressed cartoon-lady and an avatar of "depression," represented by a (frankly adorable) googly-eyed, floating black blob. Now, I am no latter-day Don Draper--except for my perfect, perfect face--but it struck me that, if an advertiser wants to peddle a "cure" (or at least a treatment) for a disease (or "disease"), said advertiser might think twice before representing the disease as something you want to pet.
Shows you what I know!
The Abilify people have introduced a new commercial that actually doubles down on the cuteness factor. No longer is cartoon-lady's depression merely a floating black blob; now, depression is a big, floating, googly-eyed blue bathrobe! So, depression not only keeps this lady company, it keeps her cozy and warm! AND it resembles Cookie Monster, to boot!
Cure depression? I want to give it a hug!
Shows you what I know!
The Abilify people have introduced a new commercial that actually doubles down on the cuteness factor. No longer is cartoon-lady's depression merely a floating black blob; now, depression is a big, floating, googly-eyed blue bathrobe! So, depression not only keeps this lady company, it keeps her cozy and warm! AND it resembles Cookie Monster, to boot!
Cure depression? I want to give it a hug!
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
An Addiction by Any Other Name. . .
When is an addiction not an addiction? When it's a cure.
New research suggests that nicotine patches and gum don't increase the likelihood of someone's quitting smoking; indeed, among heavy smokers, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with a higher likelihood of relapsing than using nothing at all ("Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt").
I've always thought that nicotine patches and other medicinal addiction cures posed a sort of logical quandary: If you need a drug in order to keep from using a drug, aren't you just substituting one addiction for another? If you get hooked on methadone to keep yourself from using heroin, are you qualtitatively better off? The answer depends on whether the replacement addiction is better for you--or less harmful--than the addiction of choice. I suppose nicotine patches are better for one's lungs--and for the lungs of those around one--than smoking. And rehabilitative drugs like methadone, suboxone, and others certainly provide social benefits if nothing else: Prescribed legally, they provide an imprimatur of social acceptability, suggesting that one has made the decision to improve one's life and battle one's demons. This is no small thing.
The study cited today, however, reinforces the notion that, ultimately, the only way to kick a habit is, indeed, to kick it. I don't minimize the difficulties faced by those who battle addictions. But this study suggests that, when it comes to smoking at least, substitutes for cigarettes don't help one quit, and may simply lead one back to the real thing. Maybe the problem is inherent in the very purpose of nicotine patches and similar "crutches": to minimize the suffering of those trying to quit an addictive habit. I am not suggesting that addicts somehow "deserve" to suffer, but maybe suffering strengthens one's resolve to stay away from the addictive substance. The more pain one has to go through to achieve a goal, the less likely he is to casually relapse--no one wants to suffer needlessly.
Obviously, I'm not a psychiatrist, and I have been lucky enough to avoid addictions. I can certainly be accused of an "easy for him to say" attitude. But if scientific studies cast doubt on scientific (pharmacological) solutions, maybe it is time to face the logic of the situation.
New research suggests that nicotine patches and gum don't increase the likelihood of someone's quitting smoking; indeed, among heavy smokers, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with a higher likelihood of relapsing than using nothing at all ("Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt").
I've always thought that nicotine patches and other medicinal addiction cures posed a sort of logical quandary: If you need a drug in order to keep from using a drug, aren't you just substituting one addiction for another? If you get hooked on methadone to keep yourself from using heroin, are you qualtitatively better off? The answer depends on whether the replacement addiction is better for you--or less harmful--than the addiction of choice. I suppose nicotine patches are better for one's lungs--and for the lungs of those around one--than smoking. And rehabilitative drugs like methadone, suboxone, and others certainly provide social benefits if nothing else: Prescribed legally, they provide an imprimatur of social acceptability, suggesting that one has made the decision to improve one's life and battle one's demons. This is no small thing.
The study cited today, however, reinforces the notion that, ultimately, the only way to kick a habit is, indeed, to kick it. I don't minimize the difficulties faced by those who battle addictions. But this study suggests that, when it comes to smoking at least, substitutes for cigarettes don't help one quit, and may simply lead one back to the real thing. Maybe the problem is inherent in the very purpose of nicotine patches and similar "crutches": to minimize the suffering of those trying to quit an addictive habit. I am not suggesting that addicts somehow "deserve" to suffer, but maybe suffering strengthens one's resolve to stay away from the addictive substance. The more pain one has to go through to achieve a goal, the less likely he is to casually relapse--no one wants to suffer needlessly.
Obviously, I'm not a psychiatrist, and I have been lucky enough to avoid addictions. I can certainly be accused of an "easy for him to say" attitude. But if scientific studies cast doubt on scientific (pharmacological) solutions, maybe it is time to face the logic of the situation.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Your Attention Please
"Medicines to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are in such short supply that hundreds of patients complain daily to the Food and Drug Administration that they are unable to find a pharmacy with enough pills to fill their prescriptions."
"F.D.A. Finds Short Supply of Attention Deficit Drugs"
Ladies and. . .uh, what? Oh! Sorry. Where was I?
OK. Ladies and gentlemen of the Attention Deficit Disorder Sufferers of. . .what IS that smudge on my note card? It's funny. It looks kind of like one of those clouds? You know, one of those clouds that looks like something? It looks like a cloud that looks like a banana. . . .So, I guess what I'm saying is it looks like a banana. Yeah.
OK, sorry, here we go:
Ladies and gentlemen of the Attention Deficit Disorder Sufferers of America, thank you for. . . . Uh. . . .Hel-LO? Could I have your attention, please?
[LOUD LAUGHTER]
OK, yeah, that IS kind of funny, but, seriously! Could you all just kind of, you know, look this way. . . yes, at me. . . great. . . .
OK. Now, you all know why we're here today. Drug Enforcement Administration policies and corporate greed have created a wholly unnecessary shortage of the ADHD medications that are needed by people like you and me. . . .Should that be 'you and I'? That doesn't sound right. But neither does 'you and me'. . . .I should just say 'us,' shouldn't I? Or shouldn't me? Ha!
Right.
OK, yes, so the DEA wants to make sure that people don't abuse ADHD drugs, so they restrict the amount of drugs that a company can produce. And now a lot of those companies, since they can only produce a certain number of drugs, are producing MORE of their brand name drugs, and LESS of their generics, so even when we CAN get drugs, we sometimes have to pay ten times as much as we would normally pay because we have to buy the brand name instead of the generics and that humming is driving me crazy what the hell IS that? The air conditioning? Can we turn it off? We can't turn it off? Fine. . . . Uh. . . .
OK, so. . ..Hey, where's everybody going? . . . .No, I wasn't finished! We haven't decided what we're going to DO yet, have we? Exactly! If we want to effect change, we have to organize! Just like those Occupy people. We need to occupy something. I suggest the DEA. It's one building, so there's less of a chance for us to get lost. All in favor?. . . All in favor?. . . .I'M CALLING FOR A VOTE HERE, PEOPLE, COULD YOU ALL JUST LISTEN FOR A MOMENT?
Thank you! Now, all in favor? . . . Oh, for God's sake! Of occupying the DEA! Yes, that's what we're voting on! TO GET THEM TO LOOSEN UP THEIR POLICIES, THAT'S WHY!
OK. So we'll meet at the DEA offices tomorrow at 9:00 AM. I want to thank all the people that have stayed for this entire meeting. Thanks, Larry.
Monday, July 11, 2011
People Who Treat People
Out of Roanoke comes news that Virginia Tech Carilion is one of a handful of medical schools assessing applicants based on their people skills in addition to the standard measures of pre-med acumen (like knowing the names of all the muscles and the fact that the pancreas does not actually exist).
In all seriousness (well, most seriousness), this seems like a worthy innovation. For one thing, numerous studies have attributed a large percentage of preventable deaths faulty communications between medical team members, as well as between doctors and patients. Medical-school applicants who display strong interpersonal skills may thus provide significant improvements to the overall healthcare system.
We've long felt that communication skills are often undervalued. In our own tutoring program, we find that the best tutors are not necessarily the 4.0 students, but those with the easiest interpersonal manner. Indeed, when it comes to recruitment, we are always happier to find a "B" student with people skills than an "A" student who's all about "the work." The "people-people" (people-persons?) will almost always have better results.
The only point of concern is that the medical school may turn away qualified applicants who may not perform well enough at their interpersonal "tests." While it may be difficult for an introvert to become a social butterfly, we would hope that people who have displayed the intellectual aptitude and commitment to prepare for a career in medicine would be afforded an opportunity to improve the people skills that will make them great doctors, rather than being summarily turned away.
Besides, if bedside manner had always been a pre-requisite for becoming a doctor, we would never have enjoyed "House."
Solipsistography
"New for Aspiring Doctors, the People Skills Test"
In all seriousness (well, most seriousness), this seems like a worthy innovation. For one thing, numerous studies have attributed a large percentage of preventable deaths faulty communications between medical team members, as well as between doctors and patients. Medical-school applicants who display strong interpersonal skills may thus provide significant improvements to the overall healthcare system.
We've long felt that communication skills are often undervalued. In our own tutoring program, we find that the best tutors are not necessarily the 4.0 students, but those with the easiest interpersonal manner. Indeed, when it comes to recruitment, we are always happier to find a "B" student with people skills than an "A" student who's all about "the work." The "people-people" (people-persons?) will almost always have better results.
The only point of concern is that the medical school may turn away qualified applicants who may not perform well enough at their interpersonal "tests." While it may be difficult for an introvert to become a social butterfly, we would hope that people who have displayed the intellectual aptitude and commitment to prepare for a career in medicine would be afforded an opportunity to improve the people skills that will make them great doctors, rather than being summarily turned away.
Besides, if bedside manner had always been a pre-requisite for becoming a doctor, we would never have enjoyed "House."
Solipsistography
"New for Aspiring Doctors, the People Skills Test"
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Adwatch
Today we heard an ad for a singles' club: The ad invited people to call if they were "single, divorced, or new to the area."
Sooo. . . If people are new to the area, they can join this hook-up service regardless of marital status? California sure is a friendly place!
But an even more disturbing commercial is one we saw on TV for Abilify, an anti-depressant. In the ad, an obviously morose cartoon lady is followed around by her "depression." Upon taking the wonder-drug, though, she shakes off her stupor and enjoys such pleasures as a family picnic.
Here's the problem, though: Her "Depression" is adorable! It's this floating black blob with big googly eyes. And when cartoon-lady starts to get better, Depression starts to shrink and look sad.
Depression just wants to be loved! What kind of heartless monster must this woman be to want to off him?
If our depression were so cute and cuddly, we would be happy to have him around.
Image from archive.no-ip.org
Sooo. . . If people are new to the area, they can join this hook-up service regardless of marital status? California sure is a friendly place!
But an even more disturbing commercial is one we saw on TV for Abilify, an anti-depressant. In the ad, an obviously morose cartoon lady is followed around by her "depression." Upon taking the wonder-drug, though, she shakes off her stupor and enjoys such pleasures as a family picnic.
Here's the problem, though: Her "Depression" is adorable! It's this floating black blob with big googly eyes. And when cartoon-lady starts to get better, Depression starts to shrink and look sad.
Depression just wants to be loved! What kind of heartless monster must this woman be to want to off him?
If our depression were so cute and cuddly, we would be happy to have him around.
Image from archive.no-ip.org
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
A Bit of Hope
As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time living in his own head, the Solipsist has always harbored a special dread of Alzheimer's disease. To paraphrase Woody Allen, our brain is our second favorite organ. The thought of no longer being able to think is frightening.
We were thus intrigued to read today of a number of potnetial breakthroughs in the battle against Alzheimer's. All this research remains in the experimental stage, but it does sound promising. Scientists have figured out that the overabundance of plaque, which gums up the brain's works and leads to the mental deterioration associated with Alzheimer's, may actually be a "drainage" problem. Researchers used to think that Alzheimer's sufferers, for whatever reason, produced too much of a protein called beta amyloid; now, they've figured out that, in fact, these patients produce about the same amount of beta amyloid as healthy folk--they just don't get rid of it as quickly. What this means for medicine is that scientists can take a two-pronged approach to combating the disease: They can work to slow production of beta amyloid, and/or they can look for ways to help speed the passage of the plaque out of the brain.
We realize it can't be as simple as it sounds. At the same time, though, we find something reassuring in the thought that, instead of some existential destroyer of a person's essential self, Alzheimer's may essentially be little more than an internal plumbing problem. With any luck, by the time we reach our elder years, the Roto Rooters of neurology will be able to snake out our synapses and prevent any decline into senility.
We were thus intrigued to read today of a number of potnetial breakthroughs in the battle against Alzheimer's. All this research remains in the experimental stage, but it does sound promising. Scientists have figured out that the overabundance of plaque, which gums up the brain's works and leads to the mental deterioration associated with Alzheimer's, may actually be a "drainage" problem. Researchers used to think that Alzheimer's sufferers, for whatever reason, produced too much of a protein called beta amyloid; now, they've figured out that, in fact, these patients produce about the same amount of beta amyloid as healthy folk--they just don't get rid of it as quickly. What this means for medicine is that scientists can take a two-pronged approach to combating the disease: They can work to slow production of beta amyloid, and/or they can look for ways to help speed the passage of the plaque out of the brain.
We realize it can't be as simple as it sounds. At the same time, though, we find something reassuring in the thought that, instead of some existential destroyer of a person's essential self, Alzheimer's may essentially be little more than an internal plumbing problem. With any luck, by the time we reach our elder years, the Roto Rooters of neurology will be able to snake out our synapses and prevent any decline into senility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)