The Next Big Thing!

 

If you jump to the 3:20 mark, you can hear one of the most logical, interesting and honest approaches to scientific developments ever said. To set the scene, Ross and Phoebe are arguing about evolution after Phoebe says she doesn't believe in it. She's not arguing that it isn't real, just that she doesn't believe in it.

The quote I was referring to is thus: "Now, wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed the Earth was flat. And up until like what 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing until you split it open and this like whole mess a crap came out..."

In essences, the quote highlights one of the most outrageous facts about science: that nothing is ever 100 percent the final answer. Right now, DNA is one of the biggest topics in the medical field. Just this September one of New York Times' most prolific columnist wrote a huge article about a discovery that is suppose to change how DNA is viewed. However, the article would gather large criticism in the coming days.

Nonetheless, it highlights my point perfectly: every couple of years some Earth-shattering discovery is going to be made. Just last week, NASA announced that there might be water/ice on Mercury. With the medical field expanding and increasing in profitability, we can only expect there to be more and more 'life-changing' ideas and theories being published.

Edited to add: Don't get me wrong, I love that there are new discoveries being made ever day. It's just, at what point do these discoveries jade us. At what point do we lose the "Gee Whiz" factor.

Or, do these discoveries only heighten the Gee Whiz reaction from us? Almost like we know we'll never fully understand the universe, but that isn't stopping us from trying. That each new discover is like wiping fog off a window: we just want to see more of what this world has to offer.

eeny, meeny miny mo

The first week I lived in my own apartment in Salem I found a grocery store in walking distance, got cable, opened a local bank account and found a veterinarian for my cats. Flash forward 430 days ( oneyr, two months) and I'm looking for a doctor again - this time for me.

Since I live in Salem, I'm using the North Shore Medical Center website to find a doctor, but I'm shocked to discover just how difficult this task really is. You can find a list of primary care doctors accepting patients, but it just has their name, office information (phone number, hours, location), education history, practice partners and additional languages (if any). Some say what insurances they accept, but a vast amount require phone calls to see if you'll be covered.

And while that information is important, a doctor is much, much more than their history and office information. Their personality and general "bedside manner" is just as important, if not more, than their qualifications. He or she may be the best doctor in the world, but I know that if I can't stand to be in the same room as him/her than I won't listen to the diagnosis.

There are websites with clever names that provide more information, reviews and sometimes awards the doctor may have, but these are provided by faceless usernames and arbitrary rating systems. I feel as if I learn nothing more concrete about the actual doctor.

In class and in the readings, we've talked about how healthcare is changing - especially when it comes to technology. Some of it is for the better. But I can't help wondering if technology is making finding a doctor both easier and harder. With so many choices and so many results, how do I know if I'm overlooking someone?

Or worse, if I'm trusting a bad source and setting an appointment with an over-hyped doctor?

-Joe

Related readings: a 2008 New York Times article and genetic website's "tips on finding a doctor" article.

How much?

Photo by Nicole Douglass

This photo is taken from Donald Kettl's Politics of the Administrative Process. In case you are unable to read the underlined text, it says that in July of 2008, the United States  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed the value of a human life from $8.04 million to $7.22 million. That's a decrease of about 10 percent. 

The text goes on to provide a real-life example of flammable mattress. In once case, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) found that necessary changes to production would cost the company $343 million dollars and would save about 270 people per year.  Using a numerical value of a human's life allowed the CPSC to vote in favor of enforcing the company to make the necessary changes.

We've been talking about how much it costs a person for healthcare. And according to this site, statistics in 2009 said that the average adult in the US spends $7,290 on healthcare a year. That site also says that the life expectancy in America is about 78 years. Quick math says, after turning 18, a "normal" adult in the United States will spend about $437,400 on healthcare. (I think it's safe to assume that number includes coverage provided by health insurance.)

In a weird way, I'm oddly touched that my government thinks my life is worth a lot more than what I'm expected to pay to have professional care for it. But on the other hand, $437,400 is a huge number! I can't fathom needing that much money to live. It seems ridiculous and I'm left wondering why?

Your American Duty

In three days my nation will choose its leader for the next four years. That's exciting in it's own way, but what might be more exciting are the questions on this year's ballot.

There are three questions for Massachusetts Voters. The first one has something to do with cars so we're going to ignore it for the sake of this blog's purpose. Questions 2 and 3 are not only medical related, but also interesting, complex, controversial and down-right "agree with me or it's ON!" Yes, your answer to these questions is well worth fighting over and what's more, they might change the future for this state.

According to my "Massachusetts Information for Voters" booklet (that I got in the mail) Question 2 is "Prescribing Medication to End Life." The summary text says (paraphrased) the proposed law would allow a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a terminally ill's patient request, to end that patient's life. Patients would have to be an adult resident who (1) is determined to be mentally capable of making health care decisions; (2) diagnosed with a terminal disease that will cause death in six months and (3) have an informed decision regarding voluntarily expression of a wish to die. Full text here

Of course there are people in favor and people against. For me, I'm leaning towards a yes on this. There are some flaws, like the arbitrary six months factor or patients not needing a psychiatrist visit - which worry me. Laws should be air tight.  But I also understand wanting to die with dignity, something everyone deserves.

As of February 2012, Oregon is the only state to have legal physician-assisted suicide and since its inception in 1998, 596 patients have died through lethal medication. If Massachusetts votes yes on this law, we could very well follow steps similar to Oregon.

The other medical-related question is the use of medical marijuana. The summary for this proposed law would allow patients diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition, a written certification from a physician with whom the patient has a bona fide physician-patient relationship, access to medical marijuana. The proposed law also allows patients to have a 21+ personal caregiver who could assist with the patient’s medical use of marijuana but would be prohibited from consuming that marijuana. Patients and caregivers would have to register with Department of Public Health. Additionally, the law would not override federal actions and no public or private space would be forced to accommodate the use of medical marijuana. Full text here.

Again, people in favor. People against. And again, I'm leaning towards a yes. This bill has better writing - including strict penlites and thought-out ideas - and it would require treatment centers to pay a registration fee to the Department of Public Health, and lord knows the government could use some more money.

According to ProCon.org, 17 states currently allow medical marijuana. And while the future is impossible to tell, there is the hope that if this law is enacted, it would reduce the purchasing and growing illegal marijuana.

What are your feelings regarding on these questions?

I Ain't No Mama Bear

I run.

I run a lot. And not just physically, but mentally and socially as well. I've never been afraid of a fight, but I'm more apt to avoid awkward social situations and when I have to face huge, life-changing decisions, I busy myself with books to read, movies to see and just about anything else. Knowing this, it might be more accurate to say I'm a flighter.

The term 'Fight or Flight' comes from Walter Bradford Cannon, a doctor in early 1900's America, after he noticed that animals either fought or fled from threats. Later, as science and knowledge of the body evolved, the idea of adrenaline (see YouTube) and the less exciting, but still valid responses and ideas were added to the umbrella term of 'Fight or Flight.' 

We've all experienced this "phenomenon" in one form or another. And a part of me knows that running from my problems isn't going to solve anything - or maybe even worsen them. I know I should sit down and think about the tough choices or not shy away from party invites. And I am willing to fight tooth and nail for some things, but I've always loved flying.