It's easy to throw pills at people in hopes they'll take it, but it'd go further to educate people on how to best take care of themselves and their families via diet, exercise, and primary prevention. People don't like that because it takes more money, effort, and isn't a quick and easy thing to make money off of.
Griseowulfin
This really clicks for how I understand my irritation with labeling and identity, and she really set it up in a way that is far more eloquent than I could explain.
I think this can be extrapolated to lots of other identity types when they subsume a person's personality or global identity. Personally, I see it a lot with medical-adjacent stuff like disability, neuropsych related stuff, even sexual stuff like dom/sub terminology. She explains well that these terms can be exciting to help you discover who you are, but ultimately, they're reductive and if you let it, labels can limit you and hinder your self-discovery and growth over time.
I'm finishing up the year, and about to start what is essentially my final year of school. Planning my schedule, getting in gear to apply for the residency match (first job/otj training after you finish medical school). I am doing a lot of bouncing between excited and nervous, so I'm doing a lot of work trying to be mindful and in touch with my mood, as stressful as the holidays already are.
Lol. I can tell you if you asked doctors what the biggest problem in their clinic, it's the EMR. I can say this myself, I've been in healthcare for a while in various roles, and i'm not to far off from graduating as a physician.
To find out what happened overnight to a patient, I have to sift through pages of computer generated junk to find just a few things. It's even worse in clinic, if I want to read what happened last time a patient was here, I have to sift through a note that is 50% auto generated lists of stuff to find what I really need to know: what the last doctor said the plan was for today.
They mention inbasket messages, and that's a huge issue. Now with the rise of patient portals, patients would message now for something that previously was a visit. Only recently has there been ways to recoup this cost (not that this is appealing to most patients, who see it as nickel and diming, though I empathize, I never can get to talk to a nurse/MA at my own family doc's clinic either).
Doctors are swamped, most of the day is charting, ultimately to appease insurance companies so that we get paid. If you're slotted for a 15 minute visit, and I'm not out after 10 minutes, I'm going to be late to every appointment until lunch or close, then I'll spend time at home finishing up notes and paperwork (prior auths, refilling meds, replying to messages from nurses and other clinic staff). Ultimately, for what good our regulation of healthcare has brought in the US, it remains that it is regulatory capture nonetheless. Healthcare orgs are quickly conglomerating, so the hospital, clinic, pharmacy, and insurance company are all owned by the same company. At the loss of good patient care, doctors are being removed from the equation, care is being fragmented and compartmentalized in a lot of aspects and less of our time in the day is available for patients.
What they call burnout, really is moral injury. People who go into healthcare do it because at some level, they want to help people. It really sucks when you realize 90% of your day is screwing with a computer system that seems to be diametrically opposed to letting you do your job.
I use hispanic and can't say i have much care for the whole latinx/e debate, but if latino or latina just doesn't float your boat, I think latine at least sounds better and looks better.
Ultimately this a definition issue, and is philosophical more than scientific. I have no doubt he's a great neuroscientist, but it's really not a great take. I think that the whole idea of neurochemistry cascading into the decisions we make doesn't mean we don't have the ability to choose within our neurochemical makeup. I think it definitely pushing a good point in that the root causes of our behavior, especially anti-social behavior, is possibly addressable in how we support and raise our kids.
I mean, I don't use a scope to listen to pulse. I listen for murmurs, heart sounds, breathing, gut sounds. It sounds nice, but I doubt it is gonna give better info than what can be gotten from a stethoscope, ekg, or ultrasound(this is where a lot of the cutting edge is now in medicine).
Interesting findings. I think it's interesting that the decline in religiosity seems to be more lack of trust in religious institutions, rather than just non-belief. I'm curious how this will affect organized religions. It seems religion is becoming more personal, with less of a social aspect, for better or worse.
I think the core of this is the hurtful aspects of gender roles men and boys face about how to handle and express emotions creates the situation of increased suicidality. Yeah firearms access is going to enable suicidal people to act upon their ideation, but taking it away just leaves you with a depressed/anxious guy, who doesn't have the knowledge or resources to overcome his negative emotions. I'm not saying this in a "it's a mental health issue not a gun issue" way, but society really normalizes the ignorance of mens' emotions and for men to not build support for managing their emotions, be it intimate friendships, healthcare resources, healthy expression of emotions.
I think it's good topic to bring up, because there's a lot of things leading to men not doing too well, and I think it'd be dumb to ignore it, given the rise of acts of violence we've seen in the past decade from men who really feel disconnected or disillusioned with society. Finding out what we can do to help men cope with hardship in a more productive way, and ultimately address the root causes of the issues they face can improve things for men, as well as everyone in society.
If it's something you're interesting in doing, do it. You become a pro by doing. Good luck!
I’ve worked in healthcare for 7 years and have not had any sort of assistive technology that hasn’t doubled my work.
It's a procedure in search of indications. Unethical and surprisingly still common and covered by insurance. No doctor would perform aesthetic surgery on a child for any other reason save ear piercings, i don't think it's as common as it used to be, but an infant couldn't consent to that either.
For some reason, I've encountered lots of moms (occasionally would get a "hell no" from dad though) whose biggest concern after their son was born is when the circ was going to be performed. I wish the medical organizations would put some more focus on the ethics and aspect of consent/assent. There's a lot of talk about research in public health about how it may or may not affect STI rates, and then the argument gets stuck on risks/benefits rather than ethics.
It ultimately is a procedure rooted in cultural and religious practice, and the American medical establishment is pretty slow, especially in that aspect.