First of all, I find Family Guy to be hilarious. But at the same time, I find the success of Family Guy to be a paradox because the series rely almost exclusively on politically incorrect jokes in our politically correct world.
I missed the recent episode that stirred up political controversy, but I heard all about it after the fact. In case you missed it, the uproar was over how the show mocked Sarah Palin's actual handicapped 1 year old son through the portrayal of a fictitious mentally handicapped character in the episode. People at work said "it was clearly sarcasm, what was all the fuss about?" Without having seen the show, I couldn't comment.
But now I have seen the clip, as well as Palin's response to the episode. After seeing both, I must say that I didn't find the Family Guy scene to be particularly funny, and I sympathized with Palin. Occasionally choked-up, Palin said she couldn't believe how cruel people can be in making fun of a little child that already is going to grow up with a difficult life. To her, Trig is like every other child, happy and enjoying the world. In that moment, listening to her describe her parental perspective, all I saw was a mother defending her child from a vicious world.
No matter what one's political persuasion, I just couldn't believe how people could hate someone so much to think that such a low blow was in any way fair game. It just made me stop and think about how ugly things have become. It is as if blood has been tasted and the kill must be completed. Is this really what our mainstream culture and media is all about nowadays?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Literally, you're dumb if you smoke
I read the following article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587241,00.html) on the FOX News website and found the conclusions to be controversial. This article describes a scientific study titled "Cognitive test scores in male adolescent cigarette smokers compared to non-smokers: a population-based study" that was published this month in the journal Addiction.
This study examined whether there was a correlation between smoking habits and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 20,000 Israeli military recruits. This paper reported that the average IQ of non-smokers was 101, but dropped to 94 for smokers. Furthermore, they claim that the drop in the IQ score correlated with the amount of cigarettes consumed by the individual. So, the average IQ was 98 for less than five cigarettes a day, and dropped to 90 if over a pack of cigarettes were smoked per day.
In conjunction with previously published reports, the authors of this scientific study conclude that a low IQ score is a risk factor for smoking addiction. Thus, they propose that anti-smoking campaigns should target youth with low IQ scores.
I don't know why, but I can't help feeling that the conclusions made by the authors of this study are biased by the age in which we live. For starters, tobacco was a major American agricultural crop because there was an insatiable European and global desire for this product for centuries. Smoking in some form, whether by cigarette, cigar or a pipe, was common among all strata of society. Now flash forward to modern day, a time where science has shown that smoking is an addiction known to cause death from lung cancer. Given our increased understanding of tobacco cigarettes as a carcinogen, I see the temptation to say in jest that choosing to smoke is stupid. But joking and attempting to prove such a sentiment are two completely different things.
Personally, my gut says the observed correlation between IQ and smoking may have a better scientific hypothesis. Nicotine, a compound that targets neurons and influences their activity, could have profound effects on the development and long-term function of an adolescent brain. Therefore, I'm curious to see whether studies in mice have examined whether nicotine exposure induces cognitive damage that could explain this study's observation that smokers have a lower IQ.
This study examined whether there was a correlation between smoking habits and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 20,000 Israeli military recruits. This paper reported that the average IQ of non-smokers was 101, but dropped to 94 for smokers. Furthermore, they claim that the drop in the IQ score correlated with the amount of cigarettes consumed by the individual. So, the average IQ was 98 for less than five cigarettes a day, and dropped to 90 if over a pack of cigarettes were smoked per day.
In conjunction with previously published reports, the authors of this scientific study conclude that a low IQ score is a risk factor for smoking addiction. Thus, they propose that anti-smoking campaigns should target youth with low IQ scores.
I don't know why, but I can't help feeling that the conclusions made by the authors of this study are biased by the age in which we live. For starters, tobacco was a major American agricultural crop because there was an insatiable European and global desire for this product for centuries. Smoking in some form, whether by cigarette, cigar or a pipe, was common among all strata of society. Now flash forward to modern day, a time where science has shown that smoking is an addiction known to cause death from lung cancer. Given our increased understanding of tobacco cigarettes as a carcinogen, I see the temptation to say in jest that choosing to smoke is stupid. But joking and attempting to prove such a sentiment are two completely different things.
Personally, my gut says the observed correlation between IQ and smoking may have a better scientific hypothesis. Nicotine, a compound that targets neurons and influences their activity, could have profound effects on the development and long-term function of an adolescent brain. Therefore, I'm curious to see whether studies in mice have examined whether nicotine exposure induces cognitive damage that could explain this study's observation that smokers have a lower IQ.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Are hotdogs the new Camel Joe?
Until reading the linked FOX News article, I was not aware that hotdogs currently have a choking hazard warning label on their packaging. But apparently, this already over-the-top safety measure isn't enough.
Tragically, a 4-year old died from choking on hotdog pieces. Now, this child's mother, backed by The American Academy of Pediatrics, is pushing for more warnings to be implemented regarding the danger of hotdogs. In addition, she is calling for changes in advertising of this classic American treat so that the ads are not targeted at children.
Obviously, choking is a serious issue and losing a child is devastating. But, am I alone in feeling like this reaction is extreme? I mean hotdogs aren't a pack of Camel cigarettes, whose manufacturer was accused of enticing children to begin a fatal addiction through the use of the Camel Joe cartoon image. My feeling is that every food could potentially cause a child to choke. So, where do we draw the line between predatory corporate advertising and personal accountability?
Tragically, a 4-year old died from choking on hotdog pieces. Now, this child's mother, backed by The American Academy of Pediatrics, is pushing for more warnings to be implemented regarding the danger of hotdogs. In addition, she is calling for changes in advertising of this classic American treat so that the ads are not targeted at children.
Obviously, choking is a serious issue and losing a child is devastating. But, am I alone in feeling like this reaction is extreme? I mean hotdogs aren't a pack of Camel cigarettes, whose manufacturer was accused of enticing children to begin a fatal addiction through the use of the Camel Joe cartoon image. My feeling is that every food could potentially cause a child to choke. So, where do we draw the line between predatory corporate advertising and personal accountability?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
When we die...
During one episode of The O'Riley Factor last week, I saw O'Riley interview Dr. Jeffrey Long. Long is a medical oncologist who recently wrote a book titled "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences." This book is a summary of approximately 1300 international questionnaires and personal accounts of near death experiences (NDEs).
Most of the book is anecdotal with little to no concrete evidence. Therefore, the argument of an afterlife requires the reader to take a leap of faith and trust that these NDE accounts have not been falsified. But, as someone deeply curious about the philosophical and religious question of what happens when we die, I found myself intrigued by Dr. Long's book.
People that have had NDEs, called NDErs, remember experiencing very lucid visions of coming out of their body. Often, they see their own dead corpse below them during these out-of-body experiences (OBEs). Furthermore, NDErs witness conversations even some distance from their body, and these conversations are often corroborated once they are resuscitated. During an NDE, people frequently encounter known or unknown dead relatives who guide them through this journey. Interestingly, words are often not needed because telepathy is used to communicate to the NDErs. Frequently, NDEs include a life review in which the person sees forgotten actions and judges whether they were kind or good during their lifetime. Finally, the person reaches a barrier in which they ultimately can not pass before they are commanded back to their earthly body. These experiences are so powerful that NDErs are often transformed for the rest of their life.
Like many people, I've heard of out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people seeing white lights as well as past memories. I've also heard the medical establishment's perspective that these lights must be due to the death of optical neurons, that the replaying of past life events are because of dying memory neurons, or that these people are dreaming and not really dead. However, Dr. Long points out that NDEs occur in people who are clinically dead with no heart or brain activity, and thus, who have no ability to produce dreams, visions or conscious thought. Therefore, clearly the current medical explanation is incomplete.
Personally, some of the more compelling "evidence" discussed in this book pertained to people who have been blind since birth. These individuals have NDEs that are identical to people that are not blind. Meaning, people blind since birth have very vivid visual experiences during their NDE. To me, there is no medical explanation for a blind person having residual visual neural circuitry that could be randomly firing during the death of these neurons.
One of the last points of this book, was that there appears to be universalilty to the NDE experience. By comparing NDE accounts from around the world, Dr. Long reports that the same elements are present in NDEs regardless of the culture or religion in which the individual is associated. This is suggestive of a common human bond in life and death.
In conclusion, I found this book thought-provoking. However, I would like to see more data, which reminded me of a news article I read a while ago that can be found at the following website:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html
This article describes an ongoing scientific study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation). The AWARE study is an international effort by 25 European, Canadian and American medical centers where cardiac arrests occur. In order to scientifically study the NDE, this study employed the strategic placement of visual elements or cues in locations within an emergency room that can be seen only from the ceiling. The hypothesis is that patients who report out-of-body experiences should be able to describe these visual cues if they were able to hover by the ceiling while looking down at their body. Unfortunately, this study is still ongoing and therefore these data have not yet been reported. But, I am anxious to see the results from this study!
Most of the book is anecdotal with little to no concrete evidence. Therefore, the argument of an afterlife requires the reader to take a leap of faith and trust that these NDE accounts have not been falsified. But, as someone deeply curious about the philosophical and religious question of what happens when we die, I found myself intrigued by Dr. Long's book.
People that have had NDEs, called NDErs, remember experiencing very lucid visions of coming out of their body. Often, they see their own dead corpse below them during these out-of-body experiences (OBEs). Furthermore, NDErs witness conversations even some distance from their body, and these conversations are often corroborated once they are resuscitated. During an NDE, people frequently encounter known or unknown dead relatives who guide them through this journey. Interestingly, words are often not needed because telepathy is used to communicate to the NDErs. Frequently, NDEs include a life review in which the person sees forgotten actions and judges whether they were kind or good during their lifetime. Finally, the person reaches a barrier in which they ultimately can not pass before they are commanded back to their earthly body. These experiences are so powerful that NDErs are often transformed for the rest of their life.
Like many people, I've heard of out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people seeing white lights as well as past memories. I've also heard the medical establishment's perspective that these lights must be due to the death of optical neurons, that the replaying of past life events are because of dying memory neurons, or that these people are dreaming and not really dead. However, Dr. Long points out that NDEs occur in people who are clinically dead with no heart or brain activity, and thus, who have no ability to produce dreams, visions or conscious thought. Therefore, clearly the current medical explanation is incomplete.
Personally, some of the more compelling "evidence" discussed in this book pertained to people who have been blind since birth. These individuals have NDEs that are identical to people that are not blind. Meaning, people blind since birth have very vivid visual experiences during their NDE. To me, there is no medical explanation for a blind person having residual visual neural circuitry that could be randomly firing during the death of these neurons.
One of the last points of this book, was that there appears to be universalilty to the NDE experience. By comparing NDE accounts from around the world, Dr. Long reports that the same elements are present in NDEs regardless of the culture or religion in which the individual is associated. This is suggestive of a common human bond in life and death.
In conclusion, I found this book thought-provoking. However, I would like to see more data, which reminded me of a news article I read a while ago that can be found at the following website:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html
This article describes an ongoing scientific study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation). The AWARE study is an international effort by 25 European, Canadian and American medical centers where cardiac arrests occur. In order to scientifically study the NDE, this study employed the strategic placement of visual elements or cues in locations within an emergency room that can be seen only from the ceiling. The hypothesis is that patients who report out-of-body experiences should be able to describe these visual cues if they were able to hover by the ceiling while looking down at their body. Unfortunately, this study is still ongoing and therefore these data have not yet been reported. But, I am anxious to see the results from this study!
Friday, February 19, 2010
State backlash to federal health care mandate
With Obama's Health care summit less than a week away, many of us are anxious to see whether the original bill is scrapped and a new bipartisan one is forged. Personally, I agree some reform needs to happen. But $848 billion worth, or the $2.5 trillion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, is that really necessary?
Look, there are major injustices within the current health care system that need to be addressed. Some of these include being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or stopping benefits that cover life-saving treatments. Also, it's imperative to deflate the ballooning malpractice premiums for doctors, that in turn, drive up insurance premiums. Up until here, I am in total agreement with the Democrats.
Where the Democrats go astray and lose my support is with their logic that in order to fix these legitimate problems, then we need to spend nearly $850 billion and create a government health care system. One obvious flaw in this logic that leaps out at me is that the government could simply pass legislation to ban insurance companies from denying coverage or benefits. Oh wait, the current bill does this. Then why does this bill have such a huge price tag?
One reason is this push to get everyone insured. For people that can't afford private insurance, this bill would establish an alternative government health care program. But once again the Democrats lose me. Why is it necessary to spend billions to create a new government program, when people on both sides of the isle have proposed more economical solutions like creating a national cooperative. A coop would solve the woes of many buy allowing citizens to obtain portable private health care insurance that would not be dependent on their employment status. In addition, it would lower premiums because of the huge pool of customers enrolling in such a coop. I just don't get it, this seems like such a rational solution to the average American's health care complaint and at the same time doesn't break the bank. In addition, a coop could go into effect almost immediately without the need to establish a large government agency, thus providing immediate and affordable coverage to the average American.
If time is a factor in delivering relief to the American people, then why is Congress pushing a health care bill that does not go into effect until 2014? Although we'd start paying for this bill now, people wouldn't have affordable health care until 2014. To me, it seems like the policy makers backing this bill are disconnected from the people who are pleading for immediate reform.
While the federal government appears to be out of ear's range, the local state governments hear the disapproval from their constituents and have decided to act. Both Idaho and Virginia have approved state constitutional amendments to reassert their ability to ignore any federally mandated health care bill not supported by their residents. Another 32 states have proposed similar amendments to assert their state rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the Unites States.
If Obama truly wants a health care bill that delivers real change, then he has to scrap the original bill before next week's summit. Such an act would be widely perceived as a good-will gesture, while indicating that he is truly committed to a bipartisan health care reform bill. Otherwise, all hope of real health care reform will be dead for some time.
Look, there are major injustices within the current health care system that need to be addressed. Some of these include being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or stopping benefits that cover life-saving treatments. Also, it's imperative to deflate the ballooning malpractice premiums for doctors, that in turn, drive up insurance premiums. Up until here, I am in total agreement with the Democrats.
Where the Democrats go astray and lose my support is with their logic that in order to fix these legitimate problems, then we need to spend nearly $850 billion and create a government health care system. One obvious flaw in this logic that leaps out at me is that the government could simply pass legislation to ban insurance companies from denying coverage or benefits. Oh wait, the current bill does this. Then why does this bill have such a huge price tag?
One reason is this push to get everyone insured. For people that can't afford private insurance, this bill would establish an alternative government health care program. But once again the Democrats lose me. Why is it necessary to spend billions to create a new government program, when people on both sides of the isle have proposed more economical solutions like creating a national cooperative. A coop would solve the woes of many buy allowing citizens to obtain portable private health care insurance that would not be dependent on their employment status. In addition, it would lower premiums because of the huge pool of customers enrolling in such a coop. I just don't get it, this seems like such a rational solution to the average American's health care complaint and at the same time doesn't break the bank. In addition, a coop could go into effect almost immediately without the need to establish a large government agency, thus providing immediate and affordable coverage to the average American.
If time is a factor in delivering relief to the American people, then why is Congress pushing a health care bill that does not go into effect until 2014? Although we'd start paying for this bill now, people wouldn't have affordable health care until 2014. To me, it seems like the policy makers backing this bill are disconnected from the people who are pleading for immediate reform.
While the federal government appears to be out of ear's range, the local state governments hear the disapproval from their constituents and have decided to act. Both Idaho and Virginia have approved state constitutional amendments to reassert their ability to ignore any federally mandated health care bill not supported by their residents. Another 32 states have proposed similar amendments to assert their state rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the Unites States.
If Obama truly wants a health care bill that delivers real change, then he has to scrap the original bill before next week's summit. Such an act would be widely perceived as a good-will gesture, while indicating that he is truly committed to a bipartisan health care reform bill. Otherwise, all hope of real health care reform will be dead for some time.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Bring back the safety coffin!
As of today I was not aware of the Lazarus Syndrome. But once you hear this story, I bet you will not forget it either. I stumbled across the following report on the FOX News Health page:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586302,00.html
It describes a female patient in Colombia who was declared legally dead after medical equipment failed to detect her heart rate or blood pressure. She was then sent to a funeral home to be prepared for burial. As the morticians were about to apply the embalming fluid to the body, "the patient began to breathe again and make movements." Apparently, she was not dead!
The Lazarus Syndrome is a phenomenon in which a patient can not be resuscitated, but unexpectedly has a miraculous restoration of circulation. This syndrome is extremely rare. Since 1982, there have been only 25 documented cases of Lazarus Syndrome.
Fear of being buried alive was rampant during the 18-19th centuries. As a result, some were interested in being buried in a safety coffin. Basically, the idea was to incorporate a way for an interred person to signal to the outside world in the event that he came back to life after being buried. One version of the safety coffin was to have a string or rope in the coffin that would connect to a bell above ground.
In reality, I don't think we have to worry about being incorrectly declared dead or buried alive. So, I don't envision that safety coffins will fly off the shelves anytime soon. But, I must say, it makes one wonder when one is truly dead, especially if you're like me and you are a registered organ donor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586302,00.html
It describes a female patient in Colombia who was declared legally dead after medical equipment failed to detect her heart rate or blood pressure. She was then sent to a funeral home to be prepared for burial. As the morticians were about to apply the embalming fluid to the body, "the patient began to breathe again and make movements." Apparently, she was not dead!
The Lazarus Syndrome is a phenomenon in which a patient can not be resuscitated, but unexpectedly has a miraculous restoration of circulation. This syndrome is extremely rare. Since 1982, there have been only 25 documented cases of Lazarus Syndrome.
Fear of being buried alive was rampant during the 18-19th centuries. As a result, some were interested in being buried in a safety coffin. Basically, the idea was to incorporate a way for an interred person to signal to the outside world in the event that he came back to life after being buried. One version of the safety coffin was to have a string or rope in the coffin that would connect to a bell above ground.
In reality, I don't think we have to worry about being incorrectly declared dead or buried alive. So, I don't envision that safety coffins will fly off the shelves anytime soon. But, I must say, it makes one wonder when one is truly dead, especially if you're like me and you are a registered organ donor.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Doctors are human, aka...they don't know everything!
Anyone close to me knows that I am a staunch advocate of patient activism in one's own personal health care. I, and many friends and family, have had doctors blow off legitimate concerns only to be proven wrong months down the road.
I heard this story last night on FOX News, and found the following link describing one woman's frustrating battle with her doctor:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/czech-surgery-tool-abdomen.html
As reported in this news article, a Czech patient underwent surgery for some gynecological issues. Then, for five months after the surgery, she complained to her doctor that she was suffering from major abdominal pain. For months, the doctor dismissed her and recommended pain medications. Finally, and I mean finally, the doctor requested an abdominal X-ray. What did they find? A foot long surgical tool in left inside her abdominal cavity since the surgery 5 months earlier!
What's the take home message? You should speak up and move-on! If your doctor doesn't listen to your concerns, dump him! If he wont incorporate your intuition and symptom reporting, or he makes you feel like it's all a figment of your imagination, dump him! If he doesn't make you feel that your health and well-being are his number one priority, then the fact of the matter is that you are not his priority.
Look, it's not just the doctor's fault. They're often overworked. But there are plenty of other doctors out there that will make the time for you and who will give you the kind of doctor-patient relationship that's right for you.
Finally, at the end of the day, doctors are human and make mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes you can't afford the delay. I would strongly recommend that you don't simply trust your one doctor's opinion. You've probably heard it before, but get a second opinion and find a doctor that will listen and help you.
I heard this story last night on FOX News, and found the following link describing one woman's frustrating battle with her doctor:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/czech-surgery-tool-abdomen.html
As reported in this news article, a Czech patient underwent surgery for some gynecological issues. Then, for five months after the surgery, she complained to her doctor that she was suffering from major abdominal pain. For months, the doctor dismissed her and recommended pain medications. Finally, and I mean finally, the doctor requested an abdominal X-ray. What did they find? A foot long surgical tool in left inside her abdominal cavity since the surgery 5 months earlier!
What's the take home message? You should speak up and move-on! If your doctor doesn't listen to your concerns, dump him! If he wont incorporate your intuition and symptom reporting, or he makes you feel like it's all a figment of your imagination, dump him! If he doesn't make you feel that your health and well-being are his number one priority, then the fact of the matter is that you are not his priority.
Look, it's not just the doctor's fault. They're often overworked. But there are plenty of other doctors out there that will make the time for you and who will give you the kind of doctor-patient relationship that's right for you.
Finally, at the end of the day, doctors are human and make mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes you can't afford the delay. I would strongly recommend that you don't simply trust your one doctor's opinion. You've probably heard it before, but get a second opinion and find a doctor that will listen and help you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
