Monday, February 28, 2005

New on my sidebar

I usually don't mention it when I add or delete sites from my sidebar. Sites and links usually just disappear and appear without my commenting whenever I happen to find a new site, notice that one of my links is dead, decide I don't like a site as much as I used to, or decide that I don't like a site as much as a new site I want to add.

But, given that I'm a big World War II buff, this site is just too cool not to plug. Most of us recall seeing World War II only in black and white pictures. Here, see World War II in Color.

The deadly power of denial, part 3: Fear

I've been thinking about denial yet again.

As regular readers of this weblog know, I've had more than my share of experience dealing with patient denial, as I've described. I've also had enough experiences with denial to realize when it's not denial. A while ago, I dealt with a patient that demonstrates yet another permutation of denial. As always, to protect patient privacy no names are given and some of the details have been altered without changing the heart of the story.

The woman came into my office, accompanied by her daughter and son-in-law. She had come to see me because she had recently undergone a breast biopsy at another institution. Unfortunately, the results were cancer. Even more unfortunately, the surgical margins were involved with tumor, meaning that there was probably still tumor left behind in her breast. Yet more unfortunately, the surgeon who had done the biopsy had failed to orient the specimen with stitches, meaning that we had no way of know which margins were positive. (Generally, it is considered a good idea to mark the specimen with sutures so that, if any of the margins are positive for tumor, the surgeon can know which margin(s) are positive and therefore have to reexcise just those margins.) And, worst of all, even though the size of the woman's tumor was less than 2 cm, that same surgeon had recommended a mastectomy. Fortunately, the woman's family had had the good sense to persuade her seek out a second opinion.

When I saw her for the first time, she seemed reasonable enough. I did the history and physical examination, as I usually do, and nothing indicated to me the difficulties that lay ahead. She was calm and, to observation, seemed to comprehend that she had cancer. She even seemed relieved when I told her she very likely did not require a mastectomy. I explained to her that her tumor could be treated with a re-excision of the area, although it would be a fairly extensive re-excision, mainly because the specimen hadn't been oriented and I couldn't be sure which margin was positive. I further explained that we would have to check the lymph nodes under her arm for tumor using a technique called sentinel lymph node biopsy, in which we inject a dye near the tumor and use it to find the first lymph node(s) to which the tumor drains. I added that, if there is tumor in the lymph nodes under the arm, that she would require an axillary dissection, which is an operation in which most of the lymph nodes under the arm are removed. Finally, I explained that she would need postoperative radiation therapy and possibly chemotherapy and/or estrogen blocking agents. She seemed agreeable and I wrote the orders for surgery. Another life saved--or so I thought.

A few days later, I got a frantic call from our surgical scheduler:

"Mrs. X is telling me she's canceling surgery."

"What?" I said.

"She says she's decided that she'll just get chemotherapy."

"Give me her number," I replied.

I then called Mrs. X. Trying to remain calm and reassuring, I told her that my scheduler had informed me that she was canceling surgery and I was hoping she'd tell me why.

"I just decided that that's no way to live, that I don't want the surgery, and I don't believe I have really have cancer anyway."

I was puzzled. I affected my most reassuring, nonjudgmental posture and asked why and whether she had found another doctor to do this for her. She told me that she had been told that the surgery would "mess her up" and that maybe she didn't need it. She went on about how she didn't think she really had cancer at all and that we all just wanted to operate for the money. I told her that most assuredly she did have cancer and did need the surgery. I explained that no medical oncologist worth his or her salt would give her chemotherapy (or any other therapy) if her surgical management was incomplete. Oncologists need to know the margins are negative and what the status of the axillary lymph nodes are before they can determine what the best postoperative adjuvant therapy is. After a period of my explaining some more, she finally agreed not to cancel the surgery.

A few days later, the date for which her surgery was scheduled rolled around. I was doing a couple of operations before hers. When I was doing the operation before Mrs. X was scheduled, I got a call in the room from the preop area informing me that Mrs. X had not showed up. I relayed a message not to cancel her yet.

When I got out, I immediately called the phone number on Mrs. X's chart.

No answer.

After some searching, the nurses helped me find the number of one of her daughters. I called and asked if she knew what was going on. To my surprise, I got an angry response.

"She did this to me on purpose!"

"What?" I asked.

"She gave them my number on purpose!"

I managed to calm her down, but it took a few minutes. From her, I learned that her mother screened her phone calls with her answering machine and was almost certainly at home, refusing to answer--but listening. I also learned that her mother had "gotten consults" from "people on the street" about her surgery. She had been told that she would be "messed up" by the surgery and was deathly afraid. I must admit to becoming a bit angry (to my shame) and mentioning that this was a slot that could have been used for another patient with cancer who would have jumped at the chance to take this slot. It was too late, even if she hit the road right that second, because another surgeon had booked the room after me. The daughter told me she'd call her mother. I later learned through the social worker that this woman was very suspicious of doctors. She thought that we only wanted to operate on her for the money.

I decided that we had to get this woman back into the office for another discussion. To this end, my nurse was resourceful and enlisted her son-in-law and other daughter to bring her in. After a long, grueling session, I thought I had managed to persuade her of the necessity for surgery and further treatment. Her family was on board and would make sure that she showed up. The social worker had gotten a support group of African American women with breast cancer to contact her and try to allay her fears.

But it wasn't yet over.

The morning of the rescheduled surgery finally rolled around, and she did actually show up.

But she wasn't exactly agreeable to surgery.

In the preop holding area, it was necessary to explain yet again in great detail yet again why she needed more surgery. She once again told me she was afraid the surgery would "mess her up" and that that was "no way to live." Finally, as if a light went on over my head, I asked her why she thought that.

It turns out that she thought that (1) she would lose the use of her arm after surgery and (2) that she might still lose her breast. It occurred to me that perhaps she had been told horror stories about axillary dissection (the removal of most of the lymph nodes under the arm). It is true that there can be one rather nasty complication from this procedure known as lymphedema, in which the lymph drainage is interrupted and the arm swells up badly. There is no cure, and severe forms can interfere greatly with quality of life. The problem is, lymphedema is almost unheard of after a sentinel lymph node biopsy, because only 1-4 lymph nodes are usually taken. After a prolonged explanation yet again that she would not lose her breast and that lymphedema was exceedingly unlikely after sentinel lymph node biopsy, she finally just admitted that she was terrified. She couldn't bring herself to admit she had cancer because she was afraid of the surgery that would be required.

After that, she actually signed the surgical consent. The surgery was somewhat difficult, mainly because she was not a small woman, but it went well. We located the sentinel node with only moderate difficulty, and the patient did well postoperatively. It turns out there was indeed residual tumor left behind in the breast, but fortunately, the sentinel lymph nodes were all negative for tumor.

I realize that it's probably fairly obvious to all that this patient was probably not really in true denial. Her "denial" was more likely a convenient reason to refuse surgery, rather than a true belief that she didn't have cancer. On the other hand, she was extremely suspicious of doctors, and it took a great deal of work to allay those suspicions and convince her that she truly did need treatment. She had been told that she needed a mastectomy when clearly she did not. A consequence of that extreme distrust may have been denial that she had cancer.

Thinking about this case, it occurs to me that we doctors too often become rather blasé about cancer. As mysterious and implacable a foe it is to us, we nonetheless treat it as fairly routine. We have to, particularly if it's our business to treat it. However, to the patient it is most definitely not routine. There are few things more terrifying to anyone than to be told that she has cancer. And, if that patient happens to live in an area where "people on the street" give "consults" about her diagnosis, that fear can be magnified 100-fold by the misinformation she will get from those "consults." Dealing with such patients can be a major challenge. In this case, it was a challenge that I almost failed to meet. Fortunately (for both me and the patient), I did not, at least not in this case. Next time, I (and, by extension, the patient) might not be so fortunate.

I don't forget that.

Tangled Bank #22-1/2

Some people, myself included, noticed that last week's Tangled Bank at The Scientific Indian was a bit thinner than usual. The articles that were there were of the usual very high quality, but there were fewer of them than usual. It turns out that the reason wasn't that there was any less great science blogging over the preceding two weeks than usual. The reason was a gmail gremlin that decided that all the e-mails being forwarded from PZ Myers to Selva were spam, presumably because they all had URLs in them! Those articles were lost, a great tragedy.

To right this wrong, yesterday PZ mounted a search expedition to find the lost articles at Tangled Bank 22-1/2: The Quest for Lost Articles.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

An atheist on "If I Were a Christian"

It's sad indeed when an avowed atheist is able to articulate Christian values more convincingly than the fundamentalists who have hijacked the Republican Party, but that's just what DarkSyd did on Unscrewing the Inscrutable.

Highly recommended reading.

Weekend fluff, part 5

beerrun 4morewars lookit-poppy

I love the Patriotic Poster section of Whitehouse.org, a fine parody site of the White House Website. Be sure to check out the rest of the site as well.

Weekend fluff, part 4

Do y'all think Respectful Insolence reads better like this? (Shout out to my homie Brent for this one!)

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Weekend fluff, part 3

This speaks for itself.

Weekend fluff, part 2

Capitalist Pig vs. Socialist Swine posted a rather amusing take on "emo" rock and its adherents. I may add him to my sidebar...

Weekend fluff, part 1

Regular readers (all two dozen of them) of this blog know that on weekends I tend to prefer to stick to lighter (even frivolous) material, with the exception of days that have special signficance and on which I want to post more serious material, such as two weeks ago.

In that spirit, here we go. I still don't know if I believe this, but apparently I'm a shameless seeker of fame. I suppose it's possible, given my shameless promotion of my blog, which has resulted in its staggering success and massively increased hit count compared to, say, its hit count in November. (Hint: This blog didn't exist in November.)

Friday, February 25, 2005

Update on the smackdown: Pharyngula appears to be down

Yesterday, I described a little smackdown between PZ Myers of Pharyngula and Deacon of Powerline over PZ's comments taking Deacon's fellow Powerline blogger Hindrocket to task for an arrogant and downright ignorant pontification in which Hindrocket blithely dismissed evolution on a "scientific basis." Just as the flood of hits to PZ's site was dying down after Deacon fired back in defense of Hindrocket, wouldn't you know that Atrios linked to PZ, as more evidence supporting Atrios' low opinion of Powerline.

Now Pharyngula appears to be down. At least, I haven't been able to get to the site all morning, and as of now I still can't. I'm guessing the site is getting way more hits than its server can handle right now. Hopefully it's not a DDoS.

In any case, I guess that's the price of successfully debunking one of the big boys. Here's hoping Pharyngula is back up again soon.

The History Carnival #3

Speaking of blog carnivals, the History Carnival #3 has been posted at detrimental postulation. Good stuff for your weekend blog reading pleasure.

My favorite entry of this week: Harry Truman and the Vulcans.

Time flies...and another Skeptics' Circle approaches!

It seems like just yesterday that it was my turn to host the Skeptics' Circle. It was a lot of fun and turned out far better than I had hoped. I plan on doing it again someday, perhaps in several months, to let others have a chance to show what they can do with it. But the baton has now been passed to Radagast, who will host the Third Skeptics' Circle on Thursday, March 3. So help Radagast keep the Circle improving. Send him an example of your best skeptical blogging at rhosgobel2 at comcast dot net.

And if you're interested in hosting sometime, check out the Skeptics' Circle Archive Site to see what dates are open and contact St. Nate, the Founder of the Skeptics' Circle at saint_nate at hotmail dot com.

Satisfaction

A couple of weeks ago, I reported an incident in which a flier that was sent to my office advertising a seminar on chelation therapy. In that post, I expressed my irritation and proceeded to debunk the claims of chelation advocates. I promised to report back on the response to a complaint I said I was going to send. Well, yesterday I got the response:
Dr. ORAC (you didn't think I'd really give up my real name here, did you?):

Thank you for your feedback.

Due to similar comments and feedback from the professional clinical
community we have decided to cancel this program at our Center. Please
note that [FACILITY] offers several, much needed community seminars in all
of our communities each month intended to educate the general public on
care options that individuals may find beneficial. These
seminars/programs include topics such as Understanding Alzheimer's
Disease, Caregiver Support Groups, Arthritis Seminar's, Elder Care
Informational Seminars, etc.

Our goal is to educate, we never endorse. I do understand, respect and
in this instance, agree with your opinion, thus the cancellation. As a
health care provider that serves over 3000 seniors in [STATE] daily
in our Centers, please know that [FACILITY] has invested significant time,
financial and human resources aimed at redefining standards of care in
skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. I would hope that you
consider this primarily when considering the care your patients would
potentially receive with us, and not on the topics we present to the
community.

I would be happy to discuss the quality initiatives our company has
implemented to demonstrate our commitment to excellence to clarify any
doubts you have regarding our dedication to quality of care.

Once again, I appreciate your feedback and letter, and can be reached at
them number below if you would like to discuss this further, and we
apologize if we have offended you - I can tell you with full confidence
that was not the intention of this program.

Sincerely,

Mr. "Smith"
Vice President
[FACILITY]
I must say, I rather expected this. I'm just disappointed that I wasn't the first to complain, as the program appears to have already been canceled by the time "Mr. Smith" received my message. I'll try to do better next time--really. I was busy getting the Skeptics' Circle together and being on call, which delayed my complaint for several days. Mea culpa. Fortunately, my colleagues in the state apparently picked up the gauntlet.

In any case, I really hate it when people like "Mr. Smith" try to weasel their company out of responsibility for choosing to sponsor a talk like this by saying something as mealy-mouthed and bureaucratic as, "our goal is to educate, never endorse."

Oh, really?

Somebody from his company decided to pick this particular speaker, rather than other speakers who don't advocate therapies with no clinical or scientific support for the claims made for them. Somebody must have approved that first somebody's choice of speaker and the use of the company's facility. Somebody from "Mr. Smith's" company decided to mail out a flier to physicians, presumably all over the state, to advertise the talk. Letters like this give the impression that little gremlins must have somehow sneaked this speaker onto the company's "educational" program and mysteriously sent out all those fliers. Would the company have picked a speaker for their educational program whose viewpoint on treatment its officers strongly disagreed with? I doubt it.

But what pisses me off even more is this:
I would hope that you consider this primarily when considering the care your patients would potentially receive with us, and not on the topics we present to the community.
Give me a break. He's been burned by a foolish decision that demonstrates a lack of ability to distinguish between treatments based on evidence and those not so based, and now he's trying to convince me that it's OK to send patients to his facilities. I'm sure "Mr. Smith" would argue that what they present to the public in their educational programs does not necessarily reflect on the quality of care they offer their patients. Maybe so. I don't entire buy it, though, and here's why: These "educational" sessions are almost certainly in reality marketing tools for the facility designed to build good will among the public, and for these marketing purposes, they chose a speaker pushing pseudoscience. If "Mr. Smith's" company doesn't even care enough to verify that the topics being presented to the public for "education"/marketing purposes on its premises meet minimal standards of scientific evidence, why on earth should I believe that his company makes sure that their care for patients meets those same standards? After this, how do I know they aren't giving chelation therapy to the elderly in their nursing homes? After all, they're letting some altie present totally unrealistic and unproven claims for chelation therapy to the public using their facility.

I recognize that it's possible (even likely) that this was nothing more than a mistake by someone putting together the educational program who did not have adequate knowledge and critical thinking skills to recognize pseudoscience and the obviously bogus claims contained in the flier. (Whenever someone claims the same therapy can treat many different diseases, it's a sure sign of pseudoscience or quackery, after all.) My rejoinder would be to ask why the company put someone in charge of the educational program who didn't know enough to recognize bogus claims to begin with.

I can only hope that "Mr. Smith" and the company have learned from this incident. I'll be watching. Next time, I might even sign up for the seminar and give the speaker a rather nasty surprise.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Tangled Bank XXII is here

The Tangled Bank XXII, the biweekly Wednesday compendium of the best posts from the science blogosphere, is being hosted by the Scientific Indian. Check it out! (And not just for my humble contribution, because--let's face it--if you're a regular reader here at Respectful Insolence, you've already seen my contribution.)

A smackdown to be enjoyed

Science blogger PZ Myers at Pharyngula has taken Hindrocket of the very popular conservative blog Powerline to task for his rather silly statements regarding evolution from a couple of years ago.

Money quote from Hindrocket that raised PZ's ire:
Professor Volokh seemed to assume that someone who doesn’t believe in evolution is a harmless crank, who should not on that account be barred from pursuing a career in, say, medicine. My own view is different. I think that Darwin’s theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds. So to bar a student from progressing in his career because he refuses to sign on to what is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny, is really an outrage. It is no different from the practice in Soviet Russia of promoting only biologists who believed (or pretended to believe) in the theories of Lamarck, who argued that acquired traits could be inherited. But Darwinism is the official religion of the biological (and more generally, the scientific) establishment, and as such is rigorously enforced.
Yikes. I haven't seen such a bunch of grossly ignorant statements on evolution in, oh, say, a day.

And I used to kind of like Powerline. It's even on my sidebar. I must have somehow missed such idiotic posts about something they clearly know nothing about (evolution). It's downright mortifying and embarrassing to those of us who are scientists and tend towards the right side of the spectrum in our politics.

Well, wouldn't you know, but Powerline actually noticed PZ and Deacon, another member of the blog, responded, leading to PZ's rejoinder, which further led to a large number of rather heated comments at Pharyngula. Now, I fully understand that PZ is not necessarily the most subtle or forgiving of commentator, particularly when it comes to dealing with creationists (in fact, he can be downright nasty at times), but the Powerline boys are big blog boys. You'd think they'd have a thicker skin when it comes to being challenged, but apparently they don't.

From the reaction to PZ's comments I've learned a couple of things:
  1. Powerline is a bit further out on the fringe than I had previously realized. Given my emphasis on skepticism, science, and critical thinking. I'm now debating whether to remove it permanently from my sidebar. I may leave it there, however, because, like it or not, it is an important conservative blog.
  2. Taking on a big blogger like Hindrocket is liable to be more trouble than it's worth. PZ reports attempted DDoS attacks and foul, profanity-laced e-mails from Powerline readers.
  3. People like Hindrocket, who clearly have little or no understanding of evolution, should avoid shooting their mouths off on the issue (and making pronouncements about it with such utter certainty) and stick to areas that they are more knowledgeable about. Either that, or they should exercise a little humility when commenting on areas about which they are not experts. Actually, that goes for me, too, which is why I tend to stick to what I know on Respectful Insolence, rather than venturing too far afield. (Of course, occasionally, I can't resist, occasionally to my embarrassment.) This is one of the reasons I rarely, if ever, comment on global warming, for example. I just don't know enough about it to comment in much depth. When and if I do comment on it, you can be sure I will make my readers aware of the limits of my knowledge.
In any case, it's a blog smackdown to be enjoyed. The big science dog PZ is taking on the humongous dog Powerline. Even given the size differential, I wouldn't necessarily bet against PZ.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

A toad is more accurate

Via Improbable Research:

Investigator Robert Bendesky reports that, far more frequently than customer service representatives, a toad produced the correct answer to physicians' questions about Medicare policy. Using a system in which a jump to the left meant "yes" and a jump to the right meant "no," the toad, not surprisingly, scored 50% correct. Unfortunately, the customer service representatives were incorrect 96% of the time, according to a 2004 GAO study described here (warning: link leads to a PDF file).

OK, perhaps it wasn't a fair test, given that the toad only had to choose between "yes" or "no" answers, but sadly I doubt the result would be much better even if the same questions had been given the CSRs. On the toad's side, the report notes that this test was entirely "open book." The managers of the call service centers knew in advance on what days the test calls would be made, and the questions had been intentionally designed to be simple and straightforward questions based on the insurer's own policies as published on their own websites. Indeed, the call center managers had even been informed of the questions ahead of time.

No word about whether the questions for the toads had been designed to be simple or whether the toad had been informed in advance of the test.

The conclusion: Medicare regulations are so ridiculously complex that neither doctors nor even service representatives (whose job it is to explain them) understand them. So, not only does Medicare reimburse physicians at a rate that barely covers their expenses (and sometimes not even that), but it makes it very difficult for the physician to collect even that!

Carnival of the Vanities #127

The Carnival of the Vanities #127 has been posted at PunditGuy. COTV is the grand-daddy of all blog carnivals, and every week it regularly attracts a large number of excellent posts on diverse topics, often so many that I don't have time to check them all out. This week is no exception. It's well worth checking out.

60th years ago today: The flag-raising at Iwo Jima

lflaga
Sixty years ago today, one of the most famous events in the history of World War II occurred, an event that created an image that will resonate forever. Those who have been regular readers know that I have a strong interest in World War II, the Holocaust, and debunking Holocaust denial. However, thus far, you may have gotten the impression that my only interest was the European Theater. In fact, some of the bloodiest fighting of the war occurred in the Pacific Theater. In the early years of the war, before significant numbers of U.S. troops reached England and before significant military action was possible against Nazi Germany, the Pacific was where the worst fighting occurred. In the dark days of early 1942, U.S. forces suffered defeat after defeat before the seemingly relentless advance of the Japanese, until the U.S. Navy handed the Japanese Navy its first crushing defeat at Midway Island in June 1942. After that, nearly three years of brutal "island-hopping" combat finally brought the U.S. to the very homeland of Japan.

Iwo Jima.

Iwo Jima was only 650 miles from Tokyo. Its importance to the U.S. was halfway between the bomber bases of the Marianas and Japan. Although the U.S. had long-range bombers that could strike Japanese soil, as was the case in the European Theater until 1944, they did not have fighter escorts that could accompany them all the way, leading to the bombers' vulnerability to fighter cover. The U. S. wanted Iwo Jima as a fighter base and an emergency landing site for damaged bombers. The Japanese wanted to hold it because it was part of the Japanese homeland and no foreign army had ever conquered any part of the Japanese homeland.

The Japanese defense strategy was simple and consistent with their code of Bushido: No Japanese survivors and each Japanese soldier was to kill 10 Americans before being killed himself. They dug 1,500 rooms into the solid rock of the island, all connected by 16 miles of tunnels in solid rock. Before the invasion, General Kuribayashi, who was in charge of the defenses of Iwo Jima, had been told "if America's casualties are high enough, Washington will think twice before launching an another invasion against Japanese territory." Kuribayashi designed his defense accordingly.
l721flag

On the morning of February 19, 1945, the Navy's big guns opened fire, and, after several hours of bombardment, over 70,000 Marines went ashore under withering fire from the hidden Japanese over the next two days. For 36 days, Iwo Jima became the most densely populated battlefield on Earth, with roughly 100,000 American and Japanese soldiers on an island half the size of Manhattan.

Mt. Suribachi, a 550 foot volcanic cone on the island's southern tip, was the key, as it afforded the island's defenders a panoramic view of the entire island from which to direct fire. After four days of bloody fighting, the men of Easy Company had managed to reach the summit of Mt. Suribachi. There, they raised an American flag. Photographer Joe Rosenthal was on hand. It is actually the second flag raising that was immortalized in the photo at the top of this post. The first flag was a smaller flag and was too small to be seen by the men below. Battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chandler W. Johnson sent a four-man patrol up with a larger flag to be raised. The stories of the men who raised the flag can be found here.

Unfortunately, although the troops were thrilled by this symbol, the battle for Iwo Jima was far from over. Three more weeks of combat awaited, and the island wasn't secured until March 26. Casualties were high, with some units taking 75% casualties. Overall, there were nearly 26,000 U.S. casualties (over one in three), with over 6,800 dead. Approximately 22,000 Japanese died. Approximately 1/3 of all Marines killed in action in World War II died at Iwo Jima, making it the single most costly battle in Marine Corps history.

So, given that, in my occasional discussions of World War II on this blog, I seem to pay inordinate interest to Europe and the Holocaust, I do not forget that the War in the Pacific was just as horrific and required just as much to win. I also take this day and other anniversaries of major events in the Pacific War to remember that my late uncle was a Marine corpsman in the Pacific late in the war. I still have his Navy Corpsman manual, which sits on a shelf in my office. It is one of my most prized possessions.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Grand Rounds XXII has been posted

Grand Rounds XXII has now been posted at Catallarchy. Once again, the best of the week from the medical blogosphere is on display.

And those of you who are fans of blog carnivals and happened to have found your way to my humble blog by way of Grand Rounds, may I be so bold as to direct you to the Skeptics' Circle, hosted on this very blog last Thursday? It's a biweekly blog carnival for skeptical thinking about quackery, the paranormal, pseudoscience, and a variety of other issues. The first session was hosted two weeks ago by St. Nate, and the archive and schedule for future Skeptics' Circle sessions can be found here.

And for the skeptics out there who can't wait more than a week for some more skeptical skewerings, The Guardian's Observer kindly debunks The 10 Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Myths.

Common names

I blatantly stole this from Dr. Charles (who had stolen it from Daryl), but it's so cool that I couldn't resist posting it also. If you want to know how common your name was over the decades going all the way back to 1900, check out the Baby Name Wizard's NameVoyager. The interface is unlike any I've seen before. (For some reason it doesn't seem to work correctly on the Macintosh version of Firefox, but it loads and works just fine on Safari. I'm guessing it probably works fine on the latest version of Internet Explorer as well. It does require Java.)

Carnival roundup

Bora Zikovic provided a handy list of upcoming blog carnivals for the next two weeks here. For those of you unfamiliar with blog carnivals, they are periodic aggregations of (usually) related posts designed to highlight the best writing in the blogosphere, usually hosted by different bloggers on a rotating basis.

Interview with Hitler's bodyguard

With the acclaim and attention received by liver Hirschbiegel and Bernd Eichinger's movie "Downfall," which was nominated for a best foreign-language Oscar, about the last 12 days of Hitler's life in the Führerbunker in Berlin as the Red Army pounded Berlin into rubble, advancing relentlessly, Salon.com has published an interview with Rochus Misch, who served as one of Hitler's bodyguards from 1940-1945. With the death of Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge in 2002, Misch is the last surviving person to have spent those bizarre and horrible last days in the bunker.

Unlike Junge, Misch seems relatively unrepentant and reports good memories of working for Hitler. In any case, it's a fascinating piece of history.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Jim Holt deconstructs intelligent design

The New York Times published a rather nice deconstruction of intelligent design creationism by Jim Holt in its Sunday magazine. I wonder if the editors were feeling a bit foolish for giving Michael Behe a forum to defend intelligent design two weeks ago.

A pet peeve

"23 is asking to speak with a doctor."

I turned. The nurse was addressing me, waiting expectantly for an answer. "Who?" I asked.

"Room 23."

"Who?" I demanded more insistently. I knew exactly which patient she was talking about. In fact, I was being a bit of a jerk on purpose, to make a point. You'll see why in a minute.

"Mrs. Smith," she finally said. ["Mrs. Smith" is, of course, not the patient's real name.]

"Thank you. Tell Mrs. Smith I'll be there in a few minutes," I replied.

I was on call last weekend. Normally, most of my practice is outpatient visits and outpatient surgery, but about once every month or so, for a week at a time, I'm on call for new consults. Part of that duty is to come in and round on the group's patients over the weekend. During these call weeks, I'm suddenly immersed in the hospital lifestyle once again, sometimes after being a way for a few weeks or longer. Last week, I was on call again after an unusually long stretch of time not being on call. Consequently, I had forgotten one of my pet peeves about hospitals, something that's irritated me about every hospital I've ever worked in (and I've worked in hospitals in four different states now). Can you guess what it is?

Yes, indeed. It's the tendency of nurses and hospital personnel to address patients not by their names but by their room numbers. Nurses, ward clerks, orderlies, and just about all the other staff do it. People who have been patients have no doubt heard variations of these kinds of statements by nurses and others:

"15 needs the bedpan."

"Room 54 needs his pain medicine."

"27 is throwing up."

Now, such terminology can serve a legitimate purpose when it's used for an overhead announcement. It protects the privacy of patients. I'm not saying that ward clerks should make announcements that every can hear in which patients' names are used. Also, I realize that nurses are assigned rooms. Unfortunately, it permeates every other interaction in the hospital, even those that happen behind the ward desk or even in the nurse's lounge. I've heard people justify such a habit using HIPAA (regulations that govern patient privacy), but this is a long-standing custom in hospitals that has irked me ever since I was a medical student in the 1980's. HIPAA took effect less than two years ago.

Don't get me wrong. This is not nurse-bashing. We doctors are just as guilty of dehumanizing patients by not using their names, perhaps even more so. It's just that we tend favor a different style of dehumanization. We tend to refer to the patient by his or her disease or surgical procedure, rather than room number. We'll refer to "the choly [short for "cholecystectomy"] in room 10," "that pancreatitis patient," or "that lower GI bleed in the unit." These sorts of usages irk me just as much as the nurse's telling me that "23 wants to talk to me." No one is immune to using this sort of terminology in medicine, even me (although I do try to stop myself when I find myself starting to use it).

When I was a second year medical student, my preceptor for Physical Diagnosis (the course in which we learned the basic techniques of physical examination) warned me about this tendency. He reinforced strongly that each patient was a person, an individual. The patient is not just a disease and is certainly not just a number. That patient has hopes, dreams, and fears, just as we do, and that patient deserves always to be treated with respect. He was correct. However, once a young medical student (or nursing student, orderly, or technician) is immersed in the culture of the hospital, rare is the individual who doesn't find him or herself occasionally (or even frequently) slipping up and referring to patients as numbers or diseases. In fact, during residency, when I was frequently overwhelmed by work, dog tired from spending 36-40 hours straight in the hospital, and all too often cranky, I found it very difficult indeed not to just "go with the flow." It's also particularly difficult for surgical residents on the trauma service, where the patients are all too often alcoholics, violent, or otherwise very unlikeable. In such situations, the patient becomes the enemy. Samuel Shem's House of God is still relevant today, even though it was written decades ago. I could speculate on how such dehumanization could serve a psychological purpose, protecting health care professionals from emotional reaction to the disease and death they see around them or how exposure to such suffering can dull one's senses to the humanity of even the most obnoxious patient (who might be obnoxious precisely because he/she is suffering and being obnoxious is the only way to get attention). But that doesn't make it acceptable.

As those who've been reading this blog a while know, one of my major themes is a critical (or skeptical) examination of alternative medicine and the science (mostly, sadly, the lack thereof) behind its claims. Indeed, my first substantive post to my blog after my manifesto was a post about why otherwise intelligent people choose alternative medicine over conventional medicine. In that article, I pointed out that one reason was the people with diseases for which conventional medicine doesn't have particularly effective treatments are desperate for