Category: Medicine

  • I don't have cancer

    Last week I went to the dermatologist. I have a few moles, and some of them were looking a little funny. The dermatologist did a full skin exam, and agreed that some of my moles looked funny, and she removed them. About a week later a pathology report confirmed that I have dysplastic nevi, and not melanoma. Yay! Sort of. The literature isn’t entirely clear what to make of patients with small numbers of dysplastic nevi—are they at increased risk of melanoma? What is the proper follow up interval? Dermatologists keep a close eye on these buggers, so I’ll be visiting her again in the fall.

    But I was curious what would happen if I weren’t a doctor but simply a “regular patient” armed only with google. I was not pleased with the result of my little experiment.
    (more…)

  • I wish we'd talked about this earlier…

    Dr. Signout, over at, well, Signout, wrote an interesting piece the other day. It’s a piece that everyone should read and think about while they can, because you never know when you may need to think about this.

    One of the most dramatic procedures in any hospital is the CPR, also known as a “code blue”, or simply a “code”. This is the choreographed chaos that takes place when someone’s cardiopulmonary status deteriorates to the point that only immediate and violent intervention will prevent their death. To put it more dramatically, the object of a code is often to forestall or even reverse death. Health care providers hold a range of opinions about whether or not family members should be allowed to witness a code. Current ACLS guidelines take a reasonable, evidence-based approach:

    [I]n the absence of data documenting harm and in light of data suggesting that it may be helpful, offering select family members the opportunity to be present during a resuscitation seems reasonable and desirable (assuming that the patient, if an adult, has not raised a prior objection. Parents and other family members seldom ask if they can be present unless encouraged to do so by healthcare providers. Resuscitation team members should be sensitive to the presence of family members during resuscitative efforts, assigning a team member to the family to answer questions, clarify information, and otherwise offer comfort.

    Some would argue that doctors have never given up their death-grip on paternalism, but I have argued otherwise. In the case of codes, however, paternalism may still hold sway, at least in a certain way.
    (more…)

  • Get ready—flu season is closer than you think

    Last year’s flu season was bad. Hopefully this year’s will be better (for us, not for the virus). The CDC is changing the recommendations a bit to improve the population’s coverage, and I’m hoping I won’t be quite as busy this winter.

    Last year, I provided you with weekly flu activity updates. I’ll probably do that again, but I think we need to kick off the season with an influenza primer. Get ready for some science! (BTW, for a more extensive look at influenza biology, see Effect Measure.)

    (more…)

  • Mercola—still lying after all these years

    It’s no secret that I have no respect for Joe Mercola. Every time I read one of his promotional emails or make a visit to his website, I see more fantastic claims. Usually, I don’t see blatant lies…until now…
    (more…)

  • Mike Leavitt to patients: "F*** you"

    A number of us in the blogosphere have been outraged by Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services’ desire to put the arbitrary wants of doctors before the needs of patients. At first it was just a draft proposal, but now Mike Leavitt is pushing to implement the changes. Soon, it may be legally acceptable to deny you a needed health service because the health care provider thinks your decisions are immoral.

    I’ve already written several times about why there can be no “conscientious objectors” in health care. This law would essentially allow doctors to ignore the standard of care set by their professional organizations. Let’s hear a bit from Leavitt himself:
    (more…)

  • Some days it's harder

    I’m a little down today. I’ve told you before that I take care of my own patients in hospice. I’ve also told you about watching patients and friends lose their battles with disease.

    This week I had serious talks with several people about end-of-life issues (the details of which I can’t really share at the moment). I’ve also had to tell someone about an abnormal lab result (a very bad one). In fact, the best news I’ve delivered all week was telling someone they had mononucleosis (rather than something worse).

    I’ve found, in my limited experience, that terrible illnesses don’t change people that much. If they were cheerful healthy folks, they tend to be cheerful (albeit appropriately sad and angry) sick folks. If they were curmudgeonly when well, they will usually be cranky when ill. Occasionally, some transformation will come over someone when they are confronted with a mortal illness, but I don’t think this is the norm. When thinking about these things, it is very tempting to wonder how I would deal with such a thing myself, but if I’ve learned one thing in the last decade as a physician it is this:

    Don’t go there!

    Empathy is a good thing, a necessary thing, but you cannot be an effective physician if your empathy turns into true identification. It is paralyzing. Everyone worries from time to time about what could happen to them if this or that illness struck, but doctors are in a bad position. We know too much. It’s far to easy to come up with realistic scenarios of our own demise. This is especially true when dealing with ill patients who are like is, in age, education, ethnicity, etc.

    We don’t really talk about this much. I mean, we talk about “not going there”, but we don’t often acknowledge to each other what it means to “go there”. As someone who teaches young physicians, I deal with their irrational fears all the time. Every lump, bump, cough, in the mind of a young doctor, is the seed of their own death. It takes a while to build up a bit of a skepticism about your own ability to evaluate your health. It also takes a while to find the right balance between empathy and identification—how to feel for the patient, without feeling like the patient.

    Still some days it’s harder. I was talking to a friend today (a fairly new friend, as it turns out) who is going through a particularly rough round of chemo. I grew up with her husband, she has a kid my kid’s age; it’s very easy to identify with her. If she were a patient, I would try to throw up that flexible fence with empathy on one side and pathological identification on the other. But she’s not my patient. Where do I build my fence?

    I don’t. Sometimes it’s possible to over-think things. She’s one of the “cheerful” ones. She’s not crazy, not stupid, not in denial, just a good person with a good attitude and a lousy disease. When it comes to friends and family, sometimes you’ve got to set aside the white coat and allow yourself to laugh and cry with someone, allow yourself to get close to someone even if you don’t know where life is heading.

    It’s not always an easy ride, but it sure is better than the alternative.

  • Autism and Mitochondria

    Prometheus brings us the best article I’ve seen to date on why the new push for a mitochondrial basis for autism is total nonsense.

    Once I saw this push from denialists like David Kirby towards a link between mitochondria and autism I knew we were in for a world of trouble. If only because mitochondrial diseases are a relatively new area of study and there are enough unknowns that they’ll be able to milk this nonsense for a decade at least.

    Prometheus, however, does an excellent job showing how the likelihood of a mitochondrial explanation for autism is prima facie absurd. This is not surprising given the clear absence of evidence for a maternal pattern of inheritance and the non-progressive nature of autism which is usually described as a “static encephalopathy”.

    Keep the link handy for when you start hearing mito-woo from the DAN quacks.

  • Doctors aren't preachers (or at least they shouldn't be)

    I’ve written a number of times about how a physician must be careful not impose his or her personal beliefs on patients.

    Another interesting case has hit the news. The decision of the California Supreme Court hinged on interpretation of state non-discrimination law. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know a bit about medicine and medical ethics. Regardless of law, this doctor’s behavior was wrong. The details are a little sketchy, but an unmarried lesbian woman was denied fertility treatments by a California doctor because the treatment conflicted with the doctor’s faith.

    Conflicted with the doctor’s faith. There’s the rub.
    (more…)

  • Seeding trials—no relation to Seed Media Group, LLC

    ResearchBlogging.orgI’ve been having an internal debate about whether to write on this issue, not because it isn’t interesting, not because it isn’t important, but because it’s getting so much coverage and I’m not sure how much I can add to the conversation.

    But it so infuriated me that I must blog. Science-based medicine relies on medical evidence. It relies on being able to grade medical evidence by its quality and strength, and to do this, there must be a certain level of transparency.

    I’m only a little bit idealistic. I know that drug companies must fund clinical trials if we ever want to see new drugs. That is why we have “conflict of interest” statements included in most medical studies—so that we may view the data with a somewhat jaundiced eye, if necessary.

    Until two days ago, I’d never heard of a “seeding trial”. Now I have, and I’m not happy.
    (more…)

  • How we know what we know

    Over the last few decades, the nature of medical knowledge has changed significantly. Before the revolution in evidence-based medicine, clinical medicine was practiced as more of an art (in the “artisan” sense). Individuals were treated empirically with a strong knowledge of medical biology, and the guidance of “The Giants”, or particularly skilled and respected practitioners. While the opinions of skilled practitioners is still valued, EBM adds a new value—one of “show me the evidence”.

    Evidence-based medicine refers to the entire practice of gathering and applying medical knowledge. This includes evaluating diagnostic tests (e.g. how well does an CT scan diagnose pulmonary embolism?) and evaluating treatments (e.g. which anticoagulant is most effective, which one is safer, how long should you treat, etc.) There will always be some questions that are untestable, and some for which no testing is needed, and practices for which evidence is sketchy.

    In corresponding with a friend recently, I started thinking about how we look at the quality of medical evidence, and how we can communicate this to the lay public.

    Let’s take, for example, cholesterol.
    (more…)