Philosophy and ethics

I don’t consider myself a laborer, though I surely work very hard. I work because I love to.

“No man needs sympathy because he has to work, because he has a burden to carry. Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” (Theodore Roosevelt)

“Each morning sees some task begin,

Each evening sees it close;

Something attempted, some done,

Has earned a night’s repose.”

(Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

Having problems is not a problem. Believing or pretending there are no problems, and then punishing or marginalizing those who want to fix the problems - THAT is a problem.

I have a serious problem with the ubiquitous use of 'due' when talking with patients about what their medical options are. This came up recently when I was given a list of my patients who were ‘due’ for certain services, required if my institution is to receive a financial quality incentive. Typically, ‘due’ shows up in EHR alerts (the diabetic patient is 'due' for their A1c or microalbumin) and quality programs (patients are 'due' for a mammogram every 2 years, a DXA at 65, a pneumovax at 65, even well child visits at set intervals).

"We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster." (Carl Sagan)

I recently finished reading Critical Decisions: How You and Your Doctor Can Make the Right Medical Choices Together by Peter Ubel, MD.  It should be required reading for all the following...

After reading this excellent study in the BMJ showing no benefit and some risk of harm from annual mammographic screening for breast cancer (see also this discussion in the NY Times) I suggested to a local institution that they should reconsider their Pay for Performance (P4P) initiative which penalizes their clinicians (by lowering their pay) if thei

All day long I work with patients who want answers and certainty. My awareness of how few questions have proven answers, and how unpredictable human health and disease can be, is a heavy burden.  This discordance may be why I enjoyed Stuart Firestein’s excellent book, Ignorance,  so much.

My institution is striving to become more patient-centered, and is making good progress, but has an odd way of showing it sometimes.

Science is not a linear or predictable path to truth.

Recent debate about the new definitions of psychiatric conditions raises some interesting questions about the difference between normal in a natural sense and normal in a statistical sense.