Primate Medicine

Two links this morning for mainstream media health:

US response to H1N1 'appropriate' - which I think is correct, if less by design and more by luck. I find it interesting that the death rates for different flu strains are given in the article, but not for the typical 'annual' flu. (The death rates become important when one is trying to figure out how much money to spend on influenza programs, because the money usually has to get cut from something else - and it would be good to know if that something else was a greater or lesser risk than the one you were proposing to fix.)

Norway's response to MRSA - stop prescribing antibotics. I find this interesting for two reasons - firstly, because it shows a reduction in intervention in response to increased disease (which worked) and secondly because the primary influencing factor in human MRSA was demonstrated (overwhelmingly, in multiple regions) to be over-use of antibotics in humans.

(Yes, yes, One World, One Health. Everything that goes into the bioweb touches everything else. But let's hit the lower hanging fruit first, shall we, before harring off to stop animals from getting medical treatment?)

I am curious as to what sort of in-clinic, alternative care or counseling was given patients in lieu of an antibiotic prescription. Sometimes, if a provider (MD, DVM, whatever) declines to prescribe medication, the client/patient seems to take offense, as if the provider doesn't care/isn't trying to make the patient better. 'Tincture of talk' fixes many of these misunderstandings, but not all of them. A provider might easily decide that it is a better use of their time to write the script and go on to the next patient than to spend the time convincing the client to accept the more conservative treatment (which isn't making the provider any money anyway.)

Also of note is the variation in drug approval in different countries across the world. In many places I've visited - specifically Latin America - drugs that are restricted to prescription use only in the USA are available over the counter at pharmacies and animal supply/feed stores.

Noted for later

Article on health care reform:

How health care killed my father

It is not, despite the title, an angry article, but very well researched and argued.

Links on Saving the World

Got called out late yesterday afternoon for an incoming flight with a "sick dog" that turned out not to be as advertised: the flight was six hours out, not 45 minutes, and the dog was lame, not sick.

Sick, if it included 'collapsed' or 'vomiting' or 'passing blood' could mean any number of life threatening issues, for which I would want to be there right then. Lame, on the other hand, is rarely life threatening, and generally isn't an emergency, technically speaking. (Although a very severe fracture could require bandaging before travel to immediate treatment to prevent severe limb impairment.)

In a way, it turned out for the best, as the aircraft was arriving at the more distant airport, and not the close one. So we got to practice emergency response (verdict: we need more practice) and still got done with work fairly early.

***
Grand Rounds Blog Calender - I love Grand Rounds, even though it's nearly all heavily human-medicine oriented.

Ten Ways the American Health Care System Is Better Than You Think - doesn't cover care of pre-term babies, (and I'm too lazy to look up links right now) which is another area in which we excell. (We just have too many pre-term babies, and not enough of a handle on how to prevent this significant risk factor.) (I will also note how easy it is to cherry-pick data comparing one country's sytem to another.)

Grant System Encourages Cancer Researchers To Play It Safe - So far, grants haven't helped find treatments. That's a bummer.

Catholic Conservation Center - like it says on the wrapper - Catholic-pov-driven conservation/ecological movement. Perhaps a hair too anti-pagan in tone, but otherwise a site I intend to spend more time looking through.

Blog post discussing recent UK study finding no added nutritional value to 'organic' food. I don't support organic animal husbandry, because sick things shuold get medicine, and I don't support large scale organic vegtable and grain production, because pulling weeds for a living sucks. But I have no problems with people indulging in organic methods for backyard produce, and I am opposed to non-organic lawncare.

***

Note for writing later: New Kind of Beanstalk

Faith in Action

A short post, with two links:

First, Pope Bebeduct Benedict (sorry, can't spell today) XVI's Caritas in veritate - Charity in Truth - his most recent (and third) teaching document. It's long, it's complex, it's highly footnoted, and it reads like a German wrote it (duh.) So I'll be digesting it slowly.

(It's always better to read these things yourself rather than let the media summarize them for you. But props to BBC for linking to the whole document off their site.)

There are a few lines that jump out at me, in the first few paragraphs:

Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting. I cannot “give” what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with charity, then first of all we are just towards them. Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity[1], and intrinsic to it.

...which is not how I typically think of justice and charity. I have thought of charity as, in some senses, denying justice, because it fails to give the recipent what they deserve. (Like most people, I think, I'm pretty big on charity (or mercy) for myself, and justice for everyone else.)

The Pope's message will be, I bet, heavy on how a Christian is to live out their faith in their own life. As in - this is a garment for the working day, not just for Sundays and feast days.

Which brings me to my next link: British Medical Association doctors have voted down a proposal calling for them to be given a right to pray for patients without facing disciplinary action. Which leaves me...uneasy. On the one hand, I strongly feel that one should be able to 'discuss religion' - particularly as part of a whole patient care system - without being afraid of being accused of harrasment. On the other hand, none of us are as smooth handed as we would like to be at all times, and I can easily see how an offer to pray for a patient could come across entirely wrong. Complicating this, the BMA members are overwhelmingly part of the British goverment, as employees of the NHS, as well as being individuals with their own souls and minds.

My gut feel is that it is generally better to try and sometimes do it wrong, than to always fail to speak about faith. For me, that the NHS does have a chaplain section tips the balance over into an unhappy acceptance of the BMA's decision, instead of a sense that they made the wrong call.

Not an easy decision.

***

On tap: movies I saw on vacation, a few books I read, and stuff about vacation.

Stem Cell Research

(Touches on that Great Evil of Our Times, Politics. Feel free to walk on past.)

I wouldn't be posting this, if Neil Gaiman hadn't put up a post here that (IMO) misrepresented the stance of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on stem-cell research.

I am a strong supporter of scientific research. I strongly support research into inovations in health care and cures for chronic disease. I'm in favor of the space program, GM crops (to include animal crops) and the rational use of experimental animal models (which means I am in favor of testing medications and techniques on animals.)

But I think all of those should be pursued with caution and with strict attention to the moral and practical effects of the studies in question. (Including as simple a question as "is this the best thing for our money to be spent on today?")

I do not support the destruction of viable human embreyos embryos in scientific research. I think that - even if *no* study options were available - this practice is a long step down the slippery slope that leads to endorsement of euthanasia of the unwanted. (As a veterinarian, I recognize, respect, and use euthanasia as the valuable tool that it is. I do not support extending that tool to humans.)

I also feel that this is not an either/or arguement, that adult stem cells have been shown to be of medical use.

Because of this, I object strongly to the use of federal funds to support stem cell research that depends on the destruction of viable human embryos. If you agree with me, may I suggest that you contact and express your opinion?