Lol. I can tell you if you asked doctors what the biggest problem in their clinic, it’s the EMR. I can say this myself, I’ve been in healthcare for a while in various roles, and i’m not to far off from graduating as a physician.

To find out what happened overnight to a patient, I have to sift through pages of computer generated junk to find just a few things. It’s even worse in clinic, if I want to read what happened last time a patient was here, I have to sift through a note that is 50% auto generated lists of stuff to find what I really need to know: what the last doctor said the plan was for today.

They mention inbasket messages, and that’s a huge issue. Now with the rise of patient portals, patients would message now for something that previously was a visit. Only recently has there been ways to recoup this cost (not that this is appealing to most patients, who see it as nickel and diming, though I empathize, I never can get to talk to a nurse/MA at my own family doc’s clinic either).

Doctors are swamped, most of the day is charting, ultimately to appease insurance companies so that we get paid. If you’re slotted for a 15 minute visit, and I’m not out after 10 minutes, I’m going to be late to every appointment until lunch or close, then I’ll spend time at home finishing up notes and paperwork (prior auths, refilling meds, replying to messages from nurses and other clinic staff). Ultimately, for what good our regulation of healthcare has brought in the US, it remains that it is regulatory capture nonetheless. Healthcare orgs are quickly conglomerating, so the hospital, clinic, pharmacy, and insurance company are all owned by the same company. At the loss of good patient care, doctors are being removed from the equation, care is being fragmented and compartmentalized in a lot of aspects and less of our time in the day is available for patients.

What they call burnout, really is moral injury. People who go into healthcare do it because at some level, they want to help people. It really sucks when you realize 90% of your day is screwing with a computer system that seems to be diametrically opposed to letting you do your job.

I use hispanic and can’t say i have much care for the whole latinx/e debate, but if latino or latina just doesn’t float your boat, I think latine at least sounds better and looks better.

Ultimately this a definition issue, and is philosophical more than scientific. I have no doubt he’s a great neuroscientist, but it’s really not a great take. I think that the whole idea of neurochemistry cascading into the decisions we make doesn’t mean we don’t have the ability to choose within our neurochemical makeup. I think it definitely pushing a good point in that the root causes of our behavior, especially anti-social behavior, is possibly addressable in how we support and raise our kids.

I mean, I don’t use a scope to listen to pulse. I listen for murmurs, heart sounds, breathing, gut sounds. It sounds nice, but I doubt it is gonna give better info than what can be gotten from a stethoscope, ekg, or ultrasound(this is where a lot of the cutting edge is now in medicine).

I’ve worked in healthcare for 7 years and have not had any sort of assistive technology that hasn’t doubled my work.

While I can’t say much about the specifics of Japanese health and nutrition, I’d argue it confirms the general tenet of dietetics that restrictive dieting is largely not good for you (and isn’t easily maintained either).

Eating too little (or unbalanced) taxes your metabolism to free up glucose from your organ stores and store what it has, plus running the risk of nutrition deficiencies too. Plus eating too much also has it’s obvious risks.

I think in regards to keto, the risks of high fat diets are independent from the effects of ketosis. You still run the risk of CAD, obesity, high cholesterol and the issues those bring. (It raises LDLs but lowers triglycerides according to a paper from the ACC, they and the AAND are not convinced one way or another it seems on if keto should be recommended)

Well the EFF defends internet expression and communications interests for users, even when it’s a shitty cause. Kinda like how the ACLU has defended Klansmen and similar groups. They generally believe the right to freedom of speech and expression is absolute, and if speech isthreatened for one group, it sets a precedent for other groups to be threatened too.

It sits on the edge of the concept of informed consent in the realm of things like SaaS and copyright. Obviously doctors wouldn’t hold her down and pull it out, but obviously it probably was not useful to leave in. I wonder if there was a contract stating it had to be removed upon demand, like at the end of a trial or the bankruptcy that occurred. It’s something that we’re going to likely see in the future, as medical technology starts using computers to actively treat disorders.

Ultimately this feels weak. The prefatory clause is an explanation of why the right to bear arms is to be unrestricted. It isn’t a statement to say “the people should only have guns to serve in defense of the country”, it’s to support a militia should it be necessary. Everything else is just secondary to the “shall not be infringed” portion.

The Heller decision did enumerate a right to self defense as part of the 2A, with the justification that is was common to own guns to defend one’s person and property. While it can be argued that we shouldn’t base law today on life in 1787(given issues we are seeing in LGBT rights erosion, namely), I don’t think that there’s any reason why right to self defense has diminished in importance since then.

The Constitution is generally a statement of the limitations of the government, not the citizenry. I think that paints the tone of how the bill of rights should be taken.

I mean. yeah single payer is nice, however that’s really not even on the horizon for the US. For most Americans, especially those who actually have to know how to fully utilize their insurance (if lucky enough to have it), there’s no benefit for them to worry too much about a single-payer or socialized system. They have immediate needs and immediate solutions. They need to get their prescriptions, their surgeries, and their doctor’s appointments. It’s not “supporting” it, as so much as it is the devil you know.

Practically speaking, compared to standard PPO/HMO insurance, HDHPs are pretty good. If you are low-maintenance health-wise, you don’t pay for your physical, are going to spend maybe couple hundred bucks on sick care and maintenance meds. If you have chronic illness, you will only pay the deductible before your care is 100 percent covered, so a hospital stay would be enough to meet your out-of-pocket max, and everything else is covered 100% by your insurer (whereas the traditional plans have 6-10k limits, the HDHPs are much lower at 1-2k for a person and 2-3 for a family). Especially with HSAs, which are savings/retirement accounts for medical expenses, that some employers will pay into, so basically free money to pay copays, prescriptions, even stuff like aspirin and bandages.

They might have to depending on the final court opinion. It’s important to know that that’s a long process, it takes about 10 years. I’m not sure about the specifics of what that would look like for a drug getting re-approved.

As I understand the regulations, the FDA did a roundabout way of approving the drug for general use (it was originally approved under a pathway for drugs that were dangerous and had to be closely monitored by a doctor. This really was a weak spot for the FDA’s case. So I think the main critique from the court being that the decision-making of the FDA was abitrary and capricious in relaxing rules to prescribe (if it was dangerous, why did they relax the rules for use during covid? If COVID necessitated an easier way to obtain it, was it dangerous enough to need the Subpart H approval in the first place?). So the way the FDA approved the drug opened them up to administrative challenge.

Ahh, That makes sense.

I mean it read to me like they were saying that cytotoxic T cells became permanently dysfunctional (the term “exhausted” is used in the paper this news article is about) when encountering cancer cells. I’m not sure I see why the title is incorrect.

You know it’s not good when it’s bipartisan. I think the key point here is the bill sets a catch-22. If you are a dominant platform, you have to follow our rules. if you try to not be dominant, you violate the rules anyway.

It’s just made to control and censor.

I think this is an important finding to promote in regards to mental health. The mental health of men and boys is not really handled all that well (you either man up or get told to be more vulnerable/open/etc, without any real chance to handle it due to stigma and societal norms). I think one, it can help us spot teens who are having depressive thoughts, and give us a chance to help address it early. I think it also helps open up guys to better understand their emotions, which is the first step to managing depressive thoughts and treating depression. Given the article, I wouldn’t be surprised if men grow up with an idea of “i’m not depressed because i’m not sad, hopeless, etc.”, when their aggressive reactions are brought out by depressive thoughts (vs crying, loss of motivation, etc).

Yeah, at a certain point is stops being science and starts being an ethical nightmare.

I think this is a good step given the climate on women’s reproductive health currently. I am apprehensive that it will be treated as a “lazy” contraceptive instead of getting combo OCPs and follow up with a physician. This type of drug is extremely narrow in dosing, in that you can get pregnant if you miss your dose by an hour or two. It also opens up the opportunity for a woman to taken it without needing a doctor, which is good for those who don’t have east access to a family doc or OB. However, given the stats in the article(that most women prefer OTC due to convenience), I think it further enables people to avoid developing a relationship with a physician for primary and preventative care. I worry we might see some accidental pregnancies and maybe some negative health outcomes secondary to people not seeing a doctor every so often for their birth control.

make sure you have English selected as a language. The posts you don’t see have been marked as “English”, and lemmy hides everything that isn’t tagged as a language you want to see (Default is “unspecified”, which is what mine fall under.)

The New Yorker hosting of this article was posted over in c/Humanities. As for where it should go, it’s really a tossup. Articles about medicine can really fit the science or humanities category quite often as medicine is a bit of both.

I’m going to paste my comment from that other post (there wasn’t really a ton of discussion over there). https://beehaw.org/post/791579

The whole realm of manhood is plagued by the issues of size, sadly. I’ve always been skeptical about cosmetic surgery in general, because I feel lots of decisions are driven by dysphoria and dysmorphia, and sometimes with a lack of proper psychiatric counseling in such a way that consent for the procedure isn’t truly informed. Even in cases where someone may have a benefit from the procedure, I think the variance of outcomes, the side effects, and the rough healing process is often understated. Quite honestly, our technology in this area of plastic surgery isn’t all that good.

That said, in regards to penis size in general, pornography (for the most part at least) has done a number on the male mindset on their size. Given the social equivalence for many men between size and masculinity, this causes a lot of grief for guys, leading to men who feel unable to conduct relationships due to their perceived lack of endowment. Then online, there’s many dangerous magic pills like jelqing, surgery, vacuums, etc. that take advantage of this loneliness and anxiety to extract money from them, often leaving them worse than where they started, in terms of physical ED, deformity, and pain.

Culturally, I think there’s a lot of shaming of men’s bodies, in the same way that society holds expectations of women for their body characteristics, skin texture and color, personality, and dress. Innocent comments like “big dick energy” and insulting people we dislike by exclaiming that they are underendowed puts a notion that bigger is better, and men are most easily going to find comparison in a skewed dataset, that is, in the photos exhibited online in porn. Ultimately, Dr. Elist is taking advantage of his patient’s anxiety for his own gain, then convincing them the answer is “one more revision” or “it looks fine to me”, with animosity towards his patients who wish to speak freely with others about their experience, especially if it isn’t a glowing approval of him and his product.