Who’s to Blame?

6 August 2009 at 11:37 pm (Perspectives, Wrath) (, )

After nearly a year’s dithering hiatus, talk of MDs on the NY Times has driven me back here. Well, better late than never, as the kids say.

This is the provoking article: Are Patients in Part to Blame When Doctors Miss the Diagnosis?
Discussion here: Well: Who’s to Blame for a Missed Diagnosis?

The thing that bothers me here is actually a throwaway line:

It turned out that Marla was like my mother, a preventive health and alternative medicine enthusiast. …Two years earlier, Marla had noticed a pebble-sized lump in her left breast. Her primary care physician scheduled her for a mammogram, but Marla wanted first to try alternative remedies, so she skipped the appointment. She never went back to see her doctor because she felt that as soon as she began talking about other treatment options, he “shut down.”

The writer, who is of course a doctor, then goes on to deplore the various personal and systematic causes that contribute to missed diagnoses. The gist of the piece seems to be that doctors maybe sometimes make mistakes but aren’t responsible for patient stupidity or laxity. But it fails to consider legitimate reasons patients might not schedule follow-up care, many of which are later raised in the blog post comments — factors like cost, scheduling, job security, family responsibilities, fear, and (real or perceived) disrespect from the physician in question. While the others are more practical and logistical issues, the last is the most difficult to quantify and maintain.

Respect is important. Yeah, trite self-help book statement alert!, but a lot of people lose sight of this very simple fact (or maybe my exposure to the stockbroker/lawyer zone of the Loop has skewed my perception). And respect seems to be lacking in a lot of doctor-patient interactions. Marla’s original doctor refused to even consider alternate care options; he or she couldn’t even be bothered to hear about them from Marla or weigh her concerns about medical science. (Before you make too many assumptions, note that Marla clearly had SOME faith in medical treatment, or she wouldn’t have been visited a doctor at all. So don’t climb up on that “homeopathy is a total crock, medical science FTW” high horse just yet.) I think what Marla really needed, more than herbal remedies or surgery, was respect, and this point, which jumped out at me (and a lot of the commenters) was just kind of skimmed over by Dr. Chen. She doesn’t pause to consider the intangible way this patronizing dismissal influenced the patient’s decision about future care. Granted, Marla clearly shouldn’t have skipped out on that mammogram; but she might have been more receptive to the idea if the doc’s response ran more along the lines of “Well, why don’t we confirm what’s going on here, and then I’ll give you information on chemo/surgery/radiation and I’ll look into the alternative remedies you want to try” instead of “Just get the mammogram, you crazy dumb hippie.”

The best experience I ever had with a doctor was with a gynecologist I saw a few months ago; it was my first interaction with a doctor who listened to me. That’s not to say she didn’t correct me on some points or clarify some others, but she treated me like a whole person instead of a walking medical history to be drugged into medical homogeneity. She answered my questions and explained all the things my previous doctor couldn’t be bothered to. And when I told her the medication the last doctor prescribed caused a very unpleasant reaction, she suggested — gasp! — a natural remedy, which worked beautifully AND without any side effects.

I think a lot of doctors don’t realize how offensive it is to just dismiss a patient’s suggestions and concerns, carried along by that “doctor knows best” arrogance. As a patient I have the right to an explanation — why should I fill a scrip or submit to an invasive/painful/expensive test without a good reason? Yes, you have years of highly specialized medical training and experience. That’s why you’re wearing the lab coat and I’m huddled in this drafty gown. But this is my body. I’ve been living in it my whole life. We’re both fallible human beings here — it’s hard to argue that one of us is more fallible than the other. I’ll admit to the possibility of a mistake if you will.

Why, no, I don’t entirely trust the medical establishment. But that’s another post entirely. If I had it in me that might be a whole ‘nother blog.

Permalink Leave a Comment

An Exhortation

12 July 2008 at 12:39 am (Family, Wrath) (, , )

Don’t marry.  You’ll always wonder what might have been and there will always be someone to blame.

For the same reason, don’t have kids.

Now you’re thinking smarmily to yourself, Well, hotshot, if somebody didn’t do just that you wouldn’t be typing these words at all. Well, you’re right, but 1) I had no say in the circumstances that produced me, or whether I got produced at all; 2) I’m not sure it was an entirely good idea; and 3) If it hadn’t happened, it’s not like I’d know I was missing out on anything.  I’m not silly enough to think my existence — let alone this blog — is of critical importance to the world.  That is, my occasional need to continue to exist does not assume the world ever needed me to exist at all.  (I do figure since I’m here I might as well make a contribution.)  Existence and parenting are not for everyone, and if you don’t make babies — well, it’s not like they’ll know they’re missing anything.  Just because they can’t thank you from across the void of non-existence doesn’t mean they wouldn’t want to.  So if you do decide to have kids, don’t pretend you’re doing them any favors.  Reproduction — intentional reproduction, anyway — is an affirmation of self and nothing else.  It can be a cheap shot at immortality, an attempt to relive lost dreams or glory days, or even an attempt to prove that you could raise kids without repeating your parents’ mistakes.  But if you decide to have kids, understand that it is about you; maybe that’s why the price of parenting is so much of your own life.  Gratifying the self that much doesn’t come cheap.  Whether it’s long colicky nights or screaming matches 20 years after you started patting yourself on the back for a job well done, you will have to face the same self-denial as the most austere of ascetics.  That austerity should be one of your primary considerations.  Go to Little League games.  Sit with screaming 9-year-olds at a birthday party.  Skip a few random days at work and see what your boss thinks of you afterward.  Try to confront a clumsy 5-year-old without feeling the urge to tip a piece of furniture on top of her.  If the prospect of facing such situations leaves you squeamish, uneasy, or impatient, don’t do it.  Don’t have kids.

Marriage and family make selfishness so tempting and blame so easy.  There’s always somebody in the house who deserves your ire.  In singlehood you choose your company, your activities, even your work.  You have very few real moral responsibilities.  And when such things are a matter of choice, dedication comes naturally, sans resentment.  You only resent that which is imposed upon you by choice or circumstance.  You resent Lumberg asking for yet another Saturday at the office but you wouldn’t be violating a sacred trust if you quit.  Not so with marriage or child-rearing.  And before long your regret festers into resentment and maybe even hatred; you will be haunted constantly by the decisions you made, the roads you lost, the demands born of those decisions.  You took the road well-traveled and still managed to miss the warning signs, forget the pitfalls and lurking dangers and weariness of that beaten track.  Somehow at the beginning the road seemed as appealing to you as it had to every traveler who preceded you, before the great shrubs parted and the trees fell bare and the road wound endlessly into rocky, rutted, muddy oblivion.

Don’t marry.  Don’t have kids.  Listen.  Someday you’ll thank me.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Asymmetry

28 June 2008 at 8:06 pm (Wrath) (, , , , )

By now you’ve probably heard of the Rev. Michael Pfleger.

The Chicago Reader profiled him back in 1989. According to the Reader, Pfleger was locking horns with Church leadership when he was still in the seminary. As a recovering Catholic, I can’t help but appreciate this thorn in the side of the episcopacy; I doubly appreciate the Rev. Pfleger for his conviction and authenticity. The man lives what he preaches. Whatever else he is, he’s not a hypocrite. That passion means he doesn’t always tow the party line, and when one of his vocal denunciations launched him into the national spotlight, Church officials moved swiftly to discipline him.

The episode has left me even more embittered about Holy Mother Church. One priest denounces a presidential candidate in a homily, in however poor taste, and is immediately suspended. Contrast this with the still unknown numbers of priests who were quietly reassigned after being accused of sexual abuse. How could anyone NOT be angry? What kind of ruthlessness makes such an attitude, such actions, possible? If only someone had had the presence of mind to videotape an instance of child rape — ! This hypocrisy fuels my anger at the Catholic Church. I want to march up to Cardinal George and say, “Really? It’s so nice to know that you take your pastoral responsibilities seriously and that you have your priorities in order. As long as Mother Church looks good in public, who cares what she does to her children behind closed doors?”

This is why I left. To see a priestly class pay lip service to social justice while wheedling funds from parishioners who barely make ends meet, to see them condone ghastly crimes while denouncing comparatively minor infractions, to see the Vatican and all the lust for power and money and pleasure it represents — it was too much. And commingled with the revulsion was the (of course) the guilt, the sense that my baptism implicated me in a legacy of rapacious greed and heinous crimes. I had to leave, but I will never be out.

But more on that later.

Permalink 1 Comment

10 May 2008 at 12:28 pm (Wrath)

Want to know the quickest way to alienate potential charitable donors?  Call them.  Use an automated dialer.  Get real snippy and bitchy when the person whose home you just invaded tells you to leave them alone.

I have no sympathy anymore.  Bad enough I get calls from congresspeople who never seem to realize I don’t live in their districts, right-wing organizations who think I’ll support their propaganda, and debt collectors who refuse to grasp that having the same last name as their target doesn’t render your responsible for said debt –

Maybe it’s irrational, and maybe I’m just spoiling for a fight, but these calls make me so angry.  I don’t care anymore.  I want to say horrible things to these people — call them ugly names, fling profanity at them, screech and howl and shriek into their ears, make them sorry they called, repulse and frighten them so much that they never call again.  I hate them, I despise them, I abhor them with the fire of a thousand suns.

May they burn in an endlessly ringing hell.  Wait, I’m the goddess of eternal damnation.  I can do that.

Welcome.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Grand Theft

29 April 2008 at 8:10 pm (Wrath) (, , , )

Ah. We come at last to the long-anticipated release of Grand Theft Auto IV.

Well, I wasn’t anticipating it, but its recent appearance in local news pushed it from potential anniversary gift to censorship issue. Basically, the Chicago Transit Authority, cash-strapped and literally falling apart after (at least) a decade of mismanagement, was shamed, by Fox News of all things, into pulling the ads for GTA IV.

Before the CTA succumbed, the game existed in that unfocused mental space reserved for releases that don’t interest me but are preceded by too much hype to fall off the radar. Personally, I’m not a big fan of games that involve human-on-human violence; the only shooter I’m comfortable playing is Halo, because exploding extragalactic tentacled zombies, while messy, is cathartic and totally guilt-free. But now I feel a moral duty to stand up for GTA, or at least to complain about the shrill media frenzy and the ensuing disposal of rare and valuable ad revenue.

Aw, who are we kidding? This isn’t about the money. This is about shrill, uninformed, sensational “news”-induced panics, about censorship and hypocrisy, and about the total abdication of personal responsibility. The people howling about the game and the ad campaign are the same ones who ignore the nice game store clerk’s repeated warnings and purchase it for the 8-year-old offspring whose affections they’d rather buy than earn. (An acquaintance who worked a previous GTA release saw this happen on multiple occasions.) These are the same irresponsible parents who want video game ads stripped from public spaces to save them the trouble of having difficult discussions with their kids.

And do not get me started on the kind of hypocrisy that can ban video games — or even video game advertising — while conveniently overlooking violence saturation in other media. Nobody complains when the CTA runs ads for violent movies, but would you prefer to look at/consider the implications of this or this for 35 minutes? I don’t like casual realistic violence, on TV, in movies, or even in video games. It trivializes our lesser proclivities and desensitizes us to real suffering. GTA is not just gratuitous violence for its own sake; you could play the game that way, but you could play lots of games in ways that deviate from or pervert their primary objectives — say, for example, strip Monopoly.

Lurid fantasies are nothing new. All that has changed is the sophistication of their rendering. Don’t believe me? Check out the original Sweeney Todd, medieval visions of Hell , or just about any ancient mythology. Violent tendencies are a sad fact of human nature; we shouldn’t succumb to them indiscriminately but we won’t get rid of them by censoring a video game.

That said, I’m not a huge fan of the GTA franchise. The carjacking, crazy driving, hooker-hiring, underworld dealings, etc. just aren’t my thing; besides, I lack the attention span to pursue multiple mission-based games. But I will admit that Rockstar designs the franchise with biting social commentary (the talk radio is, like Idiocracy, chilling and riotously funny) and points irreverently and profanely at the darkness and vapidity on which we build “respectable” society. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why the game has been so shrilly denounced. Its very existence upends the fantasy that we live in an orderly, wholesome world populated by people (uncorrupted except for the noxious influence of video games) where manipulation, dirty dealings, theft, and even bloodshed are the exception rather than the rule. In an apt metaphor, the news outlets have offered only sensational and uninformed accounts of a perceived social ill, mistaking a symptom for the sickness. Ironically, Rockstar seems to be the only party interested in thoughtful dialogue about the gruesome consequences when our darker impulses go unchecked.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »