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.

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)

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.

At the end of the article, they throw in the “, but…” remark. It’s easy to get caught up in the wonder of the science and innovation, however we can’t forget medicine is more politics than anything. In the US, these wonder drugs for cancer, HIV, etc. are easy to come by if you lived by a major tertiary or quaternary care center. Many Americans are in rural areas, where the local clinic or hospital can only provide preventative or stabilizing care, and they may not even have a physician, it may be a NP or PA, or even an EMS service that can transport them a town over to the ER.

As the article says, our innovation is great, but we cannot forget to improve our infrastructure to prevent disparities in access to them that often occur in rural areas and among the poor and minority groups.

This guy likes to hear himself talk, which is what Medium is good for. Reddit is for hearing others try to tell you you’re wrong.

I personally don’t understand the purpose of this law. I’ve never discarded a phone due to battery issues (iPhone user). It’s usually just been a slow device, sometimes due to a failing charging port or 3.5mm Jack. I’d rather have the opportunity to replace ports, screens, and buttons.

Do any of you guys experience issues needing a battery replacement that often?

I play it occasionally. I generally have runs of good times and then runs of bad times, 30ks, random explosions/deaths. I would say I have gotten enough fun out of the starter pack that it is worth it. I probably wouldn’t pledge if I could go back in time, but I do enjoy the Vulture, so I hope they go back and make salvage profitable again, so you can make good money on something besides just bounty hunting, since most other stuff isn’t that profitable on a aUEC/time ratio. Things have been wonky for the past bit after Invictus, so I’m waiting for the next update to roll up to the live PU.

Precisely. I may not be safe with a gun, but why should I let the bad people in the world be the only one who is armed?

I think the deal is, you either pay cash or you pay with your data. While it definitely does increase friction for new users (and even existing users as finances fluctuate), a donation based system might be worth it. Something like wikipedia, archive.org, and other NPOs do. Incentives might be possible too, creating goals for getting X amount of donations to fund a specific improvement. It increases interest by defining a product or improvement, and increases buy-in by giving the donor the sense that they’re directly improving the site through their donation.