The Over-medication of America

I have a good friend – one of the few people I met in college with who I keep in touch. We are pretty much diametrically opposed in out political views, but oddly enough, are aligned when it comes to the belief people are too accepting of what doctors say. We both hold the thought that each of us is the final arbiter of their own health care decisions. One day I asked him how his parents were doing and he related a story to me to which illustrates the point.

His mother – now in her eighties – had always been in generally good health. However, upon a visit to her doctor, she discovered her blood pressure was slightly elevated. Not, mind you, “Oh my God you are a stroke waiting to happen” elevated – just slightly elevated. So,as doctors are often want to do, her doctor prescribed some medication. Now he could have talked to her about altering her diet, etc. and keeping an eye on the situation, but because (and this will come into play later) many doctors have attitudes about older folks, he assumed she wouldn't be able to do that. After a few weeks on the medication her blood pressure was down, but (let me do my Gomer Pyle impression – Soo-prise, Soo-prise, Soo-prise) she was experiencing some side effects.
So back to the doctor. Instead of taking her off the blood pressure medication (remember her pressure was only slightly elevated) or looking at alternative medication ( there are many for blood pressure control) he prescribed more pills for the side effects.

I'm sure you can guess where this is going. More pills for the side effects of those pills, and more pills for the side effects of those pills. Pretty soon the poor woman was taking about fifteen pills a day and feeling worse than she ever had. Her balance was bad and she was having problems with her memory. So back to the doctor and the kind, caring, conscientious physician (yeah right) informed her family that she was in the initial stages of dementia and/or Alzheimer's and the best thing to do was to institutionalize her - find a nursing home that deals with that kind of thing. Of course the fact that she was an octogenarian played a huge factor in the doctor's diagnosis and recommendations.

My friend was unaware of all of this until his father called him to discuss putting his mother in a home. My friend was obviously perplexed and concerned. In the course of only a couple of months his mother had gone from a vital, aware woman to someone who could barely stand and couldn't remember what she had for breakfast. So my friend talked to his mother's physician who not only defended his prescribing of all the medications, but got very defensive about the fact a mere layman would even question his judgment. No help there.

My friend finally found an extension of the Cleveland Clinic in Orlando (where his parents lived) and a doctor who was willing to listen. After consultation and review of the medications he advised that they take her off of all her medications to start. Within three weeks his mother was back to her old self.

This scenario plays itself out many thousands of times every year in this country. In a lot of respects Medicare part D enables it to happen even more. So often doctors treat the symptoms without even looking at the underlying cause. Sometimes this is enough – often it is not.

There is so much more to go into about this “epidemic” (irony definitely intended), but it isn't actually the point of this opinion piece. Instead it is the parallel with our economy.

Our economy has been over-medicated. The government is forcing the American taxpayers to take more and more medication and, like doctors, our elected representatives get defensive and don't look to find the underlying causes. Instead they choose to treat the symptoms. Looking at controlling the disease instead of curing the patient. In many ways they possess the same hubris as the doctors who are unwilling to look at alternatives. They believe there is no way the people who are paying the bills can possibly understand the malady. They believe they have to do something because the patient (the economy) can't heal itself.

Two quotes come to mind. The first from the Hippocratic Oath - “First, do no harm”. The second is from one of my favorites, Voltaire. He said, “The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while Nature cures the disease.”

I don't think most of those in office ever read Voltaire – pity.

A Few Thoughts on Hurricane Names

I have previously written about hurricanes so I won't go into the things I said then. Nor am I going to get into the whole global warming argument about whether it is causing larger, stronger and more frequent storms (it isn't because global warming is a manufactured phenomenon – follow the money).
But I do have a few things to say about hurricane names.

In 1953 the World Meteorological Organization decided that using short easily pronounceable names would be better for those who were advising the public. Prior to that time the storms were simply referred to by their position in latitude and longitude. In 1979 mens" names were added to the list of storm names in response to feminist groups who said that using only womens' names was an implied slur that only women were tempestuous and, all-too-often, unpredictable. Personally I always thought using womens' names was perfectly appropriate and apt because women wield a lot of power and are always to be respected. But then what do I know?

In 2003 congresswoman Shirley Jackson Lee was upset when she saw that French and Spanish derived names were added to the list. She argued that all ethnicities should be represented. It sparked an email (very un-PC but somewhat funny I think) that circulated around the internet and was the cause of a couple of people losing their jobs for forwarding it over office computer systems. I'm not going to repeat it here but you can find it on the net if you so desire. Personally, since most of the storms originate off the coast of Africa I could see some justification for it, but it did seem to be contrary to the reason to start naming storms all those years ago - keep it short and easy. Let's face it a lot of broadcast weather folks might have a tough time wrapping their tongues around hurricane Chaniquela and such.

But as Gustav currently hammers the gulf coast from the Florida panhandle to east Texas it seems to me the yahoos who name these storms need to be a little more circumspect when picking the monikers for these potential monsters. And they need to be ready to make some adjustments as needed (names are picked years ahead).

When the Russian Bear started growling recently and invaded the Republic of Georgia the namers should have had the presence of mind to eighty-six the name Gustav – it was probably looking to do some serious subjugation. Hannah is already named but did they not remember the old song lyric – “hard hearted Hannah the vamp of Savannah” ? Does it then surprise anyone that Hannah is looking right at Savannah to make landfall? But the next one really bothers me. It will be named Ike. Ike could play a little guitar and sing some, but his real talent seemed to be delivering a serious “pounding” (mostly on Tina). So if I were a resident of any Turnersville (I've found them in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and New Jersey) I would be making some “strategization for evacuation”.

Further on down the list for this year is Paloma. That means “dove” in Spanish and I would bet that storm doesn't do much. If we get to the T name watch out – it's Teddy. I am terrified of anything named Teddy that is associated with water.

Many people believe that the name one is given has an impact (no pun intended) on the course of their life. So you folks who name the storms – won't you please be a little more careful about the ones you choose. We would all thank you,