The number of people in the western world who are obese is now reaching dangerous levels. Some researchers are already calling it a pandemic. What so many physicians/researchers are trying to figure out are the reasons behind such a large percentage of the population being so over-weight. Many blame the eating habits-which consists mostly of fast food and over-processed foods. Still, another part of the reason might be a genetic defect that these individuals possess which makes it harder to loose the weight once they put it on. For people who wish to loose a few pounds for the summer, a diet of eating properly and exercising will result in a slimmer waist line. However, for those individuals who are morbidly obese often times need more help than just dieting to loose this large amount of weight.
A common choice for these individuals has become gastric bypass surgery, where the individuals stomach is shrinked to an extremely small size so that they cannot hold a large amount of food. For many, the results from this surgery have been astonishing. Everywhere in the media, there are examples of people who have lost 150-300 lbs from undergoing gastric bypass surgery. However, there are still some individuals who consider the risks of the operation far to large and seek other forms of treatment to loose the weight. Still, there are those who have underwent this type of surgery without receiving the results they desired.
Just recently, physicians have begun implanting electrodes into the brain to curb their cravings for food. Neurosurgeons from West Virginia University Hospital found electrical signals sent to an area in the brain, called the hypothalamus, which controls eating, can curb hunger in the obese. This surgery is the result of a three year, U.S. governmental trial and is now available to 20% of the population who have tried diets and surgery such as gastric bypass without loosing a significant portion of the weight. There has already been 2 successful surgeries in which both patients are satisfied with the amount of weight that they have been loosing. As a result, physicians are planning on more of these surgeries in the future.
With this surgery being so radial from all the other weight-loss treatments, many are challenging its usefulness in the medical field. Many critics have problems with physicians manipulating the patients brain to suppress these hunger triggers sent to the stomach. Through this surgery, the patient looses the control to determine when they are full or not, which is one of the main reasons behind them becoming obese in the first place. Instead of addressing their issues with food, the surgery is more or less just hiding these issues. Meanwhile, other critics are concerned with the high amount of risk associated with this surgery. There are already surgeries like this one in which surgeons use electrodes in the brain to help control Parkinson's or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. However, critics consider these diseases much more complicated and difficult to treat than obesity. Taking such a large risk-under going brain surgery to curb an appetite, seems a little obtrusive when there are numerous other treatments available for these individuals. Despite what the critics state, the choice to have this surgery performed is ultimately the decision of the individual.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/113367/Brain-surgery-could-be-cure-for-obesity
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
How private is your medical record ?
During the past week, it has been impossible not to catch some of the coverage surrounding the recent deaths of many public figures including Farrah Fawcett, Billy Mayes and Michael Jackson. Specifically, the death of Michael Jackson was such an unexpected, shocking event that many people are now looking into the medical charts to determine if there was a medical reason behind his early passing. Everything surrounding his death has become such a huge, public media circus from his will, his children, and his financial status at the time of his passing. The prescriptions that he was taking and his physical condition during the past few weeks and months has all been released to the media already. Everyday, more information is being revealed surrounding Jackson's medical health. However, should there be a limit to the amount of medical information that is released to the media surrounding these public figures ? How private are the medical records for these public figures ?
In an article from Fox News titled, Celebrity Medical Records Hacked: Are You at Risk ?, the release of medical records of Maria Shriver, Farrah Fawcett, and George Clooney were all snooped through by employees of the hospital. In April of 2008, the medical records of 30 high-profile patients, including Maria Shriver had their confidential records breached at UCLA medical center. The woman behind the Shriver case, Lawanda J. Jackson was also responsible for improperly looking at 61 patients' medical records before she resigned in May 2007. However, it is not just celebrities whose medical records are being looked at without the patient's consent.
Dr. Deborah Peel, founder and chairwoman of Patient Privacy Rights, a non-profit advocacy group, stated that "essentially, all medical records are up for sale to large corporations, research facilities and drug companies." She goes on to say that "by signing a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent form, you not only are giving your doctor and insurance company access to your medical record, but you may be giving them permission to sell your information as well." Linda Sanches, senior advisor for HIPAA Privacy Outreach states that "The privacy rule requires health care providers to give patients a notice of privacy practices to provide them with important information on how their health information may be used and disclosed, as well as what their rights are with respect to their information and how the individual can exercise these rights." Many consumers are not aware of every right that is included when they sign the HIPAA statement at physician offices. Bottom line, patient's need to be fully aware of what they are signing when they enter doctor offices. In the Shriver case, clearly this type of action was not warranted by the patient. However, the HIPAA privacy rule allows more than just the physician and patient to review the medical records, which is something very few people are aware of.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348988,00.html
In an article from Fox News titled, Celebrity Medical Records Hacked: Are You at Risk ?, the release of medical records of Maria Shriver, Farrah Fawcett, and George Clooney were all snooped through by employees of the hospital. In April of 2008, the medical records of 30 high-profile patients, including Maria Shriver had their confidential records breached at UCLA medical center. The woman behind the Shriver case, Lawanda J. Jackson was also responsible for improperly looking at 61 patients' medical records before she resigned in May 2007. However, it is not just celebrities whose medical records are being looked at without the patient's consent.
Dr. Deborah Peel, founder and chairwoman of Patient Privacy Rights, a non-profit advocacy group, stated that "essentially, all medical records are up for sale to large corporations, research facilities and drug companies." She goes on to say that "by signing a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent form, you not only are giving your doctor and insurance company access to your medical record, but you may be giving them permission to sell your information as well." Linda Sanches, senior advisor for HIPAA Privacy Outreach states that "The privacy rule requires health care providers to give patients a notice of privacy practices to provide them with important information on how their health information may be used and disclosed, as well as what their rights are with respect to their information and how the individual can exercise these rights." Many consumers are not aware of every right that is included when they sign the HIPAA statement at physician offices. Bottom line, patient's need to be fully aware of what they are signing when they enter doctor offices. In the Shriver case, clearly this type of action was not warranted by the patient. However, the HIPAA privacy rule allows more than just the physician and patient to review the medical records, which is something very few people are aware of.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348988,00.html
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Is there ethics on tv ?
During the summer, I am able to catch up on some TV shows that I was too busy to watch during the school year. From my opinion, television shows today can be classified into 3 main categories; reality shows, cop shows and medical shows. That seems to be the bulk of the shows airing today. Recently, my friend and I were sitting around watching Greys Anatomy. Although the show is highly entertaining (and somewhat addicting), the actions of the characters are very questionable, especially if they are trying to portray what really happens in a hospital. While I was watching it, the characters were intimately involved with each other and would discuss it while they were on the clock and some of their relations with the patients were far from ethical. Although this show is a medical drama and not a documentary, the public is still going to base some of their opinions of the medical field from what they see in these types of shows. As an example, one day on Oprah, Dr. Oz was dispelling the truth on if a certain injury that was shown on Greys Anatomy could actually happen in real life. This goes to show that people do believe some of what they see on these medical dramas because the content of it is so close to reality.
In an article that I found on The Healthcare Traveler, it discusses the ethcial actions of Jackie Peyton, the leading role in Nurse Jackie-a new show that began airing in mid-June on Showtime. On the show, a few of Jackie's behavioral traits that are upsetting the nursing community include her drug addiction, in-hospital sexual activities with a pharmacist who provides her with the drugs, and forging a patient's signature, just to name a few. These actions are so upsetting for some nursing associations that some are calling for action. Tina Gerardi, MS, RN, CAE, who is the cheif executive officer for the New York State Nurses Association is requesting a disclaimer to be shown before the airing of Nurse Jackie. She suggested that the disclaimer should note that "registered nurses practice according to a strict Code of Ethics that guides their interactions with patients and colleagues. Nurses are the professionals most trusted by the public because of their committment to the highest quality of patient care. The following program is not intended to denigrate the nursing profession in any way, but rather to explore the human element of a single, fictional character." Showtime's vice president of coporate public relations, Stuart Zakim, denied her request. Now, the American Nurses Association has prompted a "call for action," asking for all of its members to send complaint letters to Showtime. The AMA is concerned that the show will "erode the highly valued trust of patients who rely on the expertise of nurses in healthcare situations." As of yet, nothing has been changed or added to the show.
I agree that some of these medical dramas show healthcare professionals in a bad light. However, these portrayls are solely based on an entertainment factor. I doubt that any television network is purposely trying to portray all nurses with an addiction problem like Nurse Jackie, for example. The problem that I see is that there seems to be a grey area with medical entertainment and actual reality. Since these shows, like ER and Greys Anatomy, are using medical terminology and showing real operations, many people seem to blend the fiction with reality. Along with this is the behavior of the characters on the shows. If the viewers believe that the operations are real, will they also believe that nurses are less important, since that it they way they are often shown on these television shows? At what point should these dramas be allowed to show the health profession in a bad light before being forced to tame it down some or offer a disclaimer at the beginning of the show, as suggested by the New York State Nurses Association ?
http://healthcaretraveler.modernmedicine.com/healthcaretraveler/New+Healthcare+Travelers+Can+Use/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/606919
In an article that I found on The Healthcare Traveler, it discusses the ethcial actions of Jackie Peyton, the leading role in Nurse Jackie-a new show that began airing in mid-June on Showtime. On the show, a few of Jackie's behavioral traits that are upsetting the nursing community include her drug addiction, in-hospital sexual activities with a pharmacist who provides her with the drugs, and forging a patient's signature, just to name a few. These actions are so upsetting for some nursing associations that some are calling for action. Tina Gerardi, MS, RN, CAE, who is the cheif executive officer for the New York State Nurses Association is requesting a disclaimer to be shown before the airing of Nurse Jackie. She suggested that the disclaimer should note that "registered nurses practice according to a strict Code of Ethics that guides their interactions with patients and colleagues. Nurses are the professionals most trusted by the public because of their committment to the highest quality of patient care. The following program is not intended to denigrate the nursing profession in any way, but rather to explore the human element of a single, fictional character." Showtime's vice president of coporate public relations, Stuart Zakim, denied her request. Now, the American Nurses Association has prompted a "call for action," asking for all of its members to send complaint letters to Showtime. The AMA is concerned that the show will "erode the highly valued trust of patients who rely on the expertise of nurses in healthcare situations." As of yet, nothing has been changed or added to the show.
I agree that some of these medical dramas show healthcare professionals in a bad light. However, these portrayls are solely based on an entertainment factor. I doubt that any television network is purposely trying to portray all nurses with an addiction problem like Nurse Jackie, for example. The problem that I see is that there seems to be a grey area with medical entertainment and actual reality. Since these shows, like ER and Greys Anatomy, are using medical terminology and showing real operations, many people seem to blend the fiction with reality. Along with this is the behavior of the characters on the shows. If the viewers believe that the operations are real, will they also believe that nurses are less important, since that it they way they are often shown on these television shows? At what point should these dramas be allowed to show the health profession in a bad light before being forced to tame it down some or offer a disclaimer at the beginning of the show, as suggested by the New York State Nurses Association ?
http://healthcaretraveler.modernmedicine.com/healthcaretraveler/New+Healthcare+Travelers+Can+Use/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/606919
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)