Triggerband Web Journal

You are at a sink to wash your hands. You have used this sink before and know that if you turn the knob beyond two thirds, the water will be too hot. Less than one third of a turn is too cold, and halfway is warm – perfect for hand washing. This is your model.

So you turn the knob to halfway and begin washing your hands. However, the water heats up faster than you expected and reaches an uncomfortable temperature. This new evidence conflicts with your model, and you are faced with two choices. The first is to continue believing that at half a turn water is ideal for hand washing. You would thus wash your hands in scalding water and convince yourself that something other than the water’s temperature is causing your pain.

Your second choice is to carve an exception into your model: Turn the knob halfway and the temperature is usually pleasant, but is sometimes too hot. When you make this choice you are adjusting your model to the evidence. And this gives you mental freedom to turn the knob until the water is at a more pleasant temperature.

Tomorrow, you find that the halfway mark is still too hot for comfort. In fact, every time you use the sink for the next month, a half turn is uncomfortably warm and one third turn is ideal. Either there has been a permanent change in the plumbing, or the original model was incorrect.

Regardless, it would probably be a good idea to change your model. If you do not, the following routine will ensue repeatedly: you turn the knob halfway until the water burns your hands. Then you apply the aforementioned exception and lower the knob to one third turn.

A very unsexy truth

The answer to America’s healthcare problems, and the catalyst for a medical revolution, will not be found in politics, technology, or economics. The answer lies in mental thought processes and philosophies. At its heart, this means better education and training. Let me clarify that better is not added years of formal education and a more rigorous curriculum. It means doctors must be taught how to adjust and refine their models and methods by what they see in practice.

Alexander Typaldos, JD

Yesterday, I ordered a personal computer with impressive specs. Featuring the new Intel® i7 processor, this system has high quality memory, hard disks, graphics, and optical drives.

It is about time for a replacement. My current pc is almost three years old, and was low-end even when new. I tried upgrading it with a new memory stick and video card, and they made the system usable . . . for a while. The problem is that when I upgraded one component, another needed to be upgraded to match, or the first could not achieve optimal performance. Eventually, limitations such as a weak power supply and outdated slots on the motherboard thwarted my upgrade ambitions.

Thus, I was resigned to purchase an entirely new system – one that is truly capable of accomplishing my demanding tasks of graphics and video editing. The components to the new pc are so superior to the old pc’s that it would have been impossible to upgrade to this level, one piece at a time. Progress required an entirely new system.

High Technology is Fun

I can easily see why careers in computer science are so popular. We are now deep into the technological revolution, where we can enjoy the practicality of many current innovations while still eagerly awaiting the next advances. High tech is a very positive field, with frequent and measurable improvements.

On the other hand, medicine as it once existed is a dying field. True, physicians still have numerous job opportunities and large salaries. But decisions about how physicians practice have fallen to third-party medical researchers, pharmaceuticals, HMOs, insurance, government regulators, and even malpractice lawyers. More disappointing than this, most doctors are deprived of seeing consistent, measurable results from their treatments – the kind of positive results tech professionals are accustomed to seeing in their line of work.

The tech field is not without problems, mentioning corporate monopoly tactics, product incompatibilities, and computer gaming addictions. However, these problems are of a type that is common to humanity. Medicine’s problems are of a different, more fundamental nature.

For example, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Intel each design distinct central processing units, but they are in agreement that a successful processor design is faster, smaller, consumes less energy, and is compatible with other hardware devices. However, the healthcare industry is devoid of basic consensus as to what constitutes good, quality medical care.

Are doctors judged by their results, how personable they are, whether they can avoid malpractice claims, or how many patients they see? Is a good physician one who simply manages patient complaints cost effectively, or one who uses more resources but actually cures patients’ conditions? Should doctors try new treatments or stick to the book? Who is writing the “book,” anyway?

America’s Medical Revolution

Many Americans believe we have already undergone a medical revolution of sorts. After all, it was but a few centuries ago that bleeding – the barbaric process of removing large quantities of blood to free the patient of supposed evil vapors – was standard medical care.

True, there have been great advances. But those advances are largely the byproduct of industrial and technological advances. Of course medicine will improve when it gains access to the microscope, life support equipment, biochemical and genetic research, and diagnostics technologies such as MRI. These are advances in medical technology, not medicine itself.

If you look at medical philosophy 100 years ago, you will find surprising similarities with medicine today. Back then, doctors administered dangerous “medicines” like opium and mercury to change their patients’ biochemistry and make them look, act, and feel better. Thankfully, modern science has replaced those drugs with much safer and more effective ones, but the medical profession uses these new drugs in the same way.

This idea that we ought to take medications that reduce symptoms is outdated. Fever, runny nose, even vomiting and diarrhea are the ways our bodies kill germs as well as remove the wastes and toxins those germs create. When we suppress symptoms, in effect we suppress our immune response and increase long-term physiological damage. This is a major reason why so many 40-year-olds are weak and in pain. Aging is not the cause; these people are wearing out.

Physicians have lost control over their profession because, overall, they have failed to meet society’s demands for quality, affordable care. Granted, society can be very demanding, but when doctors claim that IBS is neither caused nor worsened by a poor diet, it is difficult to take them seriously. When physicians habitually treat depressed and mentally ill patients psychiatrically, without considering the neurological or hormonal implications, then society – in the form of its businesses and regulatory officials – must step in and look for ways to reduce the burdensome cost and improve patient outcomes.

Opportunity in Difficulty

I view the medical profession’s decline with great optimism. Although I highly respect physicians, I think the profession needs a complete reformation. Doctors will not reorder their profession voluntarily; it must be forced into something akin to bankruptcy.

Alexander Typaldos, JD