How overturning Roe v Wade impacts doctors

 When Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, I didn’t give much thought to its impact on doctors, but the impact is huge, particularly in some states. It used to be that, in dire medical situations, aborting a fetus was standard of care. Now, however, a doctor can land in prison for six years if a prosecutor disagrees with the decision to abort. Doctors must now think like lawyers. Lawyers are now on call to help doctors determine whether a woman would have died without getting an abortion. As one physician said, “We’re no longer basing our judgment on the clinical needs of the woman, we’re basing it on what we understand the legal situation to be.”

 In some places, the fallout looks like this:

•   “Do we wait until the fetus is definitely dead, or is mostly dead good enough?”
•  “How much bleeding is too much?”
•  In Texas, oncologists say they now wait for pregnant women with cancer to get sicker before they initiate treatment. Normally, the standard of care would be to abort the fetus rather than allow treatments that damage it.
•  Forensic nurses who care for sexual assault victims in the emergency room say they would no longer provide morning-after contraception for fear it would be considered an abortion drug.
•  A neonatologist worried about the liability for declining to resuscitate a fetus judged no longer viable.
• In Texas, women had to wait an average of nine days for their conditions to be considered life threatening enough to justify abortion. While they waited, they suffered serious health consequences, such as sepsis and hemorrhaging. One required a hysterectomy.
•  Doctors at one hospital declined to perform an abortion on a woman who arrived with a stillborn fetus.

 You get the idea.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

The dangers of “demon rum”

 I like having an alcoholic drink every evening—either wine or a cocktail. For some reason, I am unable to consume more than one drink. It just doesn’t appeal. For this reason, I’ve never been concerned about my alcohol consumption. But lately, new reports are emerging about alcohol’s deleterious effects—even the small amounts I drink.

 In the past, researchers have argued that modest drinking (up to 14 drinks a week) protects the heart. This conclusion was based on the fact that moderate drinkers have less heart disease than those who drink heavily or those who abstain. Now, however, they conclude that light to moderate drinkers tend to have characteristics that decrease their risk, such as smoking less, exercising more, and weighing less.

 The latest research, as reported in the JAMA Network Open, says all drinking confers the risk of heart disease. This conclusion comes from the analysis of data collected in the U.K. Biobank, a repository that holds genetic and medical data of nearly 400,000 people. According to this research, the health risk is small if you have an average of seven drinks a week. (Whew! That’s my average.) Actual risk depends on whether you have other conditions, such as diabetes or obesity. In general, however, their data showed that a typical middle-aged person who did not drink had an estimated 9 percent chance of having coronary heart disease, while a person who had one drink a day had an estimated 10.5 percent chance—a small increase. However, after that amount, the risk increases quickly. In Canada, new guidelines conclude that you shouldn’t drink more than two drinks a week. Every drink over six a week, they say, causes a dramatic escalation in disease risk.

 Other studies report that alcohol consumption increases the risk of atrial fibrillation, brain shrinkage, breast cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders. As to brain shrinkage, one journal concludes: "The brain tends to shrink physiologically with age. Heavy alcohol consumption seems to exaggerate this shrinkage...Fortunately, alcoholic brain damage is known to be, at least in part, reversible." Death is not. In the U.S., deaths caused by drinking exceeds 140,000 a year.

 In these studies, researchers consider a standard drink to be 3.4 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer (3.5% alcohol), or one ounce of spirits that is 40% alcohol by volume. Based on these rather miniscule amounts, my weekly average is probably more than one drink a day. Four ounces of wine is only half a cup! I’m going to have to think about this, although, for me, it’s rather late in the game.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Weird wiring

At the beginning of the pandemic lockdown, my friend Betsy started sending weekly messages to friends as a way for us to stay connected. Two years later, she’s still at it. The messages include TV and book recommendations, beautiful photos, cartoons, and other interesting tidbits. Here’s something she sent recently that is a read head scratcher. I’d seen this years ago but had forgotten about it. It’s something you must try!

1. While sitting in a chair, lift your right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles.
2.  Now, while doing this, draw the number ‘6’ in the air with your right hand. Your foot will change direction!

 Here's an explanation from the Internet: "The left side of the brain cannot manage two opposite movements in the same moment, so the brain combines the movement to a similar motion. When you switch to the left foot, there is no problem because the right side of the brain controls your foot movement, while the left side can focus on drawing the number 6."

Makes you wonder how someone came up with this.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Medical personnel behaving badly

 My sister, who is closing in on 88, had been having unexplained bouts of fatigue. To diagnose this situation, her GP recommended some tests at the Cardiovascular Diagnostic Center of Dignity Health. After a two-week wait my sister arrived for her appointment. Here’s her report:

“Don and I entered through a large automatic door to find an enormous glass room buzzing with staff. Nearby were a myriad of chairs filled with waiting clients looking as confused as I was. I approached the wide desk, manned by several harried people, and told them why I was there. They sent me to the second floor. This required a ride on an elevator whose buttons were so obscure we couldn’t find them.

Eventually we found our floor and were directed down a long hallway (while I’m thinking of heart patients more feeble than I). We came to another huge, glassed area with a bleak, sterile atmosphere. Again, we had to trek down a long hall past another crowd of people in chairs before arriving at a reception cubicle behind glass.

Then began the sign-in. I was required to sign in while I stood at a computer that I couldn’t make work properly. Don assisted and finally—with the help of a man in one of the chairs—we managed. Behind her glass and desk, the impatient receptionist gave me an ID bracelet and ordered me to wait. We sat for a while, and I was then ushered down another hall by a tech.

The tech looked me over, including at my walking stick, and she and her partner agreed that they wanted an OK before administering the stress test on a treadmill. They consulted a doc down the hall who didn’t emerge from an office, and that invisible person decided the stress test wasn’t safe for me. They sent me home.”

Update: My sister’s GP received an email from the Dignity people. The message said, “Patient refuses to get on the treadmill.” My sister was appalled and I am furious. They never even asked if she wanted to give it a try! Plus they lied! I wonder if she'll get a bill. Grrrr.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.