Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘health’ Category

Nature loves diversity. Healthy ecosystems are filled with a wide range of species. Intensive farming has shown us how single species crops are difficult to maintain in good health which is why they need support from both fertilisers and “-cides” (insecticides, fungicides….). When a particular species becomes a pest we’ve made several attempts to counter them by either directly attempting to cut back their numbers or by introducing some new predator to try and control them. Both experiments can go horribly wrong.

Peter Johnson, at the University of Colorado, has been experimenting with a radically different approach – increasing diversity. He has shown that an effective way to reduce the prevalence of certain parasitical diseases is to increase the biodiversity of the ecosystems in which their hosts live. You can read more about this research here.

This is brilliant work and it shows how serious, common, infective diseases in the world, such as schistosomiasis and Lyme Disease, could be tackled by increasing biodiversity. The logic, of course, is that such diseases are likely to become steadily more problematic as our world loses species.

We really do live in a connected world and there really are better answers to our health problems than just throwing more chemicals around.

Read Full Post »

I’ve just read “illness” by Havi Carel (ISBN 978-1-84465-152-8). This is an excellent book and as Raymond Tallis says on the back “should be read and re-read by everyone who is professionally involved with illness, who is ill, or is likely to become ill; which is to say, by all of us”. I couldn’t agree more.

Havi Carel teaches philosophy at the University of the West of England. She has developed a rare but extremely serious disease – LAM – which quickly reduced her lung capacity by 50%. She brings her professional philosophical knowledge and understanding to the personal experience of this illness in a way which both challenges the way we think about illness, (chronic illness especially), and provides a useful framework for a positive engagement with such difficult life-limiting experiences as disabling disease.

I would like to see significant changes in the way health care is delivered based on the lessons revealed in this book. We need a fundamental re-humanisation of our ways of thinking about illness in order to bring about a sea change in the way doctors, nurses and other health professionals work.

Havi Carel writes with great clarity. Don’t be frightened off by the fact she’s a philosopher. Despite the fact that she draws on the work of philosophers from Epicurus to Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty (amongst others), there is nothing difficult to grasp or understand in this book. She skilfully uses the works of great philosophers to both illuminate and clarify our thinking about health and illness. Not only does she use clear, straightforward English, but the personal story woven into book makes it a profoundly moving and completely engaging read.

On a naturalistic view, illness can be exhaustively accounted for by physical facts alone. This description is objective (and objectifying), neutral and third-personal………Phenomenology privileges the first-person experience, thus challenging the medical world’s objective, third person account of disease. The importance phenomenology places on a person’s own experience, on the thoroughly human environment of everyday life, presents a novel view of illness.

Instead of viewing illness as a local disruption of a particular function, phenomenology turns to the lived experience of this dysfunction. It attends to the global disruption of the habits, capacities and actions of the ill person.

This consideration of the relationship between objective and subjective perspectives is I think central to the development of humane and humanly relevant medicine. Eric Cassell nicely explores this conceptually by unpicking the words “disease” and “illness”, and clinically by asking doctors to encourage patients to talk about their “suffering”. The fundamental shift is a change of perspective from the components of the body, to the socially embedded individual human being. Havi Carel’s consideration of the “biological body” and the “lived body” sets a wonderfully clear perspective from which to understand this.

Normally, in the smooth everyday experience of a healthy body, the two bodies are aligned, harmonious. There is agreement between the objective state of the biological body and the subjective experience of it. In other words, the healthy body is transparent, taken for granted……..It is only when something goes wrong with the body that we begin to notice it.

This is exactly the point made by Hans Georg Gadamer in his excellent collection of essays entitled “The Enigma of Health”. For me, reading his essays completely changed the way I thought about health and illness. Havi Carel has given me a new framework for these concepts and values and I find that very exciting.

One of the most useful parts of this book is the exploration of the idea of “health within illness”. We have a tendency to write off the chronically sick expelling them from the land of the healthy to the land of the ill (as Susan Sontag so clearly wrote). But life’s not like that. Having a chronic illness does NOT mean never being able to experience health again. In the last two chapters of the book, “Fearing death”, and “Living in the Present” she tackles this head on, drawing on advice from Epicurus, Heidegger and the contemporary French philosopher, Hadot. The wonder and the joy of the present is something I’ve posted about before – here and here – both times referring to Hadot in particular. I couldn’t agree more.

Let me finish this short review though by focusing on her other really important point –

Empathy. If I had to pick the human emotion in greatest shortage, it would be empathy. And this is nowhere more evident than in illness. The pain, disability and fear are exacerbated by the apathy and disgust with which you are sometimes confronted when you are ill. There are many terrible things about illness; the lack of empathy hurts the most.

Virtually every day I hear terrible stories of heartlessness and carelessness. Of patients who have experienced a total lack of humane care in the hands of health care professionals. Always those stories shock me. In one way I don’t understand them. Why work in a caring profession if you frankly don’t care? But in another way I blame the system. This exclusive emphasis on the biological body reduces human beings to cases of diseases. By ignoring or belittling the patients’ narratives, or by not paying attention to their subjective experiences of their “lived bodies”, we literally de-humanise our practice.

To think of a human being is to think of a perceiving, feeling and thinking animal, rooted within a meaningful context and interacting with things and people within its surrounding.

It’s time to re-humanise Medicine. This book is an important contribution to that project.

Read Full Post »

Defining health isn’t as easy as you might think. An article in the BMJ before Christmas raised the issue again and amongst the responses they received this one particularly appealed to me.

The definition of health is important. There is a biomedical component to health, but it exists in a setting that includes biological, personal, relational, social, and political factors. For too long, we as doctors have been timid about defining health, and mostly operated at the level of “absence of disease.” For too long, we as a society have allowed politicians to get away with shunting health off to a “medical domain,” thus avoiding focus on the large scale social and political forces that create health and illness. We need to rediscover the force of Virchow’s statement: “Medicine is a social science and politics is nothing but medicine on a grand scale.” In my essay I propose: “Health is best seen as an ongoing outcome from the continuing processes of living life well. Living life well would be defined in terms of wealth, relationships, coherence, fitness, and adaptability. Disease avoidance would be a minor part of this view of health.” Such a definition is a political statement, informed by my knowledge of medicine and its social context. I believe that achievement of health should be a goal of public policy and that we should want to achieve healthy individuals in a healthy society. I see health as being a moral and practical good in itself, as well as a means towards other ends. If health is to mean anything it has to include ideas of human flourishing and abundance. As a doctor I need an aim, and a context, for my practice of medicine that goes beyond treatment of illness, important though that is.

This was a published as a letter from GP, Dr Peter Davies, in the BMJ. I enjoyed everything he had to say, but I especially agree with the sentiment that health is a process and that “Disease avoidance would be a minor part of this view of health”. Not only disease avoidance but death avoidance, I argue! But what really caught my attention was “If health is to mean anything it has to include ideas of human flourishing and abundance.” Couldn’t agree more!

Read Full Post »

The British Journal of Psychiatry runs a series where an author’s view is published in a 100 word article – it’s a neat idea. This piece, by David Healy, really appealed to me –

Little Pharma made profits by making novel compounds; Big Pharma does it by marketing. Doctors say they consume (prescribe) medication according to the evidence, so marketeers design and run trials to increase a drug’s use. They select the trials, data and authors that suit, publish in quality journals, facilitate incorporation in guidelines, then exhort doctors to practise evidence-based medicine. Because ‘they’re worth it’, doctors consume branded high-cost but less effective ‘evidence-based’ derivatives of older compounds making these drugs worth more than their weight in gold. Posted parcels meanwhile are tracked far more accurately than adverse treatment effects on patients.

Read Full Post »

A study of medical students in Brazil found that 38% of them had at least 10 of a list of 63 depressive symptoms during their internship years –

Affective symptoms represent the core symptoms of a depressive mood, based on students’ reported levels of sadness, dissatisfaction, episodes of crying, irritability and social withdrawal. The cognitive cluster assessed pessimism, sense of failure or guilt, expectation of punishment, dislike of self, suicidal ideation, indecisiveness and change in body image. Finally, the somatic cluster assessed the presence of slowness, insomnia, fatigue, loss of weight and loss of sexual interest

Such study results are both shocking and no surprise. A junior doctor’s job is highly stressful for a host of reasons. Pretty much every doctor I know would identify with the symptoms highlighted by the Brazilian researchers. When I read this I wondered these two things –

Does such a training make for better doctors? I doubt it. Such an experience is something to be survived and whilst I’m well aware that difficulties and even illnesses can teach us a lot about ourselves and even contribute to our growth, I wouldn’t recommend dysfunction and disease as the best teaching methods!

These experiences are more likely because we pay insufficient attention to the humanity of the real people who are health carers (the parallel to paying insufficient attention to the humanity of the real people who are patients). We practice a system of medicine which is focused on tools and techniques, not least on drugs, because our clinical focus is disease (lesions, pathology), not health. The rise of something called “Evidence Based Medicine” has made this worse. “EBM” is based on the statistical analyses of experimental “controlled” trials. The design of these trials is intended to “control for” the human factors in order to reveal the specific treatment factors ie the effects of the prescription, not the prescriber. It is virtually impossible to read in any significant clinical trial who the actual carers were. It’s as if they don’t count. They are irrelevant. But they aren’t. And until we change our values in health care and give a higher priority to the fact that health care is delivered by real people to real people then we aren’t going to change the outcomes.

Is it impossible to imagine a medical training which doesn’t cause depression in a third of the people who embark upon it?

Read Full Post »

The focus of medical practice is the lesion. It’s the lesion, the abnormal cells, tissue, organ or body system which IS the disease. This is the pathological approach to health. It gives pre-eminence to physical, “organic” abnormalities, names them (diagnosis) and then seeks to directly address those abnormalities with treatments. The treatments are primarily surgery to physically remove the lesions, and chemicals (drugs) to act against the lesions (or, in the case of infections, to act against the infecting organisms).

This approach works well for most acute disease and for clearly identifiable lesional problems. In fact, the more localised the problem, the greater the success of this way of working. However, there are at least two major difficulties. Firstly, the more complex a disorder, the harder it is to identify a “lesion” which is the sole cause of the patient’s illness. Secondly, there’s the difference between objective findings and subjective experience. Studies of symptoms have shown clearly that there is no direct linear relationship between lesions and symptoms. Not everyone with the “same” lesion (same diagnosis at same stage of disease) has the same symptoms or the same symptom severity. And, a person can have debilitating or incapacitating symptoms without lesions.

Here’s a study which highlights the other side of this coin – people can have lesions without symptoms. In this study, people with abnormalities in their MRI scans typical of Multiple Sclerosis but without any symptoms of MS – in other words where the findings were by chance while investigating some other problem – were followed up. 30% of them had developed symptoms of MS within about 5 years, but another 30% showed more lesions on the scan within 5 years but still no symptoms of MS. The researchers ask the question – does someone have MS if they have MRI-revealed lesions but no symptoms whatsoever? They argue a definite NO.

“Diagnosing a patient with MS has serious psychosocial and treatment implications, and physicians have an obligation to follow appropriate criteria in making the diagnosis,” Bourdette said. “Patients must have symptoms to receive a diagnosis. This study sets the stage for establishing a process for evaluating these patients and following them to help determine the risk of developing MS. Until then, we should not tell them that they have MS or treat them with disease-modifying therapies. For now, it’s best to remember the wise advice that we ‘treat the patient, not the MRI scan.'”

Read that conclusion carefully. They are arguing that we should address people not lesions. If we fully take that on board, there are significant consequences for the way we provide health care.

Read Full Post »

The placebo effect is much misunderstood, seriously under-researched and full of peculiarities. I must admit I’ve assumed that the placebo effect is the body’s self-healing effect. I’ve always thought that’s an important point to make because otherwise people tend to think of the placebo effect as some kind of trick. Whatever it is, it’s real. Symptoms can be modified or even removed, and the “nocebo” effect (that’s the one where harm is caused) can cause real illness. It’s not a pretend effect, even if the intervention is deliberately a pretend one!

However, I’ve just read a short article on the Edge, where a psychologist muses about the placebo effect and raises an issue I hadn’t considered. If the placebo effect is the self-healing effect, why doesn’t the body just get on and do it without the placebo? That’s a good point. Where’s the advantage in waiting for a push? In the article, Nick Humphrey considers the phenomenon from an evolutionary biology perspective and there’s something in what he says, but I’m left with the nagging doubt that whatever the placebo effect is, it IS NOT the self-healing effect. It might be related to the self-healing effect. It might even have its impact by provoking the same, or similar pathways to the self-healing effect. But maybe it’s distinct and different from the placebo effect, not least in it kicking in and getting to work without the need for an external push.

We tend to use such concepts in un-thinking ways. One of the tricks we use to stop our thought processes is to name something and in so doing convince ourselves that we now KNOW it. It’s not true though. Sadly, often when we name something, that naming stops us from thinking – especially if the naming is judgemental. (I think it was Wendell Johnston, the General Semanticist, who said “Judgement stops thought”) After all, what exactlly IS the placebo effect? Spontaneous healing? The natural capacity to recover? A statistical trick? And what IS the self-healing response? How DO people get well? We know some of the components and pathways eg inflammatory responses, the immune system, various hormones and so on, but can all these components be considered together to constitute something called the “self-healing response”?

The answer is…….we don’t know. But don’t you think it would be a good thing if we did? (fields of research such as psychoneuroimmunology and psychoneuroendocrinology are exploring these questions – google them and see what comes up!) If we understood the self-healing system then we could develop the healthcare interventions which were not only designed to promote healing but which actually did stimulate and support it. Why do we concentrate on “disease management” and “symptom control” instead?

Read Full Post »

Here’s one way to think about the hurts and wounds in your life, and how to address them.

Gravity is a force we don’t understand. How can two objects exert an influence on each other at a great distance? There doesn’t appear to be any kind of invisible string connecting them! Einstein came up with an interesting theory, however. He proposed that space and time were warped – that rather than being spread evenly in all directions, there were dips and undulations. The best way to think about this is to imagine a cloth. If you place, say, two oranges on a table cloth they will just stay where you placed them. However if you stretch the cloth out and allow the first orange placed to make a dip in the middle, then the next orange will inevitably fall towards the first one. Here’s a drawing from wikipedia, to explain Einstein’s theory, which shows what I mean –

spacetime_curvature

I think life is a bit like this too.

Events and experiences make an impression on us. Hurtful or painful ones leave dents in our psyche (or our bodies!) Death of a loved one is like this. It hits us, dents us, leaves a wound, changes our life forever. But, more than just a dent, this wound, or lesion, seems to have the power to draw life towards it. We find our minds constantly returning to it. The landscape of our life has changed. Things don’t look the same any more.

If we were like cars, we’d pop along to the body shop and have a panel beater knock the ding out making the surface nice and smooth again. He’d remove the dent for us. But we’re not like cars and there aren’t any panel beaters to take away a death.

One approach to deal with this is to try to remove the effects of the impact – drugs try to do this – antidepressants, sedatives to reduce anxiety or agitation, or to induce sleep for example. However, this approach doesn’t change the landscape. It doesn’t remove either the dent or its impact.

Another approach is the talking one. People are encouraged in counselling or psychotherapy to talk about the event or the experience and to in the process to try and change its impact on their present life. The difficulty inherent in this approach is that it can reinforce the strength of the dent. By focusing attention and energy on it, it can become all-consuming, increasing it’s pull and therefore its effect.

I think there’s another way.

Make more dents!

It’s not only negative experiences which make an impact. Positive ones can do it too. This is the approach used in positive psychology for example. By actively engaging in positive experiences we take an active role in fashioning the landscape of our lives. This is very different from the passive approach which can be utterly disempowering.

I know that when the impact of a negative event is large it’s effects are strong and long lasting, and the dent can be so deep it can be very difficult to climb out of it’s powerful influence. It acts like a black hole and draws everything to it. In such circumstances a combination of approaches might be needed covering all three of the main strategies I’ve written about above. There aren’t any right or wrong approaches here, but having a model to work with can help you understand what’s happening and find a way to change life when you feel totally trapped.

Read Full Post »

One of the things that frustrates me about clinical epidemiology (which goes by the name “evidence based medicine”) is how often it seems detached from the real world. Whilst researchers and statisticians pore over reviews of randomised clinical trials, real people with real problems turn up each day in the doctors’ consulting rooms. In the British Medical Journal there’s a regular column entitled “From the Frontline” and it’s written by a Glasgow GP called Des Spence. I always read his column because so often it reflects the daily reality I used to experience as a GP and which I still experience as a Glasgow hospital doctor. This week his column was particulary good – a healthy, realistic alternative view of the government’s “Quality Outcomes Framework” within which all UK GPs now practice.

It is not just the huge financial opportunity cost, nor the well made unwell, but the wanton consumption of our medical energies that I take issue with. Our energy has been spent bean counting the measurable while dismissing the most valuable aspect of medical care, the immeasurable. Perhaps I am wrong. But I will stand my ground of absolute scepticism until some redcoat finds real evidence to run through my Jacobean heart.

Well said, Des!

I especially appreciate your succinct “Our energy has been spent bean counting the measurable while dismissing the most valuable aspect of medical care, the immeasurable.” It’s a daily sadness to me that we increasingly pay attention to the measurable while dismissing the immeasurable in health care.

Read Full Post »

Researchers at Ohio State University have just published a randomised clinical trial of pyschological interventions in women with breast cancer. Here’s the summary conclusion –

breast cancer patients who participate in intervention sessions focusing on improving mood, coping effectively, and altering health behaviors live longer than patients who do not receive such psychological support. The study indicates that reducing the stress that can accompany cancer diagnosis and treatment can have a significant impact on patients’ survival.

This was a study of 227 women who had been treated for breast cancer for an average of 11 years. Half of them were given an intervention designed to address stress and help them cope better psychologically (I can’t find the actual detail of the intervention yet!). The intervention group experienced about half the recurrence rate of the others and that group also had about half the risk of death from breast cancer.

Two things interest me about this trial. Firstly, it shows that non-drug, non-surgical interventions in serious conditions like cancer can both positively influence the course of the disease and even reduce the chance of dying from the cancer. Secondly, by reporting improved mood, and healthy behavioural changes, the researchers highlight the value of interventions which make living better. I recently wrote about death avoidance and made a plea for health care which is focused on living. This little trial is a piece of that jigsaw. It not only shows the potential for such interventions but it begins to make the case for such approaches to become routine.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »