Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I was a little surprised to find this as “news” –

Patients and their families want physicians who are gifted in diagnosis and treatment and who are caring individuals with the interpersonal skills needed to communicate complex information in stressful circumstances. A new study in the January 2009 issue of Academic Medicine shows training physicians to be humanistic is feasible and produces measurably better communicators.

It’s kind of sad that this is promoted as newsworthy. But I’m glad it’s being publicised all the same.

“Traditionally medical school curricula have focused on the pathophysiology of disease while neglecting the very real impact of disease on the patient’s social and psychological experience, that is, their illness experience. It is in this intersection that humanism plays a profound role,” said Dr. Frankel, who is a medical sociologist.

This is the heart of the problem I think. It’s this very issue which Havi Carel deals with so clearly in her book.

I did like this quote in the news item however –

In the 1920’s Francis Peabody, M.D., wrote that “the secret of care of the patient is caring for the patient”

Making a mark

Out walking the other day and I came across this mark on the ground,

the other mark

It’s like a butterfly or a flower or something. What was it? Isn’t it strange and beautiful?

Actually I’ve a pretty good idea what it is. Take a look at the other mark which was nearby,

the mark

One of the interesting things about these marks for me is that I find them compellingly beautiful but they are for sure just accidents, unintentional, the unintended marks left while doing something other than making a mark. They aren’t art. They weren’t even created deliberately but they are definitely the hand of a human being all the same.

Everything we do makes a mark, doesn’t it? Has effects we don’t necessarily intend and leaves the world a little changed.

Glasgow City Council has made a great images and sound display to celebrate Robert Burns. They project images up onto the City Chambers in George Square and have a PA system playing a soundtrack to accompany them. I went along and filmed it with my Flip Ultra. Take a look. I think you’ll enjoy it. (The programme runs for 15 minutes)

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.

illness by Havi Carel

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.

Old and blue

blue wheel
blue wheel

What caught my eye was the blue. This is a good example of how a camera lets you see more than your casual, passing glances do.

I can look at these images for a long time. The more I look at them, the more I see. I love the shapes, the colours, the rusty flakes, the age of the wheel, it’s markings and its worn-ness (is there such a word?).

There’s a word we don’t use very much any more – patina. It’s a lovely word, and a lovely concept……the beauty of the surface of things created by simply having existed in this world for a long time. It provokes thoughts about the connections between human beings and nature, between the manufactured and the weathered, about transience and the ever-changing nature of reality.

Health as flourishing

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!

Creativity and play

I watched a documentary about “prog rock”  on BBC Four the other weekend. If you don’t know what “prog rock” is, you’re probably significantly younger than me! That genre of music of one was one of my favourite genres in my teens – bands like Caravan, Soft Machine, Genesis, Yes and Pink Floyd. I really enjoyed it, not least because of all the memories it brought back. In fact, it stimulated an exploration of a deep cupboard in my house, digging out some LPs (that’s large, black vinyl discs!), and setting up a USB turntable with Audiohijack software on my iMac to record some of those old tracks as MP3 files and syncing them onto my iPod! Oh the joy! One of the musicians on the programme (I think it might have been Rick Wakeman actually), said one of the things which was important amongst those bands was that they were given recording contracts without any great commitments. They were encouraged to play and see what emerged. Well, how different is that from the factory-style production of contemporary pop!?

It was the statement about “play” that stuck. I need to play more. Even if it doesn’t stimulate my creativity it’ll be fun!

While I’m on the subject I thought I’d share something playful with you. I got this camera for Christmas –

Lomo Fisheye2

It’s a Lomo Fisheye 2. Lomo cameras use film. Remember film? There are a number of different Lomo cameras and each has its distinct characteristics. In fact “Lomography” is a bit of a cult. In the box with the camera comes a number of booklets, posters and leaflets about using the camera. But the big difference is that none of the material is serious. It’s all presented in a fun way and it’s all focused on persuading you to just go and “play” with the camera. So I did. Here are some examples from the first roll of film I shot –
The first two are of a ring of standing stones up by Aberfeldy.

reflected circle
stone circle

A Highland road…..
Highland road

And a double exposure – standing stones and a forest….
double exposed standing stones

This last one, hints at one of the things I’m going to explore with this camera – you can take as many exposures as you want on any frame. It’s an interesting and somewhat spooky effect, isn’t it?

Belief and buses

Maybe you’ve read about the Aethist Bus Campaign? A group of aethists working with the British Humanist Association have raised money for an aethist message to be placed on 800 buses. The message is “There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

I understand how the campaign began as a response to Christian adverts on buses, but I must admit my immediate response was – What evidence is there that people who believe in God worry more than those who don’t? And what evidence is there that not believing in God frees you to enjoy your life? Neither of these beliefs strike me as particularly rational. Surely there are both atheists and thiests who worry, and how on earth do we figure out whether or not there’s a relationship between enjoying your life and believing that God either does not, or does, exist? I bet there’s no general consensus on that one!

So the bus ad campaign seems to be no more than a battle of believers – between those who believe there is a God and those who believe there isn’t. Both groups would like us to adopt their particular beliefs. My own take on buses is…….there’ll be another one along in a minute!

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.