Thursday, September 18, 2008

Skeptical of "light" foods

With no data whatsoever, I reject the assertion that low-fat or sugar-free versions of foods truly help people lose weight or to be healthier. What I expect is actually effective is one or all of:

  1. Exercising more

  2. Eating different types of foods (cutting out the ice cream instead of switching to low-fat)

  3. Just plain eating less


I suspect that people who lose weight while eating light foods are also doing at least one of the above, and that people who only eat light foods without doing any of the above see little change.

Labels: , ,

Monday, July 21, 2008

The AMA on home births

The American Medical Association has issued a statement against home births (original Word doc converted to HTML by Google). To me this provides further evidence that, at the very least, the AMA does not have the best interests of the general public at heart.

One concern is their apparent disregard for quality of life issues. Their focus is narrow, defining success as survival of mother and child:

"An apparently uncomplicated pregnancy or delivery can quickly become very complicated in the setting of maternal hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, eclampsia or other obstetric emergencies, necessitating the need for rigorous standards, appropriate oversight of obstetric providers, and the availability of emergency care, for the health of both the mother and the baby during a delivery..."

It is safer to never go on a boat. It is safer to avoid travel. It is safer to never drink more than a couple bottles of beer. Safety is not a goal to be achieved to the exclusion of all else. Of course we want the mother and child to survive, but in many cases medical interventions do nothing to improve survival rates.

Hospital births are unpleasant. The medical staff wants to get a live baby out. It matters little to them whether the mother has a 3 month recovery or a 4-week recovery. They don't care if you go home exhausted and stressed out. Many OBs seem to see their patients as unruly children who must be told what to do. They often seek control and predictability where a less predictable and more organic birth would be better for everyone involved.

Pitocin, epidurals, Caesarean sections, and other interventions all have legitimate and justified applications in some pregnancies. Like much of American health care, however, pregnancy and birth suffer from an excess of medical intervention. OBs certainly have their reasons. Our society is litigious. The financial incentives are perverse, rewarding the amount of work regardless of appropriateness. The staff doesn't have to suffer through a recovery made excessively difficult by unnecessary interventions. That their behavior is understandable doesn't mean it's in the best interests of all families.

Medicine is, ideally, an empirical discipline. However, the AMA cites no medical studies in support of their statement. That makes sense, because those research studies don't exist. There are studies suggesting that home births are not worse in terms of mortality, while being superior in reducing medical interventions. I am not the AMA, so I can't say what their motives are. However, the AMA is a powerful lobby with many characteristics of a guild. It seems reasonable that their motivation is to maintain control of a significant health area. That preserves their prestige as well as their livelihoods. Their efforts have the effect of reducing competition. That is so obvious a consequence that it cannot be accidental. Perhaps I am too cynical, and they make these efforts only with reluctance. Regardless, they consider the costs acceptable, which is suspect because they bear few costs and yield only benefits.

The final and most egregious part of this statement comes at the end:

RESOLVED, That our AMA develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex...

They want to use the law to restrict individual freedom and force their methods on everyone. Their methods are often what's best. It's not often enough. The best data we have are clear, and the AMA offers little in rebuttal. Rather than prove the superiority of their care, and rely on individuals to make the right decision, they would rather use their prestige and political power to try to eliminate alternatives. That frees them of the burden of demonstrating their superiority, as well as eliminating much of the incentive to improve what is clearly not good enough.

This, among other issues, has led me to conclude that part of the dysfunction of the American medical system can be blamed on the AMA and similar organizations. They can be truly excellent in a number of areas, but they seem to believe that their expertise is broader than it is. Everyone make mistakes, even with the best of intentions. However, the AMA is a political entity as well, and those politics have tainted what they do. We have excessive respect for doctors in our society, and that reverence is hurting us all.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 30, 2008

Robotic surgery

I've been vaguely aware of the use of robots in surgery, but I didn't realize how potentially stunning their impact could be until I read this part of a brief article in the June 21, 2008 Economist:

A team of researchers at Germany's DLR Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics believe their new robotic-surgery system will be able to operate directly on a beating heart. They are using a new lightweight robot called MIRO. This can follow the motion of the heart muscle as it contracts. Meanwhile, the endoscope captures "a virtually stationary image" so that the surgeon can focus on a heart that appears to have stopped—but is actually beating as normal.

Emphasis mine.

That is amazing.

Labels: ,

Thursday, May 1, 2008

But how much?

More Mothers Breast-Feed, in First Months at Least. This hits a pet peeve of mine:

Studies have shown that children who are fed formula have increased risks of ear and respiratory infections, obesity, diabetes and even cancer.

How much of an increase? From what baseline? Did it go from, say, a 2% risk to a 2.1% risk? 0.007% to 0.07%? 0.001% to 50%? The breast is best, but it's not always possible or practical. You cannot make good decisions without knowing the degree of risk you're inflicting on your child. Maybe it's worth it, maybe it isn't. You have no way of knowing from that article.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Weaseling from Avent

Thanks for the helpful answer. I don't think they understand what the point of an FAQ is.

Do Philips AVENT baby bottles contain Bisphenol A (BPA)?
Philips AVENT reusable bottles, such as the AirFlex, are made from polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate plastic is approved for use and lawful for sale in every country where Philips AVENT products are sold, including in North America and Europe.

So is that a Yes or a No? Do a little reading, and you will discover it's a Yes, but geez. The whole point of an FAQ is to get straight to the point. They couldn't help using corporate double speak.

And hey, when did Philips buy Avent? Oh, 2006. Right about when I stopped paying attention.

Labels: ,