Truthiness
Perusing some abstracts last night, I came across one addressing the effects of e-medicine on patient-doctor relations. It made me contemplate
this scholar's post. I had formerly held the same perspective, as I think most do, however the patient-doctor scenario changed that somewhat.
We generally look at losing personal contact as a negative (with the exception of increasing productivity), but in what scenarios can this make people more comfortable to tell the truth and prove to be beneficial. Clearly it could benefit medicine as people may be more willing to convey their true sexual histories, etc. as they relate to HIV and STDs.
Could this increased level of comfort and trust help domestic violence or sexual assault victims effectively communicate their experiences? Help refugees share their stories? What other contexts could this be applied to?
Labels: Health, Tidbits
Onward and Outward
The past week has seen some
seismic movin' and
shakin' of future possibilities. While in NOLA for work, I sojourned to the international MPH department at Tulane and scouted the potential of resting my head in the city for a short spell. Despite all the praises I have heard of their international public health department I didn't really think it would emerge as a serious contender; nonetheless the program, encompassing emergency and disaster management, infectious disease, and policy (seemingly tailored for me), combined with city's developing country charm left me contemplating. Still
have these programs to check out though and Berkeley is definitely still in the running. Maybe it was all the
Sazeracs.
To compound the situation, over some ice cold sweet tea in the steamy Louisiana sun and the waitress calling me darling I got the call up to commence my first international project. A multitude of tea will be consumed in the coming weeks whilst working to identify emerging technologies that could be applied to immunization programs in developing countries.
Here comes the gravy train
Labels: Health, NOLA, Tidbits
Failing to Understand
"Bilingual health care providers: the provider needs to be a provider first, not a provider AND interpreter—have trained interpreter even with bilingual providers" - Cambio de Colores 2004, Annual Conference
While I think that language concessions should be made so that individuals are able to access and understand health care, education, legal info, etc.; I think demands such as this are ridiculous. To divert money from other health services to have an interpreter in addition to a bilingual provider is a huge waste of public resources. If individuals are able to communicate and get the care they require, then where is the need?
The more research I've done on the topic of health care and Latinos in the Midwest in general, the more questions have arisen in my mind. Most of the material I have covered thus far has focused on providing cultural sensitivity, cultural competence, and language training for the members of communities facing a large immigration influx. ESL is the only training mentioned as necessary for immigrants. I'm surprised by the seemingly one-way street these recommendations have taken. Wouldn't it be beneficial to all to receive cultural sensitivity training? Clearly you want to increase understanding and minimize potential for discrimination/racism on the local side, but at the same time immigrants are moving into a new culture. It should be a situation of both sides working to establish mutual understanding. Isn't it pertinent to train immigrants on the cultural norms of the society they are entering? I have yet to come across a document suggesting such an action.
Cogs still in motion and more to come on this.
Labels: Health, Immigration, Language
I Am Just a Satellite
Just had a conversation that put into perspective just how far we need to go with health education, everywhere.
"Well condoms can't prevent HIV, right? Isn't it small enough that it goes right through?"
Often it is perceived that HIV prevention is a strategy that is a one-time shot. You teach someone the facts once and that's it. Unfortunately, the more experience I get in the area, the more I begin to think that this isn't the case. Even though information may not be new in the field (or even truthful), if an individual hears something new from a friend, it is the latest information for them, sometimes perceived to trump facts they have gotten in the past.
Interesting to consider as more dollars flow towards care and treatment. Not saying that they shouldn't as that clearly has its own merits and acts as somewhat of a prevention strategy in its own right, but something to consider.
Labels: Health, HIV
The Boss
The first line of the following selection was of particular interest to me. In Thailand, there was a reason the brothels got excited anytime a Caucasian male in a tie wandered anywhere in the vicinity of their establishment. It was immediately clear, and disheartening. But that is neither here nor there.
Joel Lamstein, JSI president made the following statement
regarding the
proposed regulations (on HIV+ individuals wishing to enter the U.S.):
"...Furthermore, while U.S. citizens can and do travel to other
countries for pleasure and business without restrictions, we
should not erect discriminatory barriers against those from other
countries for a chronic, treatable disease that is not casually
spread. It's past time for political decisions to be informed by
the very science our own government has so appropriately
supported."
Under the current regulations, it is possible for HIV-positive
visitors to seek a "waiver" to the HIV ban, allowing them to
visit the U.S. for up to 30 days. Such waivers are capriciously
granted and difficult to obtain and the visitor's passport is
permanently stamped to indicate that the bearer is HIV positive,
a fact which for all intents and purposes becomes publicly
disclosed. New regulations would require the visitor to
demonstrate that he or she has no HIV symptoms, can supply
evidence that the danger he or she poses to public health is
minimal, and that he or she has an adequate supply of medication
for the trip—even for persons who are not clinically eligible to
be on ARVs. Under the current system and proposed regulations,
such potential visitors must also prove that they have received
comprehensive counseling about HIV transmission and harm
reduction, and show that they have adequate funding to pay for
any medical care they may require. Such stipulations are not
placed on visitors with heart conditions, diabetes, or other
chronic and costly medical conditions. The current law—and the
proposed regulations—violate the human rights to freedom of
movement, freedom from discrimination, and privacy."Labels: Health
