Monday, August 31, 2015

The Puppeteers of Medicine

NBC-TV's evening news reported this weekend on U.S. nurses (apparently nurse practitioners, for the most part) who, in a country faced with an increasing physician shortage, have taken it upon themselves to see patients who otherwise would have no medical care at all.  I did not catch the full report, but the trend discussed involves nurses who have a medical doctor available (on the side) to call, should a patient require a more in-depth investigation.

Seems rational, right?  Well, that depends upon whether you're you, me or the American Medical Association (AMA).  If you're the AMA, you wag your little lobbying finger in Washington and say no, no, no.  Why?  Because the AMA wants nurse practitioners doing their thing directly under the thumb of an on-site physician -- who, seems to me, is probably always an AMA member by virtue of being a doctor.

Physicians get pissed when you refer to the AMA as a "doctors' union," but one thing is sure:  This organization wields immense power over you, me, life and death decisions and the way our medical professionals are expected to practice medicine in the United States.  Increasingly, though it seems like only a few years ago when considerable attention was directed to the importance of the doctor-patient relationship -- where each listens to the other and develops a treatment regimen based upon mutual knowledge and trust -- all of that appears to have flown away with the wind. 

I'm amazed over stories I've encountered recently about patients having little or no say in their treatment methods, as medical professionals turn more and more to drugs and away from the wonders of nutrition, proper diet and even something as small and reassuring as a "bedside manner."  In fact, a person known to me personally as an individual endowed with advanced medical knowledge and experience was basically thrown out of their new disagreeable physician's office because the doctor insists upon acting primarily as a prescription drug pusher and apparently little else.  Oh -- and that particular physician also has poor grades at online sites and comes off, in addition, as a proponent of sending patients off to psychotherapy, perhaps more often than the norm.

Physicians and other health professionals are already spooked enough over a never-ending barrage of lawsuits by attorneys empowered with a sixth sense known as  got'cha.  That's why it's just a shame that omnipresent AMA standards have created teams of physicians almost relegated to robot status, afraid and forbidden to exercise treatment options outside the caducean  gate of acceptance.  That equates to enhancement of the drug culture, baby, drugs for one and all.

As in so many other realms, I guess it could be interesting to learn which lawmakers receive election contributions from the AMA and in what amounts, but what really matters is the future:  Nurse practitioners and others will be forced to take up a lot of slack until and unless a physician shortage reaching around five figures can be alleviated -- no matter what the AMA prefers to believe or attempts to make us believe.  As we're quickly discovering, the future isn't at all what we anticipated even a decade ago, and medicine, too, is ripe for twists and turns beyond health administrators' dreams. 

Prediction from a soothsayer moron -- The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) boondoggle as it currently stands will sink by virtue of its own weight.  Meanwhile, should your medical insurance be lacking, and you happen to experience the terror of a UFO alien abduction, at least take advantage of the situation by asking for a complete physical, and don't forget to request lab results.  Bonus:  No co-pays, payment denials or outrageous bills in the mail.

From prep school to perp school:  So, an (then) 18-year-old male student allegedly had some kind of sexual experience with a 15-year-old female student at a prep school whose name I forget and have no reason to remember, anyway.  With the jury trial over and the most serious charge of rape dismissed, punishment on other violations is pending.  What surprised me most was the possibility, under the most serious charge, that the guy could have been sent to the slammer for 60 years.  As things stand, he may receive up to eight years behind bars.

Sorry to be so mean and ignorant, but I see a country where young men are currently under attack just for being  born of the male gender -- which, I've little doubt, a certain segment of society would prefer to be altered surgically, just to play fair.  First VCRs, and now computers have also pushed us into a far more permissive society, transforming sexual experimentation into activities and attitudes almost deemed normal and acceptable today.

Yes, I do have a problem with severe penalties involving sex, almost sex or coulda' been sex between two people whose ages are barely three years apart.  Sixty years in prison?  One suspects that some of these old bastard lawmakers and judges tend to forget how readily aroused they were at the sexual turning point of their own lives.  Nature, unimpeded by sex laws, makes young folk do some unexpected things sometimes, and the mere threat of penalties is canceled out by the teenage brain.  The what?  Did you forget about the teenage brain? Well. . .

Wasn't it three or four years ago when the psych community (sigh, yes, them. . .) drooled forth with their latest pronouncement that teenagers' brains don't fully mature until folks reach something like 24-26 (28?) years of age?  Hmm.  Given this profound dose of enlightenment, how can current laws hold anybody below this age range responsible for anything at all, sex included?

But what about basic values, morals?  Good luck finding those, they were swept out by the mile long ago.  What are the churches teaching?  Churches?  You mean those places of worship which won't even address or show outrage over Christian genocide practiced daily by the ISIS crew all over the Middle East?  So much for values.

Sex laws in general, nevertheless, are so archaic and unyielding in the current era, probably in large part because everybody already feels guilty about the mere existence of sex -- I mean, it's most unrefined and embarrassing manifestations can't even be stomped out like a campfire, no matter how one tries.  But you want to put a kid in prison for 60 years for something which (1) appears consensual and (2) involved teens of a generally mutual age range?  And then you throw in the alleged female "victim" crying on the witness stand, always a tear-jerking, male-destroying guarantee to sway juries?  To continue to base interpretations and "punishment" purely upon numerical age doesn't appear a reasonable choice in the current era.   I say the whole damned system is bonkers.  Prep school?  It sure was!

Donald Trump vs. Jorge Ramos:  Ramos is an illegal alien advocate and activist masquerading as a journalist, and as an American citizen he should be ashamed of himself for aiding and abetting the destruction of American culture, as border-jumping criminals continue to invade the USA from all over the world via the Southern border.  Trump was perfectly within his rights to be Trump at his press conference.

White TV station news personnel and yet another white cop are executed by black radicals,  racists and/or crazies, and still our illustrious president and Dept. of Justice head have little or nothing to say in condemnation.  Which takes us to. . .

How about a citizen's arrest?  Today's yummy fantasy:  During a presidential press conference, a reporter from a major news service breaks from the crowd and announces a citizen's arrest of President Obama.  Yeah, handcuffs, the you have the right to. . .  speech, the whole thing, then it's off to a jail cell, followed by a trial, conviction and a long prison sentence for violation of oath, for softening national security and for diminishing American influence with intent.  And, oh yeah, for letting racism fester throughout the land, with nary a word to make it stop.  Apparently, for this criminal administration -- whose members REALLY should (might?) face serious legal consequences one day for actions detrimental to the national interest -- black  bad lives matter.