Surveys, Findings
A Nanos Research poll recently released indicates that over 77% of respondents felt confident that the level of honesty and ethical practise among doctors was very high. The medical professional received the highest level of confidence for ethical behaviour in their practise, with pharmacists a close second. And that's very comforting. If we don't trust our health professionals to point us in the right direction, know that they are concerned about our personal health because of their dedication to their healing profession, whom can we trust?
Well, actually, we might do well to trust our doctors, but also become informed and do our own due diligence. Which is to raise questions if we have doubts, and insist that we have a right to answers, since it is our health and physical well-being involved in treatment options. In the United States, for example, there is a well-established practise of collusion between health professionals and pharmaceutical producers, as well as with private clinics. The bottom line, not necessarily the best line of treatment protocol for the patient is the governing option.
We see this in various ways, mostly doctors prescribing name-brand pharmaceutical products instead of less expensive generic products. And trusting the 'research findings' of their peers, in accepting new medications that turn out, in the end, not to be as effective as previous drugs, but more expensive. As drug patents lapse and generic producers are able to copy prescription formulas and sell at more reasonable rates, the name-brand pharmaceuticals seek to reproduce another, more costly drug to do similar health remediation.
And then there is the sad old story of health specialists, particularly those holding prestigious academic chairs in their specialties in various areas of diagnostic-and-treatment practise amenable to to taking part in 'research', coming up inevitably with findings canted in favour of the drugs being tested, encouraged mightily by the funding they receive from the drug manufacturer. We see symptoms of this also in the propensity of doctors ordering often-irrelevant and unneeded tests.
And doctors in Canada operate in the very same way. In Canada, for example, obstetricians solemnly avow that Cesarean section procedures in delivering babies is the woman's call. Most obstetricians support a woman's right to 'choose for herself', yet C-sections are performed now at an alarming rate, for women who do not actually need to be delivered in this way. C-sections represent a potential threat both to the well-being of the mother and child. Yet 28% of women now choose to go that route, nationally.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada feel this procedure should not be offered without a compelling medical reason to perform one. Despite which, 42% of obstetricians support a woman's right to choose to deliver by C-Section. Simply put, there's a certain convenience involved in the procedure with respect to timing. No waiting in suspense, just reserve your date. That way you're certain to have the doctor in attendance, and you're certain of a swift outcome.
Analgesic epidurals are also now regularly and routinely given even though they interfere with labour's normal progress. The pain of it all ... Midwives, on the other hand, knowing childbirth to a natural process, prefer it be conducted naturally. And although most obstetricians claim to be against fetal monitoring, that's not what's actually occurring, with 91% of births being monitored during labour, risking false-positive results.
Risks to babies born through C-sections include accidental lacerations and neonatal respiratory distress, among other inadvertent results, while risks to the mothers include higher potentials for hemorrhaging, blood infections, wound infections and blood clots on the lungs. The trouble is, the health professionals that people place their trust in simply haven't the time nor the inclination to sit down and waste precious office time explaining all of this.
Well, actually, we might do well to trust our doctors, but also become informed and do our own due diligence. Which is to raise questions if we have doubts, and insist that we have a right to answers, since it is our health and physical well-being involved in treatment options. In the United States, for example, there is a well-established practise of collusion between health professionals and pharmaceutical producers, as well as with private clinics. The bottom line, not necessarily the best line of treatment protocol for the patient is the governing option.
We see this in various ways, mostly doctors prescribing name-brand pharmaceutical products instead of less expensive generic products. And trusting the 'research findings' of their peers, in accepting new medications that turn out, in the end, not to be as effective as previous drugs, but more expensive. As drug patents lapse and generic producers are able to copy prescription formulas and sell at more reasonable rates, the name-brand pharmaceuticals seek to reproduce another, more costly drug to do similar health remediation.
And then there is the sad old story of health specialists, particularly those holding prestigious academic chairs in their specialties in various areas of diagnostic-and-treatment practise amenable to to taking part in 'research', coming up inevitably with findings canted in favour of the drugs being tested, encouraged mightily by the funding they receive from the drug manufacturer. We see symptoms of this also in the propensity of doctors ordering often-irrelevant and unneeded tests.
And doctors in Canada operate in the very same way. In Canada, for example, obstetricians solemnly avow that Cesarean section procedures in delivering babies is the woman's call. Most obstetricians support a woman's right to 'choose for herself', yet C-sections are performed now at an alarming rate, for women who do not actually need to be delivered in this way. C-sections represent a potential threat both to the well-being of the mother and child. Yet 28% of women now choose to go that route, nationally.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada feel this procedure should not be offered without a compelling medical reason to perform one. Despite which, 42% of obstetricians support a woman's right to choose to deliver by C-Section. Simply put, there's a certain convenience involved in the procedure with respect to timing. No waiting in suspense, just reserve your date. That way you're certain to have the doctor in attendance, and you're certain of a swift outcome.
Analgesic epidurals are also now regularly and routinely given even though they interfere with labour's normal progress. The pain of it all ... Midwives, on the other hand, knowing childbirth to a natural process, prefer it be conducted naturally. And although most obstetricians claim to be against fetal monitoring, that's not what's actually occurring, with 91% of births being monitored during labour, risking false-positive results.
Risks to babies born through C-sections include accidental lacerations and neonatal respiratory distress, among other inadvertent results, while risks to the mothers include higher potentials for hemorrhaging, blood infections, wound infections and blood clots on the lungs. The trouble is, the health professionals that people place their trust in simply haven't the time nor the inclination to sit down and waste precious office time explaining all of this.
Labels: Health, Human Fallibility, Security
posted by Pieface | 6:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home