Despite her illness, it seemed as if she has moved on and accepted the fact that she was ill. She accepted the reality a long time ago that she would have to live until her death with her cancer. I don't know if I would be able to keep my sanity if I were in her shoes-I wouldn't be able to retain my fear of when death would appear around the corner. I wonder how she is able to deal with her reality. It hurts to see her take medications that won't be able to cure her illness completely. I never started the conversation about how she feels about her own illness because I felt as though that was too personal-even though I'm going to keep her anonymous. I only smiled and talked casually like with any of my friends.
I still remember when she heard her cancer spread and if she wanted to take chemotherapy. I was shocked but I knew I had to stay strong so I could reassure her that everything will be okay. I think she was able to move on and accept her illness because of time. She had a lot of time to really think about the situation she was placed in, and probably decided that crying over it wouldn't do much. There are also things she wants to do and accomplish before her death, and I think that is the main reason she continues to push herself to live as long as she can. Right now, I see her as a strong independent figure that continues to teach me the importance of living. When I watch her, or just talk to her, I always question myself if I'm really living my life to the fullest-whatever that means. If there's something I want to do before death, than maybe I should do it sooner than later. Watching her sometimes frustrates me-especially on those days I sleep in late and end up doing nothing productive. Having an ill person so close in my life makes me question myself if I'm making my own life meaningful at all.
She is definitly stronger than me mentally, but she's only human. I think cancer has made her more tired-and that shows human vulnerability. The fact that I can't do anything to make her feel better also shows how vulnerable I am as another person. (The same would apply to her doctors.) The fact that her cancer is most likely getting worse (despite her medications) shows her mortality as a person. It's scary, but watching her made me see visually how weak people are in general.
There's a few insights from other sources that applies to her. When the guest speaker came in class to talk about her husband's illness and death I felt uncomfortable because it reminded me of when she was in the hospital after her surgery (right now she's at home). The guest speaker said that she wanted 'the doctors to see her husband as a person-an artist,father,and husband-and not just a cancer.' Some doctors I liked more than others and I think her insight has to do with that. I liked a particular nurse because she was really sweet to me and her other visitors. I felt like she didn't see the patient just as a 'cancer.' There was a doctor I particualarly disliked because he just checked her and moved on-he was just doing his job. He was emotionless-and at the time I thought he was a complete jerk. From the book, "Mountains Beyond Mountains," I found it insightful that Dr. Paul Farmer honestly just wanted to make Haiti a better place and never put money before curing patients. Reading the book made me wish that there were more purely devoted doctors like himself-
Thursday, December 23, 2010
HW#26: Looking Back and Forth in Unit
What I learned so far:
1.) There are flaws in the U.S. health care system that has infinite reasons to deny coverage so the companies can maximize their profits. (Sicko)
2.) Health unsurance in the U.S. started in the congress. President Nixon approved HMO's around 1973 for the purpose of gaining profit. (Sicko)
3.) One of the main reasons why U.S health insurance is exspensive is because of indigent care. Individuals who do not have money tend to go to emergency rooms which are more pricey than normal doctor appointments. Public hospitals pay the money which can cause the hospital to collapse. (Andy)
4.) Doctors sometimes make decisions through conversations with each other instead of with the patient. The issue of consent gets confusing. (Near Death)
5.) Doctors pursuade ill patients toward certain 'care.' In the film, a doctor told the patient the choice of rejecting tubes going in his body again was 'unreasonable' and said that money was not the main issue at hand. (Near Death)
So far in the unit, I learned a glimpse of the history of U.S. health insurance system and the contrast of U.S health insurance to those of Canada and Europe. I also learned that health insurance and the issue of the relationships between doctor and patient is not simple. The film 'Sicko' was helpful in having a better understanding of the dominant social practices of illness and dying. For some reason, I didn't think much about health insurance, and the film helped me develop an opinion on the system. It gave me some insight into the vague flaws of the health insurance in the U.S. and introduced places that provided free universal health care. Not only was the film interesting, but it was a helpful introduction to give me a sense of the reality of health insurance. It was easy to follow and helped me gain interest in the subject of health insurance and how this connects to the dominant practices of our unit.
Another helpful source was the documentary 'Near Death.' Our dominant model of allopathic medicine is portrayed well in the film and helped me deeply think about the dominant practices of dying. Doctors in these hospitals deal with dying and ill patients all the time, and sadly, there are times when they cannot base decisions solely based on the sick patient. The film so far has made me question theses dominant practices, and if perhaps our society does not treat death as a serious topic.
For the last part of the unit, I think exploring the alternatives and possible solutions in the flaws of allopathic treatment and our health insurance system. I'd like to learn more and make a contrast between different countries when dealing with health insurace. Free universal health insurance seems like the best solution, but then why did many Republicans disagree with Obama's plan? A difference in opinion means that not everyone thinks free health care is best-I like to learn why, or at least their opinion.
1.) There are flaws in the U.S. health care system that has infinite reasons to deny coverage so the companies can maximize their profits. (Sicko)
2.) Health unsurance in the U.S. started in the congress. President Nixon approved HMO's around 1973 for the purpose of gaining profit. (Sicko)
3.) One of the main reasons why U.S health insurance is exspensive is because of indigent care. Individuals who do not have money tend to go to emergency rooms which are more pricey than normal doctor appointments. Public hospitals pay the money which can cause the hospital to collapse. (Andy)
4.) Doctors sometimes make decisions through conversations with each other instead of with the patient. The issue of consent gets confusing. (Near Death)
5.) Doctors pursuade ill patients toward certain 'care.' In the film, a doctor told the patient the choice of rejecting tubes going in his body again was 'unreasonable' and said that money was not the main issue at hand. (Near Death)
So far in the unit, I learned a glimpse of the history of U.S. health insurance system and the contrast of U.S health insurance to those of Canada and Europe. I also learned that health insurance and the issue of the relationships between doctor and patient is not simple. The film 'Sicko' was helpful in having a better understanding of the dominant social practices of illness and dying. For some reason, I didn't think much about health insurance, and the film helped me develop an opinion on the system. It gave me some insight into the vague flaws of the health insurance in the U.S. and introduced places that provided free universal health care. Not only was the film interesting, but it was a helpful introduction to give me a sense of the reality of health insurance. It was easy to follow and helped me gain interest in the subject of health insurance and how this connects to the dominant practices of our unit.
Another helpful source was the documentary 'Near Death.' Our dominant model of allopathic medicine is portrayed well in the film and helped me deeply think about the dominant practices of dying. Doctors in these hospitals deal with dying and ill patients all the time, and sadly, there are times when they cannot base decisions solely based on the sick patient. The film so far has made me question theses dominant practices, and if perhaps our society does not treat death as a serious topic.
For the last part of the unit, I think exploring the alternatives and possible solutions in the flaws of allopathic treatment and our health insurance system. I'd like to learn more and make a contrast between different countries when dealing with health insurace. Free universal health insurance seems like the best solution, but then why did many Republicans disagree with Obama's plan? A difference in opinion means that not everyone thinks free health care is best-I like to learn why, or at least their opinion.
Monday, December 20, 2010
HW#25: Response to Sicko
Precis:
50 million people in America do not have health insurance, however Michael Moore wants to criticize the health care system itself and the problems with it despite having insurance. Health care insurance in the U.S do not cover all costs and works hard in finding excuses not to pay. The system doesn’t really ‘care’ for the people, since it is a business in goals of achieving massive profit. In fact, the system used money to destroy Hillary Clinton’s health care plan and succeeded. Michael Moore than presents an alternative, where in places like Canada and Europe, there is a universal health care system for all people.
Evidence:
Specific Pieces of evidence to support his thesis (The U.S health care system is inadequate):
* The Health care system maximizes denial reasons to gain profit. Examples of reasons to decline coverage would be: 'pre-existing conditions',ambulance emergencies,some cancer,heart disease, and diabetes.
* During Bush's administration, the government paid the elderly to get prescription through pharmaceuticals but the elderly ended up paying more.
These two pieces of evidence supports his thesis of how the U.S health care system is inadequate and is lacking to help the sick. The first piece of evidence gives an example of how the system is all about profit-motive moreso than the emotional devotion to cure and help more people. This is precisely why the system is so poor in their job, because the people are only in for the money when massive amounts of money should be used to help the ill. The second piece of evidence shows a sense of betrayal. The reform prescription under Bush's administration seemed to be supportive of the elderly, when really it was a system to have the elderly spend more money. The system is not only money obsessive, but manipulative and unfair.
Fact Check:
On CNN's fact check that I had to examine, it was stated in the interview that health care is not necessarily 'free' in places Sicko said it was. (France, Britain)The people there pay higher tax rates in the U.S. This was something Moore neglected to mention as he praised the health care system where it was provided for 'free.'
From doing some research, I can tell Michael Moore neglected the negative aspects of the health care system in other areas:
"So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion."
(Quote from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm)
This quote shows that the French Health Care system in which Moore spoke as an example of the best system, wasn't a perfect system. The U.S. insurace companies can definitly learn a lesson or two from France, but I think Moore should have mentioned these facts that I found. Watching the film, I thought something was odd about how Michael Moore made other health care systems so wonderful and where all the money to care all these ill people came from. It's from the high taxes.
Just to make sure I found another site that says, "Finally, no discussion of highly taxed nations would be complete without including France. With a top marginal tax rate on average workers of about 40% (and a top tax on high-income workers of nearly 50%), France is long-known for sacrificing economic growth to social benefits handed out by government."
This makes complete sense now, and why the people in France seem to have so many 'benefits.'
Sources:
The French Lesson in Health care: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
12 Countries with the Highest & LowestTax Rates: http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
Response:
In general, I thought the movie Sicko was interesting, while it was very one-sided and was a complete propaganda. I found the film touching and provacative. I can tell Moore just wanted to throw in a bunch of facts to support his views on the flaws of the U.S health care system even though it was random and out of order. I knew that in a Capitalist system, everyone always has a profit-motive in mind and health care is just another form of business-I just didn't know how bad it was. The list of reasons to decline covering for costs struck me the most. He made the people in France (and other places) seem happy and shook their heads when asked about the system in the U.S. The film made me think twice about our health care system and the flaws that come with it.
Even though Moore failed to voice the other side of his argument to make himself sound justified throughout: the film definitly made me think and question about the dominant social practices around the unit. In our society, we as people want to believe that the government and these health insurance companies will provide us all the care because they really want to 'help' us. I think illness and dying in our society is taken as a 'business' because clearly no company wants to spend money on illness and diseases that are costly. This is wrong, but it is the truth that I have to deal with. Perhaps before watching the film and learning about the unit, I was narrow-minded on the sensitive topic: why would companies under the Capitalist system care about people they don't know if its going to cost billions of dollars?
50 million people in America do not have health insurance, however Michael Moore wants to criticize the health care system itself and the problems with it despite having insurance. Health care insurance in the U.S do not cover all costs and works hard in finding excuses not to pay. The system doesn’t really ‘care’ for the people, since it is a business in goals of achieving massive profit. In fact, the system used money to destroy Hillary Clinton’s health care plan and succeeded. Michael Moore than presents an alternative, where in places like Canada and Europe, there is a universal health care system for all people.
Evidence:
Specific Pieces of evidence to support his thesis (The U.S health care system is inadequate):
* The Health care system maximizes denial reasons to gain profit. Examples of reasons to decline coverage would be: 'pre-existing conditions',ambulance emergencies,some cancer,heart disease, and diabetes.
* During Bush's administration, the government paid the elderly to get prescription through pharmaceuticals but the elderly ended up paying more.
These two pieces of evidence supports his thesis of how the U.S health care system is inadequate and is lacking to help the sick. The first piece of evidence gives an example of how the system is all about profit-motive moreso than the emotional devotion to cure and help more people. This is precisely why the system is so poor in their job, because the people are only in for the money when massive amounts of money should be used to help the ill. The second piece of evidence shows a sense of betrayal. The reform prescription under Bush's administration seemed to be supportive of the elderly, when really it was a system to have the elderly spend more money. The system is not only money obsessive, but manipulative and unfair.
Fact Check:
On CNN's fact check that I had to examine, it was stated in the interview that health care is not necessarily 'free' in places Sicko said it was. (France, Britain)The people there pay higher tax rates in the U.S. This was something Moore neglected to mention as he praised the health care system where it was provided for 'free.'
From doing some research, I can tell Michael Moore neglected the negative aspects of the health care system in other areas:
"So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion."
(Quote from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm)
This quote shows that the French Health Care system in which Moore spoke as an example of the best system, wasn't a perfect system. The U.S. insurace companies can definitly learn a lesson or two from France, but I think Moore should have mentioned these facts that I found. Watching the film, I thought something was odd about how Michael Moore made other health care systems so wonderful and where all the money to care all these ill people came from. It's from the high taxes.
Just to make sure I found another site that says, "Finally, no discussion of highly taxed nations would be complete without including France. With a top marginal tax rate on average workers of about 40% (and a top tax on high-income workers of nearly 50%), France is long-known for sacrificing economic growth to social benefits handed out by government."
This makes complete sense now, and why the people in France seem to have so many 'benefits.'
Sources:
The French Lesson in Health care: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
12 Countries with the Highest & LowestTax Rates: http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
Response:
In general, I thought the movie Sicko was interesting, while it was very one-sided and was a complete propaganda. I found the film touching and provacative. I can tell Moore just wanted to throw in a bunch of facts to support his views on the flaws of the U.S health care system even though it was random and out of order. I knew that in a Capitalist system, everyone always has a profit-motive in mind and health care is just another form of business-I just didn't know how bad it was. The list of reasons to decline covering for costs struck me the most. He made the people in France (and other places) seem happy and shook their heads when asked about the system in the U.S. The film made me think twice about our health care system and the flaws that come with it.
Even though Moore failed to voice the other side of his argument to make himself sound justified throughout: the film definitly made me think and question about the dominant social practices around the unit. In our society, we as people want to believe that the government and these health insurance companies will provide us all the care because they really want to 'help' us. I think illness and dying in our society is taken as a 'business' because clearly no company wants to spend money on illness and diseases that are costly. This is wrong, but it is the truth that I have to deal with. Perhaps before watching the film and learning about the unit, I was narrow-minded on the sensitive topic: why would companies under the Capitalist system care about people they don't know if its going to cost billions of dollars?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
HW#24- Illness and Dying Book Part 3
Bibliographic Info:
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Tracy Kidder (the author) takes on a journey with Dr. Paul Farmer. Unlike most doctors, Farmer is devoted in actually curing his patients and pursues his goal to send medicine and care to countries that need it most (i.e Haiti) He walks miles and miles to check in on his Haitian patients, take long plane rides to and from Haiti, and speaks about the situation in these poor countries in books and in conferences. He is a doctor who represents the people of Haiti who are unable to speak for themselves because of their poverty and illness, and is willing to spend his whole life doing so. He should be a role model for other doctors.
Quotes/Responses:
"You're a great guy." I said, putting a hand on his shoulder. "But without your clinical practice-" He interrupted. He said, "I wouldn't be anything." (Page 237)
Response: I found it interesting that Farmer knew that he wouldn't have been in his current position if not for his medical expertise. I coudn't help but think that even though Farmer was devoted and hard working, at the same time he thought of himself highly-which wasn't true at all.
"It occured to me that PIH would probably always be in some kind of jeopardy, because it was constitutionally impossible for Farmer and Kim to sit on resources-to wait for lower drug prices while MDR killed Russian prisoners, to save for an endowment for Zanmi Lasante while Hatian peasants died of AIDS. Their approach, especially toward money, was completely impractical, it seemed to me, and yet it appeared to be working." (Page 253)
Response: Nobody likes the idea of people dying in third world countries because they lack standard care and medicine, but there's always the barrier of money. It's surprising how Farmer and PIH members take the money risk, and shows that they care more about the people who are ill and dying instead of themselves.
"It's embarressing that piddly little projects like ours should serve as exemplars," Farmer told me. "It's only because other people haven't been doing their jobs." (Page 257)
Response: I agree, and its sad that there is such a lack of support and aid. I understand that its not an easy task, but it still makes me question whether people in general can actually have the devotion to support others.
"Hiking into the hills to see just one patient or two is a dumb way for Farmer to spend his time, and even if it weren't, not many other people will follow his example, not enough to make much difference in the world." (Page 294)
Response: I understand where this opinion comes from, but I think it DOES make a difference. Even if its only one person that starts doing something thats obviously 'good' than its going to attract attention.
"And I can imagine Farmer saying he doesn't care if no one else is willing to follow their example. He's still going to make these hikes, he'd insist, because if you say that seven hours is too long to walk for two families of patients, you're saying that their lives matter less than some others', and the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world." (Page 294)
Response: This was the most moving quote I found personally, because it makes a lot of sense. Somehow, people tend to create ranks in their minds of who is more important than others and there's something wrong with that idea. And, I think Farmer should be a figure more people should look up to because he teaches lessons other than the obvious that those in poor needs equal care.
I thought this book taught me a valuable lesson about the lives of others, and the fact that not many people can take risks that can help others on a grand scale. Especially towards the end, I found it very insightful that Farmer only does what he does because he wants to and doesn't expect others to follow in his footsteps. I don't think its possible to have people do what Farmer does, but I think its possible for people to get something out of Farmer's views and opinions. I think the problem with today's society is the lack of devotion for others, because we always put ourselves before others. It's hard to risk our own money, status, or anything else even if its for the better good for others.
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Tracy Kidder (the author) takes on a journey with Dr. Paul Farmer. Unlike most doctors, Farmer is devoted in actually curing his patients and pursues his goal to send medicine and care to countries that need it most (i.e Haiti) He walks miles and miles to check in on his Haitian patients, take long plane rides to and from Haiti, and speaks about the situation in these poor countries in books and in conferences. He is a doctor who represents the people of Haiti who are unable to speak for themselves because of their poverty and illness, and is willing to spend his whole life doing so. He should be a role model for other doctors.
Quotes/Responses:
"You're a great guy." I said, putting a hand on his shoulder. "But without your clinical practice-" He interrupted. He said, "I wouldn't be anything." (Page 237)
Response: I found it interesting that Farmer knew that he wouldn't have been in his current position if not for his medical expertise. I coudn't help but think that even though Farmer was devoted and hard working, at the same time he thought of himself highly-which wasn't true at all.
"It occured to me that PIH would probably always be in some kind of jeopardy, because it was constitutionally impossible for Farmer and Kim to sit on resources-to wait for lower drug prices while MDR killed Russian prisoners, to save for an endowment for Zanmi Lasante while Hatian peasants died of AIDS. Their approach, especially toward money, was completely impractical, it seemed to me, and yet it appeared to be working." (Page 253)
Response: Nobody likes the idea of people dying in third world countries because they lack standard care and medicine, but there's always the barrier of money. It's surprising how Farmer and PIH members take the money risk, and shows that they care more about the people who are ill and dying instead of themselves.
"It's embarressing that piddly little projects like ours should serve as exemplars," Farmer told me. "It's only because other people haven't been doing their jobs." (Page 257)
Response: I agree, and its sad that there is such a lack of support and aid. I understand that its not an easy task, but it still makes me question whether people in general can actually have the devotion to support others.
"Hiking into the hills to see just one patient or two is a dumb way for Farmer to spend his time, and even if it weren't, not many other people will follow his example, not enough to make much difference in the world." (Page 294)
Response: I understand where this opinion comes from, but I think it DOES make a difference. Even if its only one person that starts doing something thats obviously 'good' than its going to attract attention.
"And I can imagine Farmer saying he doesn't care if no one else is willing to follow their example. He's still going to make these hikes, he'd insist, because if you say that seven hours is too long to walk for two families of patients, you're saying that their lives matter less than some others', and the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world." (Page 294)
Response: This was the most moving quote I found personally, because it makes a lot of sense. Somehow, people tend to create ranks in their minds of who is more important than others and there's something wrong with that idea. And, I think Farmer should be a figure more people should look up to because he teaches lessons other than the obvious that those in poor needs equal care.
I thought this book taught me a valuable lesson about the lives of others, and the fact that not many people can take risks that can help others on a grand scale. Especially towards the end, I found it very insightful that Farmer only does what he does because he wants to and doesn't expect others to follow in his footsteps. I don't think its possible to have people do what Farmer does, but I think its possible for people to get something out of Farmer's views and opinions. I think the problem with today's society is the lack of devotion for others, because we always put ourselves before others. It's hard to risk our own money, status, or anything else even if its for the better good for others.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
HW#23: Illness and Dying Book Part 2
Bibliographic Info:
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Dr. Paul Farmer always puts patients before himself and the healthy, unless he gets severly injured/sick and forces himself to just rest. He represents the Haitians and spoke out about the flaws within a DOT program that actually can worsen patients' health conditions. Dr. Farmer is never into the money or business, he simply just wants and hopes that the sick and poor of third world countries can have better care.
Quotes/Responses:
"Farmer and Kim and Bayona would soon meet people whose families had sold most of their meager possessions and had bought as much of those drugs as they could. Not enough to get cured, however, only enough to aquire still further resistance. Others had given up and gone back to their shacks on the barren, dusty hillsides and were waiting there to die." (Page 140)
Response: This is dissapointing because I thought WHO created systems and benefits that would support the health of many sick people; but in this case its causing a bigger problem. The sad thing is though that nobody questioned the DOT program until Farmer noticed the issue and made a speech on it. I understand that any trusted program would not want their reputation or status to be affected in a negative way, but it makes me shake my head that only people like Farmer can speak about it.
"They didn't have a guaranteed supply of drugs, only the determination to obtain the drugs and the charm to get away from borrowing.....They lacked proper institutional support. The weight of opinion stood against them. Their organization was small and it had other projects, in Haiti and Boston and elsewhere, and Peru put a strain on everyone." (Page 150)
Response: This caught my attention because Farmer dosn't care about the pressures placed on him, and the amounts of borrowed money he most likely will never return. He only thinks for the people who he 'needs' to cure and is like a heroic figure other doctors should follow.
"The problem is, if I don't work this hard, someone will die who dosn't have to. That sounds megalomaniacal. I wouldn't have said that to you before I'd taken you to Haiti and you had seen that it was manifestly true." (Page 191)
Response: I sensed strong responsibility and devotion Dr. Farmer felt about himself on a personal level. He wants to spend his whole life saving lives and curing illnesses, and I thought that was very moving.
"Some people would say things will get so bad that Haitians will revolt. But you can't revolt when you're coughing out your lungs or starving. Someone's going to have to revolt on the Haitian's behalf, including people from the wealthy class." (Page 209)
Response: I agree with the statement, even though I also realize that is easier said than done. Most people in Haiti are sick and dying and the only way their voice is heard is through those that are devoted such as Farmer. It makes sense that the people there are close to the doctor, because he truly is a doctor who cares about his patients.
I was upset that even WHO had flaws, but it wasn't that surprising. Anything that has some sort of government support is bound to have flaws or problems. What really moved me through the book was Dr. Farmer's devotion and love toward his patients. He always got around getting money and always had patients in the back of his mind. Usually, doctors don't stand so personal with their patients, but with Dr. Farmer it is different. To me, he is like a role model for how doctors should put more effort in curing the ill moreso than about money.
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Dr. Paul Farmer always puts patients before himself and the healthy, unless he gets severly injured/sick and forces himself to just rest. He represents the Haitians and spoke out about the flaws within a DOT program that actually can worsen patients' health conditions. Dr. Farmer is never into the money or business, he simply just wants and hopes that the sick and poor of third world countries can have better care.
Quotes/Responses:
"Farmer and Kim and Bayona would soon meet people whose families had sold most of their meager possessions and had bought as much of those drugs as they could. Not enough to get cured, however, only enough to aquire still further resistance. Others had given up and gone back to their shacks on the barren, dusty hillsides and were waiting there to die." (Page 140)
Response: This is dissapointing because I thought WHO created systems and benefits that would support the health of many sick people; but in this case its causing a bigger problem. The sad thing is though that nobody questioned the DOT program until Farmer noticed the issue and made a speech on it. I understand that any trusted program would not want their reputation or status to be affected in a negative way, but it makes me shake my head that only people like Farmer can speak about it.
"They didn't have a guaranteed supply of drugs, only the determination to obtain the drugs and the charm to get away from borrowing.....They lacked proper institutional support. The weight of opinion stood against them. Their organization was small and it had other projects, in Haiti and Boston and elsewhere, and Peru put a strain on everyone." (Page 150)
Response: This caught my attention because Farmer dosn't care about the pressures placed on him, and the amounts of borrowed money he most likely will never return. He only thinks for the people who he 'needs' to cure and is like a heroic figure other doctors should follow.
"The problem is, if I don't work this hard, someone will die who dosn't have to. That sounds megalomaniacal. I wouldn't have said that to you before I'd taken you to Haiti and you had seen that it was manifestly true." (Page 191)
Response: I sensed strong responsibility and devotion Dr. Farmer felt about himself on a personal level. He wants to spend his whole life saving lives and curing illnesses, and I thought that was very moving.
"Some people would say things will get so bad that Haitians will revolt. But you can't revolt when you're coughing out your lungs or starving. Someone's going to have to revolt on the Haitian's behalf, including people from the wealthy class." (Page 209)
Response: I agree with the statement, even though I also realize that is easier said than done. Most people in Haiti are sick and dying and the only way their voice is heard is through those that are devoted such as Farmer. It makes sense that the people there are close to the doctor, because he truly is a doctor who cares about his patients.
I was upset that even WHO had flaws, but it wasn't that surprising. Anything that has some sort of government support is bound to have flaws or problems. What really moved me through the book was Dr. Farmer's devotion and love toward his patients. He always got around getting money and always had patients in the back of his mind. Usually, doctors don't stand so personal with their patients, but with Dr. Farmer it is different. To me, he is like a role model for how doctors should put more effort in curing the ill moreso than about money.
Friday, December 10, 2010
HW#22: Illness & Dying Book Part 1
Bibliographic Info:
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Paul Farmer was raised in a family that was not really rich, but he was always an intelligent student who made his father proud. He went to collge with a full scholarship and studied many subjects. However, his experience and observations in Haiti made him decide to become a doctor who really tries to make the poorest starving people healthier. He belives strongly that free medical care and support be provided to the needy, and that if nobody was going to do it; he will.
Quotes/Responses:
"Giving people medicine for TB and not giving them food is like washing your hands and drying them in the dirt." (Page 34)
Response: Even though this quote made sense, it still struck me as I read the book. Just simply curing a disease does not automatically make the patient in their best health. The people in Haiti easily get ill because of their living conditions and poverty. A third world country will never be able to escape their hopeless conditions by simply giving out medications. I think that's one of the many things Dr. Farmer observed, and that is why he goes out of his way to talk and speak with different patients. There is no simple solution but clearly there is a lack of effort which is upsetting and dissapointing.
"But, as they themselves often remarked, they didn't even get electricity or water for their land. Most didn't get money either. In fact, the dam was meant to benefit agribusiness downstream, mostly American-owned back then, and also to supply electricity to Port-au-Prince, especially homes of the numerically tiny, wealthy Hatian elite and to foreign-owned assembly plants." (Page 37-38)
Response: This passage furthered my questioning of, "Are people trying enough to help areas of extreme poverty?" Where is all the donations going to? If the majority of the people of Haiti are starving and dying, why is there a dam being created to benefit the few elites? That makes no sense to me, and makes me feel as though people in general are so selfish. There is a lack of selfless individuals such as Paul Farmer.
"It would make sense to provide medicine in the places that needed it most, and there was no place needier than Haiti, at least in the Western Hemisphere, and he hadn't seen any plance in Haiti needier than Cange..He'd find out that the hospital
would charge patients for its use." (Page 81)
Response: This furthered my dissapointment because obviously the conditions of Haitian lives are devastating because they don't have money. Why are hospitals being built if the people there can't even afford the money for treatment? It's pointless!
So far, this book has been upsetting me. I thought I knew that there are countries far worse than the U.S (ofcourse) but I can't help but get the impression that people simply don't want to help the needy. Many of the donations do not seem to go to the needy and simply the few rich. I also got the impression that (besides Dr. Farmer) the doctors that are there are simply hopeless. I feel as though people in general can feel pitiful towards the suffering, but don't make enough of an effort to change their lives. There aren't many people like Farmer, who feel deeply moved and actually go take action. On the other hand, the needy people deal illness and dying as hopelessness unless help comes.
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Paul Farmer was raised in a family that was not really rich, but he was always an intelligent student who made his father proud. He went to collge with a full scholarship and studied many subjects. However, his experience and observations in Haiti made him decide to become a doctor who really tries to make the poorest starving people healthier. He belives strongly that free medical care and support be provided to the needy, and that if nobody was going to do it; he will.
Quotes/Responses:
"Giving people medicine for TB and not giving them food is like washing your hands and drying them in the dirt." (Page 34)
Response: Even though this quote made sense, it still struck me as I read the book. Just simply curing a disease does not automatically make the patient in their best health. The people in Haiti easily get ill because of their living conditions and poverty. A third world country will never be able to escape their hopeless conditions by simply giving out medications. I think that's one of the many things Dr. Farmer observed, and that is why he goes out of his way to talk and speak with different patients. There is no simple solution but clearly there is a lack of effort which is upsetting and dissapointing.
"But, as they themselves often remarked, they didn't even get electricity or water for their land. Most didn't get money either. In fact, the dam was meant to benefit agribusiness downstream, mostly American-owned back then, and also to supply electricity to Port-au-Prince, especially homes of the numerically tiny, wealthy Hatian elite and to foreign-owned assembly plants." (Page 37-38)
Response: This passage furthered my questioning of, "Are people trying enough to help areas of extreme poverty?" Where is all the donations going to? If the majority of the people of Haiti are starving and dying, why is there a dam being created to benefit the few elites? That makes no sense to me, and makes me feel as though people in general are so selfish. There is a lack of selfless individuals such as Paul Farmer.
"It would make sense to provide medicine in the places that needed it most, and there was no place needier than Haiti, at least in the Western Hemisphere, and he hadn't seen any plance in Haiti needier than Cange..He'd find out that the hospital
would charge patients for its use." (Page 81)
Response: This furthered my dissapointment because obviously the conditions of Haitian lives are devastating because they don't have money. Why are hospitals being built if the people there can't even afford the money for treatment? It's pointless!
So far, this book has been upsetting me. I thought I knew that there are countries far worse than the U.S (ofcourse) but I can't help but get the impression that people simply don't want to help the needy. Many of the donations do not seem to go to the needy and simply the few rich. I also got the impression that (besides Dr. Farmer) the doctors that are there are simply hopeless. I feel as though people in general can feel pitiful towards the suffering, but don't make enough of an effort to change their lives. There aren't many people like Farmer, who feel deeply moved and actually go take action. On the other hand, the needy people deal illness and dying as hopelessness unless help comes.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
HW #21 Comments I made
To Sarah:
Firstly, thank you for giving me credit. That was very sweet of you. :)
Your post was very clear and organized. I found at least one insightful comment in each paragraph and found your thoughts very deep and made good connections. A line in particular that I liked was, "It does seem sort of strange though how we often become obsessed with the disease within the person, we pull every string to slow down time, to cure them." I strongly agree with that second paragraph and that statement because it's just what people do naturally when their loved ones get ill. We become persistant in making the person live longer, and end up forgetting at times about who they are as an individual.
To Stephanie:
thought your post was very organized and easy to follow; I enjoyed reading it. As Jay mentioned in the above comment, you provided very insightful questions that I did not even think about. One part of the post that caught my attention was, "I found this to be powerful because the "normal" thing is for the guy to work and the women usually stays home and raises the kids, but to hear that the roles were switched gave me some hope that "normal", might not be so normal after all." I liked how this connects back to the overall unit 'normal is weird,' and I found it insightful that you felt a sense of hope that what our society considers to be 'normal' isn't really that normal. I also agree with the statement though, and I think that some of the assumptions of what is taken as 'normal' isn't always right. In a way, Beth proved that it can be normal for the gender roles to switch in families.
To Jay:
Overall, I enojoyed reading your post. One of the insights that caught my attention was, "At some point they need to maintain a distance and fully remove themselves emotionally. Is it better for a doctor to be cold and calculating or emotionally connected?" I thought you raised a question that was not only insightful, but a question people don't like to think about. Personally, I don't have a clear answer to that question. I think a doctor needs to maintain a balance between distance and connection with a patient, but that's easier to say than done.
Firstly, thank you for giving me credit. That was very sweet of you. :)
Your post was very clear and organized. I found at least one insightful comment in each paragraph and found your thoughts very deep and made good connections. A line in particular that I liked was, "It does seem sort of strange though how we often become obsessed with the disease within the person, we pull every string to slow down time, to cure them." I strongly agree with that second paragraph and that statement because it's just what people do naturally when their loved ones get ill. We become persistant in making the person live longer, and end up forgetting at times about who they are as an individual.
To Stephanie:
thought your post was very organized and easy to follow; I enjoyed reading it. As Jay mentioned in the above comment, you provided very insightful questions that I did not even think about. One part of the post that caught my attention was, "I found this to be powerful because the "normal" thing is for the guy to work and the women usually stays home and raises the kids, but to hear that the roles were switched gave me some hope that "normal", might not be so normal after all." I liked how this connects back to the overall unit 'normal is weird,' and I found it insightful that you felt a sense of hope that what our society considers to be 'normal' isn't really that normal. I also agree with the statement though, and I think that some of the assumptions of what is taken as 'normal' isn't always right. In a way, Beth proved that it can be normal for the gender roles to switch in families.
To Jay:
Overall, I enojoyed reading your post. One of the insights that caught my attention was, "At some point they need to maintain a distance and fully remove themselves emotionally. Is it better for a doctor to be cold and calculating or emotionally connected?" I thought you raised a question that was not only insightful, but a question people don't like to think about. Personally, I don't have a clear answer to that question. I think a doctor needs to maintain a balance between distance and connection with a patient, but that's easier to say than done.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
HW#21: Expert #1
Most Important Insights/Experience from Guest Speaker:
1. Her husband (like most men) was not seeking medical treatment when he first started to feel sick even though he should have.
2. Unlike movies and the media, going through cancer and chemo isn't 'pretty.' Her husband's foot blew up and was unable to walk. He didn't look as handsome as before.
3. Dealing with an illness such as her husband was not a straight line. In a way, it gave false hopes since there were times where he seemed okay.
4. Even as her husband's death neared, they never mentioned the word 'death' and always had positive thinking.
5. Her husband still made the art he loved while he was in the hospital. He said he did not mind being paralyzed as long as his hand could move. Even as he was in the stage of dying, he passed out cards with his art at different patients.
6. Beth has a supportive family which helped her to solely focus on taking care of her husband instead of continuing workshops. In a way, these moments were her best moments because she was able to only think about him and spend more 'quality time.'
7. She did not want others in the hospital to only see her husband as a 'cancer.' She wanted the doctors to look at him as a human, as a talented artist, and as her husband.
8. Her husband constantly fought against death.
9. Never hold off on saying a compliment or a comment that may make that person's day. You never know what can happen to that person.
The first insight I listed was actually one I agreed with strongly. Even though it depends on the individual, there are men who are in complete denial of being severly sick when they really need to go see a doctor. My grandpa on my mother's side can be like that sometimes. This is worrisome, because I can never tell if he is sick or not, and continues to take care of my disabled grandmother. I can tell he is very healthy and fit for his age, but at the same time I know there will be a time when he won't be able to do a lot of things as he gets more and more older. When I actually stopped to think about it, all the males in my family seem like they are never sick because they never openly say so. On the other hand (including myself) the females in my family say openly they are sick and feel bad. This is a generalization, but I agree in a way that men tend to not be so open about health.
The third insight I got from the guest speaker was that the process of being with someone who is ill and nearly dying is never a straight line and gives false hopes. I think this is true, especially because people naturally just tend to hope or want to believe that something good will happen. It's hard to do the opposite, because who would want their loved one to pass away? I always hope that my grandparents and family in Japan will continue to live on and I would be able to see them every time I go visit. I know that death happens to everyone, but I personally don't like to ponder about it: I just hope that it won't come any time soon.
I at first felt uncomfortable being in an audience listening to a true account of someone who lost their husband through kidney cancer. I honestly thought she would grow emotional, but instead I saw the exact opposite. Death is never a happy experience, but through her way of talking about it, I got the sense that it changed her view in a positive direction. I felt as though she accepted death open-heartedly and learned the value of time over money. Can death make a person stronger? I always took death as a depressing, tragic event but from her I felt as though death does not have to be 100% negative. It also sparked another question of, "Is it possible to be happy as death comes near?" I sensed strength even within her husband, who continued doing the art he loved despite his illness and nearing death. Maybe death doesn't have to be a moment of despair, but rather a chance to continue doing what we love until that time comes.
1. Her husband (like most men) was not seeking medical treatment when he first started to feel sick even though he should have.
2. Unlike movies and the media, going through cancer and chemo isn't 'pretty.' Her husband's foot blew up and was unable to walk. He didn't look as handsome as before.
3. Dealing with an illness such as her husband was not a straight line. In a way, it gave false hopes since there were times where he seemed okay.
4. Even as her husband's death neared, they never mentioned the word 'death' and always had positive thinking.
5. Her husband still made the art he loved while he was in the hospital. He said he did not mind being paralyzed as long as his hand could move. Even as he was in the stage of dying, he passed out cards with his art at different patients.
6. Beth has a supportive family which helped her to solely focus on taking care of her husband instead of continuing workshops. In a way, these moments were her best moments because she was able to only think about him and spend more 'quality time.'
7. She did not want others in the hospital to only see her husband as a 'cancer.' She wanted the doctors to look at him as a human, as a talented artist, and as her husband.
8. Her husband constantly fought against death.
9. Never hold off on saying a compliment or a comment that may make that person's day. You never know what can happen to that person.
The first insight I listed was actually one I agreed with strongly. Even though it depends on the individual, there are men who are in complete denial of being severly sick when they really need to go see a doctor. My grandpa on my mother's side can be like that sometimes. This is worrisome, because I can never tell if he is sick or not, and continues to take care of my disabled grandmother. I can tell he is very healthy and fit for his age, but at the same time I know there will be a time when he won't be able to do a lot of things as he gets more and more older. When I actually stopped to think about it, all the males in my family seem like they are never sick because they never openly say so. On the other hand (including myself) the females in my family say openly they are sick and feel bad. This is a generalization, but I agree in a way that men tend to not be so open about health.
The third insight I got from the guest speaker was that the process of being with someone who is ill and nearly dying is never a straight line and gives false hopes. I think this is true, especially because people naturally just tend to hope or want to believe that something good will happen. It's hard to do the opposite, because who would want their loved one to pass away? I always hope that my grandparents and family in Japan will continue to live on and I would be able to see them every time I go visit. I know that death happens to everyone, but I personally don't like to ponder about it: I just hope that it won't come any time soon.
I at first felt uncomfortable being in an audience listening to a true account of someone who lost their husband through kidney cancer. I honestly thought she would grow emotional, but instead I saw the exact opposite. Death is never a happy experience, but through her way of talking about it, I got the sense that it changed her view in a positive direction. I felt as though she accepted death open-heartedly and learned the value of time over money. Can death make a person stronger? I always took death as a depressing, tragic event but from her I felt as though death does not have to be 100% negative. It also sparked another question of, "Is it possible to be happy as death comes near?" I sensed strength even within her husband, who continued doing the art he loved despite his illness and nearing death. Maybe death doesn't have to be a moment of despair, but rather a chance to continue doing what we love until that time comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)