To See or Not to See...

The picture on the top is a beautiful sunset view of Quezon City, which is part of the Philippines' Metro Manila. On the bottom is a picture I took of the Quezon City Dump Site. Notice any differences? We rode there by jeepney from downtown Manila, and I could not go long without attempting to filter out the polluted air with my T-shirt. By the time we arrived at the city dump, I was sweating and my lungs and throat actually hurt from breathing the air that has now become visible having acquired a grayish-yellow tinge. The literally breathtaking view looked nothing like the picturesque scene on the left. The dump could be smelled for miles. Hundreds of squatter homes lined the edges of the dump. Dump workers scoured the garbage hilltops for a measly couple dollars a day while children played in black river nearby.

In light of our recent discussion on the environmental sustainability and the two diametric picture above, I invite you to read Dr. Sanjay Gupta's blog on Al Gore's Academy Award winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". He gives a visual representation of the current environmental and health implications of global warming as we spew out carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels at a lightning pace. Most people view the documentary as a wake-up call for an emergency crisis that has emerged as a result of our indifference and/or ignorance. Global warming already has immediate impacts in our lifetime - in fact, I experienced them first-hand in Quezon City -and they most certainly will for our future loved ones.

In case you don't get a chance to read the blog and corresponding comments, I want to at least make available what someone said in response to this global crisis:

"First off, a politician writing a film on Global warming is absolute garbage. Secondly, most physicists do not even believe in global warming. What people consider "global warming" is the +2 degrees Celsius change that we have seen over the past few years. Big deal. In a real data set, this would be considered noise. I think global warming is equivalent to religion and it's an act to try and control the masses and to tell them to do "what is right" for their planet. Which, this is easy to do given the persuasiveness of politicians and our president and the relatively low IQ level of the average human being." Posted By Ashley, Fulton, NY : 2:53 PM ET

I have no comment...

It's all in your mind

I thoroughly enjoyed Rosie's presentation on somatization last week. I had heard of the concept before, just never knew the medical term to describe such an interesting phenomenon. I'm sure everyone has experienced this sensation at some point in their lives...after all, we are all grad students and stress is no stranger to us! To my understanding, there is no clinical way to diagnose a patient with somatization. It seems to be a last resort diagnosis when all other tests come back negative. This can be quite a problem when physicians are short of time, and cannot find an answer. However, many patients who indeed have serious complications that perhaps, have not physically manifested themselves, get overlooked in this loose screening process.

I don't deny that many patients do indeed experience somatization. And if that is the case, the treatment can be relatively easy compared to severe acute and chronic diseases, depending on one's resources. But in order to prevent misdiagnosing patients who have serious underlying illnesses, physicians must run a quality assessment and really listen to patients' concerns. From a patient's perspective, one must be clear and accurate when explaining symptoms and health behaviors. An intuition is also a very strong feeling. If a patient inherently knows something is wrong, he should get a second opinion regarding a possible premature somatization diagnosis.

No children, no marriage

At least in America, feelings about homosexuality have slowly begun to see a more liberal side. However, for most of the world, the idea of homosexuality is condemned and often ignored. I just watched a video on CNN.com that completely redefines our legal perspective on the institution of marriage and its possible consequences for future marriage hopefuls and thousands of married couples nationwide. Gregory Gadow, the author of Initiative 957, is currently collecting signatures in Seattle, Washington, to make procreation a requirement for married couples. Under 957 couples will have three years to have at least one child, or their marriage will be annulled, and newlyweds will have to prove that they can have children before receiving a marriage certificate. His initiative stems from his belief that the current ruling, which states that "Procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage was a legitimate government interest", is logically flawed. The ruling essentially says that from a legal standpoint, the only reason homosexuals can't get married is because they can't procreate. Gadow wants to demonstrate such ludicracy by imposing the same reasoning on heterosexual couples who cannot procreate as well.
Although I personally believe in a person's right to sexual preferences, I don't think Initiative 957 is going to solve the problem of discrimination on homosexual couples who want to get married. By fighting for the rights of homosexuals, 957 will then impinge on the rights of heterosexuals. As cliche' as this sounds, two wrongs don't make a right.
Is Gadow's logic flawed as well? Is this considered an "attack on marriage" or is it simply a defense for something bigger, say, human rights? Are our conflicting views on the definition of marriage going to one day spread and start a worldwide debate? What are the implications of such an event?

And one more thing...

One more question regarding Pharmacogenetics...

- How will religion affect the progress of Pharmacogenetics? Unmapping one's genome to reveal any genetic predispositions to disease can challenge "God's ultimate plan". Are we playing with destiny or is this scientific revolution destiny working in disguise?

Ready or Not...

I thought the presenters today did an excellent job raising thought provoking issues. I specifically wanted to comment on Andrea's presentation on Pharmcogenetics. It is such an interesting topic, one I must admit not being too familiar with. Although I agree that genetic variation amongst individuals can lead to a slew of drug responses, and quite possibly unintended adverse reactions as pointed out in class. It can potentially take our health and health care into an entirely new era - one loaded with health prevention possibilities and the knowledge to fine-tune medication to specific admixed populations.

However, as grand as it all sounds I can't help but wonder:
- In a society who's constituents constantly seek control over everything, especially their own lives, can we even handle the truth about our genetic predispositions? I wouldn't be surprised to see suicide rates rise, psychiatrists' patient lists lengthening, increased stress leading to the onset or worsening of chronic diseases, overuse of and burden on the healthcare system, etc.
- Also, are we in over our heads? We can barely take care of our nation's health when we force admixed populations into single racial/ethnic categories. With that in mind, how can we possibly attempt to manage health problems on an individual level based on one's genetic make-up?

I was just wondering what people's thoughts are... :0)