Is anyone out there in my vast listening audience becoming a bit uncomfortable with the increasingly cozy relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical companies?
We trust these doctors -- literally -- with our lives and we'd like to think that the treatment decisions they make are based on our best interests.
But there's increasing evidence that those decisions are shaded, or worse, by financial considerations that have little to do with the quality or the outcome of the treatment.
My significant other, Madame X, and I were visiting her mother recently when mom whipped out a home blood pressure measurement cuff. Being a pilot, my blood pressure is checked obsessively by Father Fed. I've always been very proud of my blood pressure, the positive result of which tends to drive my flight surgeon batty. He and I are both stocky, to use a polite, if not very pilot-ese, expression. My blood pressure was always great and his sucked. After his nurse would measure mine, I would tell him that he wasn't drinking enough beer, laying around enough, etc. This would always send him off grumbling under his breath.
Mom's blood pressure cuff spit out a result I was not happy with. What? What's that number again?
This set me off on a research jag to determine what the right number should be for a fossilized specimen like myself and that led to ...
... a dandy piece of journalism by Seattle Times reporter Duff Wilson.
As part of a series by his paper, Wilson explores the sometimes questionable, perhaps a bit shady, relationship between the medical profession and big, BIG drug companies. How ironic it is that, in year 35 of our ridiculously expensive war on drugs, the biggest pushers of drugs of all are supported by the government. And that means us.
At a time when there is an increasing sentiment for letting government manage our health care system, it's wise to remember that quasi-public, or even governmental agencies are not immune to being manipulated by big money.
But, back to my blood pressure.
I knew that the "standards" for such things had changed in recent years. At one time, older folks like myself could have higher numbers and it was considered to be OK. At some point, we were all expected to log 120/80 or else. For many years, I not only hit that number, I beat it.
So I was all in a panic when the number was higher. I'm still concerned because the number has risen, but after reading Duff's piece, I now realize I'm being "played" as the youngsters say.
To read Mr. Wilson's excellent article, click here.
We trust these doctors -- literally -- with our lives and we'd like to think that the treatment decisions they make are based on our best interests.
But there's increasing evidence that those decisions are shaded, or worse, by financial considerations that have little to do with the quality or the outcome of the treatment.
My significant other, Madame X, and I were visiting her mother recently when mom whipped out a home blood pressure measurement cuff. Being a pilot, my blood pressure is checked obsessively by Father Fed. I've always been very proud of my blood pressure, the positive result of which tends to drive my flight surgeon batty. He and I are both stocky, to use a polite, if not very pilot-ese, expression. My blood pressure was always great and his sucked. After his nurse would measure mine, I would tell him that he wasn't drinking enough beer, laying around enough, etc. This would always send him off grumbling under his breath.
Mom's blood pressure cuff spit out a result I was not happy with. What? What's that number again?
This set me off on a research jag to determine what the right number should be for a fossilized specimen like myself and that led to ...
... a dandy piece of journalism by Seattle Times reporter Duff Wilson.
As part of a series by his paper, Wilson explores the sometimes questionable, perhaps a bit shady, relationship between the medical profession and big, BIG drug companies. How ironic it is that, in year 35 of our ridiculously expensive war on drugs, the biggest pushers of drugs of all are supported by the government. And that means us.
At a time when there is an increasing sentiment for letting government manage our health care system, it's wise to remember that quasi-public, or even governmental agencies are not immune to being manipulated by big money.
But, back to my blood pressure.
I knew that the "standards" for such things had changed in recent years. At one time, older folks like myself could have higher numbers and it was considered to be OK. At some point, we were all expected to log 120/80 or else. For many years, I not only hit that number, I beat it.
So I was all in a panic when the number was higher. I'm still concerned because the number has risen, but after reading Duff's piece, I now realize I'm being "played" as the youngsters say.
To read Mr. Wilson's excellent article, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment