Lol. I can tell you if you asked doctors what the biggest problem in their clinic, it's the EMR. I can say this myself, I've been in healthcare for a while in various roles, and i'm not to far off from graduating as a physician.

To find out what happened overnight to a patient, I have to sift through pages of computer generated junk to find just a few things. It's even worse in clinic, if I want to read what happened last time a patient was here, I have to sift through a note that is 50% auto generated lists of stuff to find what I really need to know: what the last doctor said the plan was for today.

They mention inbasket messages, and that's a huge issue. Now with the rise of patient portals, patients would message now for something that previously was a visit. Only recently has there been ways to recoup this cost (not that this is appealing to most patients, who see it as nickel and diming, though I empathize, I never can get to talk to a nurse/MA at my own family doc's clinic either).

Doctors are swamped, most of the day is charting, ultimately to appease insurance companies so that we get paid. If you're slotted for a 15 minute visit, and I'm not out after 10 minutes, I'm going to be late to every appointment until lunch or close, then I'll spend time at home finishing up notes and paperwork (prior auths, refilling meds, replying to messages from nurses and other clinic staff). Ultimately, for what good our regulation of healthcare has brought in the US, it remains that it is regulatory capture nonetheless. Healthcare orgs are quickly conglomerating, so the hospital, clinic, pharmacy, and insurance company are all owned by the same company. At the loss of good patient care, doctors are being removed from the equation, care is being fragmented and compartmentalized in a lot of aspects and less of our time in the day is available for patients.

What they call burnout, really is moral injury. People who go into healthcare do it because at some level, they want to help people. It really sucks when you realize 90% of your day is screwing with a computer system that seems to be diametrically opposed to letting you do your job.

Ultimately this a definition issue, and is philosophical more than scientific. I have no doubt he's a great neuroscientist, but it's really not a great take. I think that the whole idea of neurochemistry cascading into the decisions we make doesn't mean we don't have the ability to choose within our neurochemical makeup. I think it definitely pushing a good point in that the root causes of our behavior, especially anti-social behavior, is possibly addressable in how we support and raise our kids.

I’ve worked in healthcare for 7 years and have not had any sort of assistive technology that hasn’t doubled my work.

I think the best protocol is report the bad actor, not engaging with them (especially inserting yourself into a situation you're not already in), working on personal tolerance for verbal abuse and tactics for healthily managing feelings that come with getting bullied, and ultimately knowing when to remove yourself from a situation when it's not beneficial for you any longer.

Remember that online harassment that you speak of generally falls under trolling. Trolls do things "For the lulz". Their goal is to entertain themselves by getting other people mad, sad, upset, or making a scene. If you don't take the bait, you can minimize the benefit they get out of trolling.

Getting familiar with privacy/safety settings on site you frequent is important for addressing targeted harassment.

To address your question, I don't know if showing a victim that someone cares is necessarily what ALL victims might want, you are just some random anonymous user to them. They may just want to not talk to people, or to talk to people they trust. Recognizing boundaries is important, especially when someone has been the victim of someone trashing those boundaries through harassment.

Well the EFF defends internet expression and communications interests for users, even when it’s a shitty cause. Kinda like how the ACLU has defended Klansmen and similar groups. They generally believe the right to freedom of speech and expression is absolute, and if speech isthreatened for one group, it sets a precedent for other groups to be threatened too.

It sits on the edge of the concept of informed consent in the realm of things like SaaS and copyright. Obviously doctors wouldn't hold her down and pull it out, but obviously it probably was not useful to leave in. I wonder if there was a contract stating it had to be removed upon demand, like at the end of a trial or the bankruptcy that occurred. It's something that we're going to likely see in the future, as medical technology starts using computers to actively treat disorders.

I mean. yeah single payer is nice, however that's really not even on the horizon for the US. For most Americans, especially those who actually have to know how to fully utilize their insurance (if lucky enough to have it), there's no benefit for them to worry too much about a single-payer or socialized system. They have immediate needs and immediate solutions. They need to get their prescriptions, their surgeries, and their doctor's appointments. It's not "supporting" it, as so much as it is the devil you know.

Practically speaking, compared to standard PPO/HMO insurance, HDHPs are pretty good. If you are low-maintenance health-wise, you don't pay for your physical, are going to spend maybe couple hundred bucks on sick care and maintenance meds. If you have chronic illness, you will only pay the deductible before your care is 100 percent covered, so a hospital stay would be enough to meet your out-of-pocket max, and everything else is covered 100% by your insurer (whereas the traditional plans have 6-10k limits, the HDHPs are much lower at 1-2k for a person and 2-3 for a family). Especially with HSAs, which are savings/retirement accounts for medical expenses, that some employers will pay into, so basically free money to pay copays, prescriptions, even stuff like aspirin and bandages.

I think this is an important finding to promote in regards to mental health. The mental health of men and boys is not really handled all that well (you either man up or get told to be more vulnerable/open/etc, without any real chance to handle it due to stigma and societal norms). I think one, it can help us spot teens who are having depressive thoughts, and give us a chance to help address it early. I think it also helps open up guys to better understand their emotions, which is the first step to managing depressive thoughts and treating depression. Given the article, I wouldn't be surprised if men grow up with an idea of "i'm not depressed because i'm not sad, hopeless, etc.", when their aggressive reactions are brought out by depressive thoughts (vs crying, loss of motivation, etc).

I think this is a good step given the climate on women’s reproductive health currently. I am apprehensive that it will be treated as a “lazy” contraceptive instead of getting combo OCPs and follow up with a physician. This type of drug is extremely narrow in dosing, in that you can get pregnant if you miss your dose by an hour or two. It also opens up the opportunity for a woman to taken it without needing a doctor, which is good for those who don’t have east access to a family doc or OB. However, given the stats in the article(that most women prefer OTC due to convenience), I think it further enables people to avoid developing a relationship with a physician for primary and preventative care. I worry we might see some accidental pregnancies and maybe some negative health outcomes secondary to people not seeing a doctor every so often for their birth control.

At the end of the article, they throw in the ", but..." remark. It's easy to get caught up in the wonder of the science and innovation, however we can't forget medicine is more politics than anything. In the US, these wonder drugs for cancer, HIV, etc. are easy to come by if you lived by a major tertiary or quaternary care center. Many Americans are in rural areas, where the local clinic or hospital can only provide preventative or stabilizing care, and they may not even have a physician, it may be a NP or PA, or even an EMS service that can transport them a town over to the ER.

As the article says, our innovation is great, but we cannot forget to improve our infrastructure to prevent disparities in access to them that often occur in rural areas and among the poor and minority groups.

This guy likes to hear himself talk, which is what Medium is good for. Reddit is for hearing others try to tell you you're wrong.

I personally don’t understand the purpose of this law. I’ve never discarded a phone due to battery issues (iPhone user). It’s usually just been a slow device, sometimes due to a failing charging port or 3.5mm Jack. I’d rather have the opportunity to replace ports, screens, and buttons.

Do any of you guys experience issues needing a battery replacement that often?