Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Annotated Bibliography
Harkless, Gene Elizabeth. "Do I really need to have that test? Understanding risk and making medical decisions in the age of TMI." 2010. University Dialogues, The University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. Pg. 17-19.
This essay deals with the motivation of clinicians responsible for patient care, and the counterintuitive way in which women are dealt with in the United States healthcare industry. First Harkless asks, why do clinicians make the decisions that they do? Are they motivated by evidence, market pressure, ritual or ignorance? In her essay, she makes it clear that she believes they are not motivated by the first option.
Harkless uses the care of young females to further illustrate her point. Doctors have pressured women to perform breast self-examination for decades for early detection of breast cancer, a practice that has very little supporting evidence. Women see doctors four times as often as men for preventative reasons, half for Pap smears. Beginning at age 21, it is recommended that young women get tested for signs of early cervical cancer every three years. Between two and three million abnormal Paps are found each year, however only half of one percent of those result in a precancer diagnosis. Most healthcare providers perform the tests much more frequently. In addition, many doctors require that young women have a Pap smear before they will prescribe contraceptives, although pregnancy prevention and cervical cancer have almost nothing to do with each other. I found Harkless' essay refreshing, because healthcare providers are protected by the assumption that they know better than their patients, while relevant information is routinely kept from patients. Doctors do have the information from studies that have been conducted to improve patient care by administering effective tests abd doing away with unnecessary and wasteful screening, however many are ignoring this knowledge and enforcing the status quo of young women being treated as if they are not responsible enough to use accepted evidence to make their own medical choices.
To be continued...
This essay deals with the motivation of clinicians responsible for patient care, and the counterintuitive way in which women are dealt with in the United States healthcare industry. First Harkless asks, why do clinicians make the decisions that they do? Are they motivated by evidence, market pressure, ritual or ignorance? In her essay, she makes it clear that she believes they are not motivated by the first option.
Harkless uses the care of young females to further illustrate her point. Doctors have pressured women to perform breast self-examination for decades for early detection of breast cancer, a practice that has very little supporting evidence. Women see doctors four times as often as men for preventative reasons, half for Pap smears. Beginning at age 21, it is recommended that young women get tested for signs of early cervical cancer every three years. Between two and three million abnormal Paps are found each year, however only half of one percent of those result in a precancer diagnosis. Most healthcare providers perform the tests much more frequently. In addition, many doctors require that young women have a Pap smear before they will prescribe contraceptives, although pregnancy prevention and cervical cancer have almost nothing to do with each other. I found Harkless' essay refreshing, because healthcare providers are protected by the assumption that they know better than their patients, while relevant information is routinely kept from patients. Doctors do have the information from studies that have been conducted to improve patient care by administering effective tests abd doing away with unnecessary and wasteful screening, however many are ignoring this knowledge and enforcing the status quo of young women being treated as if they are not responsible enough to use accepted evidence to make their own medical choices.
To be continued...
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Virtual Togetherness and Planned Parenthood
I recently visited the website of Planned Parenthood (www.plannedparenthood.org) to evaluate the community that may be found there. Frankly, this is a website for the infosumer, rather than someone interested in developing a sense of camaraderie or togetherness. The website is extremely informative about reproductive options, talking to kids about sex, finding a healthcare provider and politicians' stances on women's health issues. I do not find this surprising, as it is an organization focused on providing accurate, complete information about women's health. If there is a lot of input from users, such as would be the case in a more "instrumental relations" focused site, there could be a lot of conflicting information or misinformation.
However, for those seeking to learn about the personal experiences of others who have used Planned Parenthood, the website directs them to their Facebook page, where the atmosphere is more instrumental relations focused. This week, the wall is inundated with information about pro-choice candidates and laments about the reality that many states had no pro-choice candidate to vote for this year. However, further back in the comments there is information about Planned Parenthood, as well as opportunities to get involved with feminist rallies and organizations. The Facebook page seems to be more focused on getting women to come out of the woodwork and get involved, whereas the website is more focused on providing accurate reproductive health information.
Although Planned Parenthood does portray itself as a safe space, this is much more focused on the type of information you will find there, as well as the atmosphere in one of their locations. This is not a communitarian website, with no forums, comments or profiles. However, for their purpose, I feel this is best. It shows that they are an informative authority, not an opinionated organization with an agenda, which can be perceived negatively. The Facebook page is more opinionated however, but it is not a social networking area (although one could develop a friendship with a fellow commenter, it does not seem to foster that type of interaction.)
This website does fall into the "mobile privatization" category in some ways. One is able to gain access to information on their own, without leaving the house, speaking to a health professional or going to a clinic. Planned Parenthood allows people of different social status to gain equal information and services, by providing a sliding payment scale according to income, and accepting Medicaid and many insurance providers, as well as private payment. There is no social exclusion on the website, and it is made clear that all are welcome at the open locations.
The website of Planned Parenthood does not foster virtual togetherness, however it does offer a wealth of valuable information for the infosumer interested in controller her reproductive destiny.
However, for those seeking to learn about the personal experiences of others who have used Planned Parenthood, the website directs them to their Facebook page, where the atmosphere is more instrumental relations focused. This week, the wall is inundated with information about pro-choice candidates and laments about the reality that many states had no pro-choice candidate to vote for this year. However, further back in the comments there is information about Planned Parenthood, as well as opportunities to get involved with feminist rallies and organizations. The Facebook page seems to be more focused on getting women to come out of the woodwork and get involved, whereas the website is more focused on providing accurate reproductive health information.
Although Planned Parenthood does portray itself as a safe space, this is much more focused on the type of information you will find there, as well as the atmosphere in one of their locations. This is not a communitarian website, with no forums, comments or profiles. However, for their purpose, I feel this is best. It shows that they are an informative authority, not an opinionated organization with an agenda, which can be perceived negatively. The Facebook page is more opinionated however, but it is not a social networking area (although one could develop a friendship with a fellow commenter, it does not seem to foster that type of interaction.)
This website does fall into the "mobile privatization" category in some ways. One is able to gain access to information on their own, without leaving the house, speaking to a health professional or going to a clinic. Planned Parenthood allows people of different social status to gain equal information and services, by providing a sliding payment scale according to income, and accepting Medicaid and many insurance providers, as well as private payment. There is no social exclusion on the website, and it is made clear that all are welcome at the open locations.
The website of Planned Parenthood does not foster virtual togetherness, however it does offer a wealth of valuable information for the infosumer interested in controller her reproductive destiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)