Treatise on a Cultural Truth

The Truth by ~-nightm4r3- on deviantART

I wish to begin a discourse, a treatise, on a cultural truth.  That what we believe is true, correct, and accurate may not hold true across all peoples.  Given the same data and knowledge, we may reach very different conclusions - each with its own merits.  Warning: this post is rather long.

Early last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) revised their position on infant male circumcision, stating:

"New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys."

It is a shift from the AAP's neutral stance that had been reaffirmed since 1999.  The statement was revised by a committee that had reviewed the medical literature on the subject for the past decade.  This is in stark contrast to a German court in Cologne that essentially banned non-medically indicated circumcision, and you can read my thoughts in my post here.  To me this contrast highlights one of the age-old questions: "What is truth?"  Is truth objective or subjective?  Is it an immutable reality or something malleable to our perspectives?

The BBC News wrote a nicely balanced article, Circumcision, the ultimate parenting dilemma, comparing and contrasting how the US and Europe have approached this topic, looking at the same medical literature, and coming to polar conclusions.  Whereas the AAP has move more "pro-circumcision," the Royal Dutch Medical Association maintains its neutrality (if not slightly "anti-circumcision") stance.  At the end of the day, despite the science and the medicine, it would appear that the decision is decided upon a cultural truth.

Around the same time as the AAP's new guidelines, Dr. Tobian et al. - the same Dr. Tobian of Johns Hopkins who conducted one of the African trials that linked circumcision status to lower HIV infection rate - released an article titled: "Costs and Effectiveness of Neonatal Male Circumcision."  Instantly news stations ate up that press release, with news titles such as:

LA Times: As circumcision declines, health costs will go up, study says

AFP News: Fewer circumcisions could cost the US billions: study

TIME: If circumcision rates keep falling, health costs and infections will spike

CNN: Decline in circumcisions could cost billions

All worded rather strongly with words such as "will go up" or "will spike," suggesting an objective immutable truth to the study.  So what did the study report?  It says that if the US infant male circumcision rate continues to fall and fell to 10% (the approximate rate in Europe), the following could occur:

Lifetime health care costs per man: increase by $407

Lifetime health care costs per woman: increase by $43

Net expenditure for the US health care system per year: increase by $505 million, reflecting an increase of $313 per male circumcision not done

Net expenditure for the US health care system over 10 years: increase by over $4.4 billion

Lifetime prevalence of HIV for men: increase by 12.2%

Lifetime prevalence of HPV for men: increase by 29.1%

Lifetime prevalence of HSV-2 for men: increase by 19.8%

Lifetime prevalence of Infant urinary tract infections (UTIs) for men: increase by 211.8%

Lifetime prevalence of bacterial vaginosis for women: increase by 51.2%
Lifetime prevalence of trichomoniasis for women: increase by 51.2%
Lifetime prevalence of HPV for women: 12.9-18.3%

Those are big numbers, fighting numbers.  But they are potentially misleading numbers.  First of all the calculations based off of prevalence is, in my opinion, disingenuous.  Prevalence is the total number of people in the population with the disease at a given time.  The incidence rate is the number of new people contracting the disease within a time period.  The prevalence for a disease such as HIV, HPV (genital warts or cervical/anal cancer), or HSV-2 (herpes) will always be higher than the incidence rate.  Why?  Because people are living longer with those diseases, and they're considered "chronic," so the prevalence will always increase even if the incidence rate falls.

Second, the study fails to compare/contrast incidence rates between the US and Europe.  It instead falls on relying on data from the African trails on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).  When Tobian was interviewed and asked about comparing the US to Europe, the article states:

"It is too difficult a comparison because "we have very different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and different transmission dynamics," he said."

Wait a second there.  Tobian et al. used data from Africa, where racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and transmission dynamics are clearly more different compared to the US than Europe compared to the US.  Didn't he just invalidate his study, in some sense?  So what is the comparison between the US and Europe?

Utilizing the European Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the US Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) data, we can see the following:

Chlamydia:

Europe (overall): 143 cases per 100,000 people (2000) to 332 cases per 100,000 people (2009)

US: 405.3 cases per 100,000 people (2009) to 426 cases per 100,000 people (2010)

Gonorrhea:

Europe (overall): 16.8 cases per 100,000 people (2000) to 11.7 cases per 100,000 people (2009)

US: 98.1 cases per 100,000 people (2009) to 100.8 cases per 100,000 people (2010)

HIV:

Europe (overall): 6.6 cases per 100,000 (2004) to 7.8 cases per 100,000 (2010)

US: 16.3 cases per 100,000 (2010) - CDC's website wasn't too user-friendly for finding info

HPV and herpes aren't tracked as closely and are difficult to track because of a latent asymptomatic phase.  But the US CDC cases seem to be overall steadily trending up, though herpes appears to actually have had a steep decline in the past 2-3 years.

As you can see, the US has higher incidence rates of all STIs, including HIV, compared to Europe.  At first glance, most of the STI rates in the US are either stable or slowly trending up at a rather consistent pace since the 1960s or so.  As infant male circumcision rates have decreased since the 1980s, one would expect to see a quicker pace of increase starting in about 1995-2000 or so (when the first cohort of more uncircumcised males reached age 15 or so).

It's true that Tobian et al.'s study is true utilizing the data he used.  But with additional data, different data, I reached a different truth.  What I see is that:

1. the rates of STIs in Europe (on the whole, individual countries vary) are lower than in the US - and we should figure out why before resorting to cutting off a part of the human body.
2. the velocity of increase in rates of STIs in the US aren't speeding up as the years progress, which should theoretically correspond to a decrease in infant male circumcision rates over the last 30-40 years if Tobian's assertion is correct.
3. despite an estimated 211.8% increase in male UTIs in Tobian et al.'s study, the rate of UTIs in baby boys is still at about 1% or less (a lower rate than for females at any age).
4. despite an estimated increase in HPV among both men and women in Tobian et al.'s study, there is now a vaccine for HPV that he likely didn't factor in (a vaccine, might I add, that has been recently FDA-approved for use in men as well).

So we must sometimes evaluate what we deem as "truth."  Even if we look at the same object we may still see it differently.  Culture can shape our truths and to evaluate our truths we must sometimes not evaluate the data, the science, the medicine, but rather the culture with which those truths are framed.  Below are some well-written challenges against the culture truth of infant male circumcision in the US:

Our Bodies, Our Choice: Circumcision is Not a Joke

Why Do We Still Circumcise Boys?

Why I Didn't Circumcision My Sons

The First Lady with Grace

I just got done watching the first night of the 2012 National Democratic Convention.  I was floored by Michelle Obama's speech bringing the first night to a close.  I'm also rather floored that it's already posted in its entirety on YouTube for you all to replay.

I believe it connected with many Americans in a very personal way.  It highlighted the struggles to improve one's station in life and that though it may not be realized in one's own life, it can happen through one's children or one's children's children.  It's not dissimilar to the story of my own family, immigrating from Hong Kong in search of a better life.  How my mom's family lived together in one apartment and I was cared for by all family members when I was born.  How my parents, grandparents, and uncles began on food stamps.  How my family worked its butt off to allow me, my brothers, and my cousins to be where we are today.

She tactfully touched upon all the social issues that President Obama has in some way championed - women's rights, healthcare reform, gay rights and marriage, and support for veterans.  She humanized him in a way that only she would be able to do.  She gracefully didn't lampoon the Republicans, something very refreshing to see.  It's easy to see why she's the most popular woman in the US.

I do agree with the news commentator on the TV - the Democrats have the social issues in hand, lock and step, but they need to refocus a good portion of the remaining nights of the Convention on the economic issues.  True, the economy has recovered and is growing, albeit slowly.  But they still need to bring that to the forefront.

Another Step Taken

Another step by ~F1rstcl4ssn00b on deviantART

Step 1: check.

Step 2 CK: check.

Check off each step taken towards my medical license.  Hopefully I passed Step 2 CK, but I won't definitively know for almost a month.  Blah.  I shudder to think about retaking that 9-hour long test (not to mention how much it costs!).  With some luck, I did markedly better on Step 2 CK than on Step 1 last year.

Steps left to go: Step 2 CS and Step 3.  After that, it's just the re-certification exams every 10 years to be board certified.  Yay.  Endless testing.  -_-

But for the moment, I have a short window of freedom (and a short vacation coming up!).  So I'm going to enjoy this while it lasts.  Alas I also have to work on ERAS applications for residency programs.

Oddly Chaotic

M4 year has been oddly chaotic.  Where to even begin?

1.  I finished my peds sub-I last month.  The last week and a half were awesome and really renewed my desire to pursue peds.  While on night float it was just me, a senior resident, the nurses, and the attending physician that I rarely saw or talked to.  I liked the smaller team structure and I enjoyed interacting more closely with the nurses and got the opportunity to know all the patients on the service a bit better.  I also became really efficient literally overnight and that efficiency carried over when I returned to the day shift.  Unfortunately I'm still worried that my comparatively poor performance the first 3 weeks caused irreparable damage to my grade and comments, which could pose an issue later when I interview for residency programs.

2.  I'm taking USMLE Step 2 CK at the end of this month.  I'm so not ready!!  I keep hearing that most people do better on Step 2 CK than on Step 1, and I desperately hope that's true because I didn't do nearly as well on Step 1 as I had expected.  :-/  Must study study study!!!

3.  I'm working on my ERAS application to pediatric residency programs.  I'm partway through but I honestly expected to be mostly done by now.  I just haven't had the energy to dedicate sufficient time towards it.  There's so many little things to do and complete!  And I have to really do some introspection into what kinds of programs are a good fit for me.  Ugh.

4.  I have to touch base with all my writers for letters of recommendation.  In addition I need a letter from the Chair of Pediatrics.  Fortunately, in an oddly deus ex machina fashion, that bit worked out far better than I could've dreamed.  So now I'm just waiting for one letter writer to get back to me as to when he can meet with me to finalize things.

5.  I went out on a date with this guy a couple weeks back (he considered it a date, I thought we were just hanging out having brunch - clearly I suck at such things).  He's about my age, is a good conversationalist, is witty.  We've been flirting a little bit back and forth via the app we first chatted on (he has limited texts, so I avoid texting him too much).  Hopefully there may be more?

6.  Last month I visited a friend in a city about an hour west of me.  It was a lot of fun.  I also ended up (unintentionally?) jacking him off . . . while his boyfriend was out of town.  Oops.

So yeah.  Oddly chaotic beginning to what's supposed to be the best year of medical school.  But these first few months are death.

Hardest Month . . .

Precocious Patient by ~ThirstyEye on deviantART

M3 year has flown by.  Sometimes I still can't believe I an M4 now and on my pediatrics sub-internship.  This is by far my most difficult month of med school yet, more so than even surgery.  I literally act as a functional intern on one of the pediatrics ward teams, except all my orders have to be verified by my senior resident.

There are rewarding moments.  There are moments and areas that I feel I shine at.  But all that is overshadowed by this constant anxious feeling that I'm not doing enough, or not doing things the right way, or not thinking fast enough.  It's terrifying.  Being the one responsible for a child's care in the hospital is daunting.  It's not that I don't basically know what to do, it's that I'm unable to instantly anticipate all possible (worst) outcomes and prepare for it.

I'm able to prioritize tasks fairly easily, to do what needs to be done, but I can't prioritize my thoughts as quickly when someone asks me a question or I'm asked to present a patient.  The information is there, but it's not organized the way I (later) type it up and it's unfiltered because I just ramble all the information - pertinent and non-pertinent.  I don't know why I'm getting flustered and blanking.

I'm now 2 weeks in to the rotation, about half-way done.  And I feel like I haven't significantly improved despite working my ass off.  Today was the worst day.  I showed up and was instantly handed 5 patients I didn't know, didn't have sufficient time to read through their chart, and on top of that I was the one admitting a new patient and had to do her whole work-up.  I was a mess and constantly second-guessing everything I said the whole day after that.  It took me way longer to catch up than it should.

Words can't express how defeated I feel right now.  How stupid I feel.  How slow I feel.  How not cut out for this I feel.  Maybe I should consider switching fields.  This was not how I expected to start M4 year, and definitely not how I expected this month to go.

When the Courts Intervene

These days the news are filled with stories of various laws, bills, and practices brought before the Courts system.  It must be difficult to be a judge, to sit in a position of logic when so many of the arguments brought forth are ones of emotion.  And when it may at first appear that the Courts overstep their boundaries, the reaction can be explosive.

In Germany, a curious ruling was made by a Cologne court: German Ruling Against Circumcising Boys Draws Criticism.  Of course Jews and Muslims are up in arms over this, believing the court overstepped its jurisdiction and invaded religious space.  The court basically ruled (paraphrased) that the child has the fundamental right to bodily integrity and must be able to consent to the procedure if it's not done for medically indicated reasons.  It sounds logical enough.

Now the vast majority of circumcisions are done in infancy or early childhood, when the child cannot of course consent.  By Jewish tradition it happens on the 8th day of life.  Muslim tradition, as I understand it, varies a bit - it could be in infancy or all the way in adolescence (when the child would be able to consent).

So the argument come back, does the child's fundamental right to bodily integrity trump the parents' rights to parent?  To dictate the child's religion?  This is a gray zone, to be sure, and I'm not sure why male circumcision gets such a pass (from a logical standpoint).  Courts have ruled previously that a parent may not tattoo their child.  Courts have ruled that female circumcision (aka female genital cutting/mutilation or FGM) is illegal.  Are those necessarily drastically different?  Tattooing inflicts a permanent mark on the child, but doesn't remove any part of his/her body.  Female circumcision exists on a spectrum - the most "benign" being a simple prick to draw blood from the clitoral hood (or removal of the clitoral hood) to practices way more extreme.

One medical body considered allowing physicians to perform the most benign on the FGM spectrum (pricking the clitoral hood to draw a few drops of blood, symbolically of female circumcision) to assuage parents who come from a culture that practices that, and to ensure they don't take their baby girls to a practitioner who'd do something way more extreme.  That consideration was met with a furious backlash and promptly retracted.  But we're allowed to do more than that to baby boys.  I mean, really now?

For the purposes of this post I'm ignoring the potential medical benefits/risks of male circumcision because the research on that waffles all the time, and whatever potential medical benefits that may be gained are easily achieved with other means (e.g. using a condom, good hygiene, etc).  But these procedures, because they are surgical in nature, do come with very real risks.  In an old Jewish tradition (fortunately not practiced by most - I think - Jews these days), the mohel sucks the blood away from the circumcision wound with his mouth.  This is obviously not sanitary and is against all medical standards.  How 11 New York City Babies Contracted Herpes Through Circumcision.  That's one of the complications of that particular practice.  Now in normal healthy older children and adults, herpes is annoying but nothing more really.  In babies, because their immune systems are next to none, a herpes infection can be deadly.

And when public health officials try to intervene to limit/stop these practices, religious backlash is again furious as they claim they can self-regulate.  Clearly not always.  Circumcision, as my ob/gyn attending once said, has a "narrow therapeutic window."  It's not a difficult procedure to perform, but when you mess up, you mess up big time and you can destroy that kid's life.  That's not a burden I'd like to carry.

If at this point you may think I'm bashing religion, I assure you I'm not.  But when a religion requires modification to a person's body, particularly to a person who cannot consent, there are at least standards that must be met.  I'm in full support of medical/public health/legal bodies regulating such practices to ensure minimal harm.  The Cologne court in Germany may have gone too far, but the issue they bring up is valid: does the parents' rights trump the child's right to bodily integrity?  What if the child grew up and wish he (or she) wasn't circumcised?  What consolation is there then?

On my ob/gyn rotation I met a young first-time mother who asked me, as she was in the last stages of labor, whether her son would get circumcised right after birth.  I tried my best to mask my shock.  I said that the baby must first be observed for at least 12+ hours to ensure he's healthy enough.  I told her if she wished it to be done, it'd happen the following morning.  She asked me again if it'd be done right after he was born.  I reiterated myself.  Her friend suggested she could just leave him uncircumcised, that there's nothing wrong with that - I agreed and said most of the world's men are uncircumcised and the vast majority of them have no health problems because of it.  She considered this for a full 3 seconds before asking me that question again.  I changed the topic, exchanged some polite words, and left.  This mother, in my opinion, shouldn't have had the right to make that snap decision for her son without full consideration of the potential risks/benefits.

Thoughts?  Should logic rule over emotion and tradition?  Did that German court go too far, or simply conform to laws regarding other somewhat similar practices?  Whose rights should respected first?

Here's one last article, food for thought: Circumcision's Deadly Fault Line: Rationality vs. the Metzitzah B'Peh.

Ending with the Crazies

Ya know, I could say how I've been busy and whatnot.  But that'd be a lie this time.  I've just been lazy.  The year has been winding down for some time and I just couldn't be bothered, lol.  And as it is, I end the year with the crazies (aka, psychiatry).

It actually wasn't a bad rotation.  Spent 2 weeks on child/adolescent psych, 1 week on eating disorders, and 1 week on adult psych.  As the director of the place told us several times, "Most of these patients ain't dumb, they ain't crazy, they just have had crazy things happen in their lives and couldn't handle it, and that's why they're here."  On about day 3 I realized how true his words rang.

The vast majority of psychiatric patients I saw aren't crazy.  Most of them aren't schizophrenic, they don't hear voices other people don't hear, they don't see things other people don't see, they aren't foaming at the mouth or anything (that said, the couple of schizophrenics who weren't taking their medications really were sometimes kinda scary crazy).  Most of the people I saw actually had mood disorders - anxiety, depression, irritability, etc.

The best way I can describe most patients' situations is that crazy things happen in their lives - a kid is witness to domestic violence or is abused (verbally, physically, emotionally, and/or sexually), a teen feels out of control when her parents divorce and start restricting her eating, an adult couldn't handle the pain from multiple surgeries and turns to drugs - and their minds just can't take it.  Something inside breaks and they snap.  These people try to resolve things and find an outlet for the trauma of their minds and find themselves repeatedly bashing their heads against a proverbial wall.

And when they're at their lowest, when there's not much further down to go, they come to us at an inpatient psychiatric hospital.  Here we control the environment, take the responsibility out of their hands for a time, talk to them, counsel them, prescribe medications.  And these medications often work (it may take some fiddling around to find the right drug and dose for the right person, but it works out more often than not).  They kind of reset the imbalance in the brain and allow people to think clearer, calmer, and more rationally.  They smooth out the edges of emotions so one doesn't soar as high or dip as low.

Mental health.  It's a real thing.  Sometimes all one needs is some counseling, and sometimes it requires medication.  In that regard, it's not really any different than diabetes or hypertension.

-----

Oh yeah, I'm 3/4 of an MD now!  :-D  Unfortunately the other aspects of my life have been less interesting than the things I witness when I'm in the hospital.  Still a few things here and there worth blogging about in posts to come.

Oh yeah, PPACA (aka, Obamacare) survived the Supreme Court ruling.  Thoughts?  Also for another post, lol.