November 3rd, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews, True Stories
2 Comments »
I had lunch with an extraordinary physician today. She came to the US from Pakistan 30 years ago with a medical degree, a little girl and a baby on the way. Since she was a foreign medical grad, she had to accept a position at a less competitive residency program in New York’s inner city (even more violent and dangerous then than now). She made it through, with several near muggings and death threats but longed to work at a hospital where she and her girls could be safe.
One day she came upon a large, clean naval hospital and on a whim decided to join the military so she could work there. She served for two decades as a navy physician, and learned many life lessons along the way.
As I hung on her every word, my friend told me about her experience with navy pilots. She said that one of the scariest maneuvers is landing a plane on a dark aircraft carrier on a rolling sea. The pilots dreaded these drills, and truth be told, the officers were more worried about losing a 3.2 million dollar jet to the ocean waves than the life of one of the pilots. “There will always be another pilot. They’re not in short supply. But the planes are expensive.” This was the attitude drilled into the young aviators.
In order to land the plane in the dark, the pilot had to learn to trust completely in his optical landing system. It more or less consists of a pin icon with a ball on top, and a series of red, yellow, and green lights. The goal is to keep the ball well centered so that it remains green for landing. Achieving this is called “flying the ball.” In total darkness with crashing waves and a rolling deck, a successful arrested landing is difficult and perilous.
As I looked at my friend, a petite and beautiful woman, I tried to imagine what life was like for her as a young Pakistani resident – pregnant and alone in a concrete jungle filled with graffiti, trash, and drug addicts. Her life has been an incredible journey with ups and downs, and amazing success against all odds.
“How did you do it?” I asked her, shaking my head. “How did you get where you are today through all that adversity?”
She paused for a moment, then grinned slowly as she replied: “I learned how to fly the ball.”This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
October 18th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News, Opinion
5 Comments »
You might have seen the recent news about the middle school in Maine – King Middle School, in the Portland school district – that is planning to provide birth control to pre-teens, without requiring explicit parental consent. School officials argue that this will help to prevent pre-teen pregnancies, and estimate that at least 5 out of 135 of their 11- to 13-year-old female students are sexually active already.
While I absolutely sympathize with the desire to avoid pre-teen pregnancies, and I do understand that there is a reality here that some very young children will become sexually active at the tender age of 11, I personally do not support giving pre-pubescent girls hormone-altering tablets. We do not have good studies demonstrating the safety of such therapies in children, and until we do it’s just not medically sound to be offering this treatment. (For example, we don’t know what extra estrogen does to early breast buds, or whether there’s an increased risk for developing breast cancer later on.)
I also think that 11 year olds are not physically and emotionally prepared for sexual intimacy – and the prematurity of this event could be quite harmful for their psyche. We know that 11- and 12-year-old brains are not fully developed to think the way adults do, so there’s really no telling what impact it could have or what long term psychological effects might result.
Apparently sex before the age of 14 is illegal in Maine, so (although there’s no doubt that it may happen prior to that age) it seems that the state’s legal system is not in step with their school system, and that needs to be looked at. It is inconsistent to claim that an activity is illegal for children and then enable it with tax dollars.
I suppose that education about the use of condoms and access to them (without aggressive promotion of them) may be acceptable at this age. After all, condoms can prevent STDs and don’t have medical effects on the body as a whole. But my plea is that parents take the lead here – and educate your children about the risks of STDs, pregnancy, and the emotional damage that premature sex can have on a young person. Advocate for abstinence as a first choice, explain that condoms are non-negotiable, and try to help them turn their focus away from sex and towards more age-appropriate endeavors.
A new Dove advertising campaign asks parents to talk to their kids before the beauty industry does, and I think the same goes for sex and the media. Today’s parent must launch a preemptive strike against the over-sexualization of children, or risk having their 11 year olds taking estrogen patches from a school nurse without their consent.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
October 8th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Humor, Medblogger Shout Outs
No Comments »
If you haven’t seen this before, you must check out TBTAM’s photo of a man’s message to his wife (taped on the refrigerator). He had answered the phone and taken down this message for her…
***
“Someone from the Gyna Colleges called. They said the Pabst beer is normal. I didn’t even know you liked beer.”
— Rick
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
August 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
1 Comment »
A new study in the American Journal of Public Health reports that teens can expect a 50% reduced risk of developing chlamydia and gonorrhea if they use condoms from their very first sexual experience. Starting to use condoms later on can certainly protect against disease – but it seems that there is something important about using them from the beginning. In other words, people who use condoms from day 1 are more likely to keep using them regularly, and are therefore less likely to contract sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
I could enter into some awkward speculation about why this is true (maybe it’s easier to get used to the sensation of wearing a condom if it’s all you’ve ever known? Maybe using condoms from the start is more likely to make it a habit?) but more importantly, a 50% reduction in sexually transmitted infections is an incredibly huge margin of success. Sadly, sex education programs for youth have had mixed success in increasing consistent condom use. This study seems to suggest that for those students who receive the message, and use condoms from their first experience, there is a much greater chance of avoiding STIs. Early sex education, therefore, may have more benefit than sex education offered after an adolescent is sexually active.
Of course, like Dr. Stryer, I feel a bit concerned about over-exposing elementary school kids to sexual messaging. But since kids are already exposed via TV, the Internet, and various other media, it behooves us to arm them with age-appropriate information at the earliest point possible. Abstinence is the only 100% guarantee of an STI-free adolescence – but since ~50% of teens are sexually active (regardless of beliefs, sex education, or parental controls) it might be best to teach them that condoms are an inextricable part of all sexual intercourse. Sexually transmitted diseases can mean the difference between fertility and infertility, long life, or earlier death for our kids. With stakes this high, consistent condom use should be our mantra.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
August 20th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
5 Comments »
There has been some recent buzz about the health risks of nail salon workers. Two studies suggest that constant exposure to nail product fumes might impact cognition in both nail salon workers and their unborn babies. Although the workers’ exposure is estimated at 1200 times that of the average American, it does make one wonder if any woman who frequents these places may be at some risk.
The first study involved neuropsychological testing of 33 female salon workers and comparing their results to 35 women matched controls. The researchers found that the salon workers did worse on tests of attention span and mental processing speed and their sense of smell was decreased. This study was too small and non-specific to tease out which chemicals might be the culprits, but the observations were concerning.
The second study involved cognitive testing of children born to 32 mothers who were exposed to organic solvents when they were in utero. Compared to a control group, the children (whose moms had been exposed to chemicals) performed more poorly on IQ tests and various other cognitive tests. Interestingly, the participants in this study were not nail salon workers – they held jobs ranging from funeral home embalming technicians to hair stylists, to dry cleaners.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued some guidelines for nail salons, and based on my experience I’d be surprised if salons adhere to even 1/3 of these guidelines on average. If you scroll to page 12 of the brochure, you’ll see that the EPA recommends wearing a “organic vapor cartridge respirator” which looks like something out of a HAZMAT video. I doubt that any nail salons provide these for their staff… and if they did, what would clients make of it?
And so I think these small studies raise an interesting question: how safe is it to be exposed to organic solvents at all? We need to do more research to tease out the exact risks of each individual chemical, and at which concentrations. As for me, I’d urge pregnant women to minimize their exposure wherever possible, and strongly consider avoiding salons that offer acrylic nail services. Until we know exactly how harmful these chemicals are – the best thing to do is to avoid them wherever possible. The potential for solvent-related cognitive decline is worrisome enough – but allergies and asthma exacerbations are far more common. For a full list of chemicals known to be harmful (and their side effects) please review the EPA brochure, pages 4-5.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
