One of the hardest things to do as a health professional is to find empathy when working with the masses. We simply cannot deal with all the pain that is out there, and so we insulate ourselves from the pain to deal with problems rather than with people. We deal with numbers and not individuals because just one individual story is much more powerful than any number thrown at our face.
So where exactly is the balance between being a human and being a professional? How do we live with ourselves when after learning about everything that is wrong with the world, we go back to our private lives as though nothing happened. But then how do we live if we bring everything we learn that is wrong with the world back into our own private lives? How much pain and suffering can we bring back home each day without it affecting our lives?
Anyone can be an average health professional and simply deal with numbers, but it takes courage and strength to go out each day to deal with people. Ask yourself then if all you want to be is an average health professional... or if you're ready to deal with people.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
A Quote
The intelligent come up with brilliant ideas understood only amongst themselves. The wise bring those ideas to the masses.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Baby Steps
Blink...and the world has just left you behind. I was just at this talk by Thomas Friedman a couple of weeks ago with two classmates, and he talks about his book "the world is flat." I haven't read his book prior to the lecture, but you can tell from some of the faces in the auditorium that others had--they were starting to wonder why they had even bothered buying his book. But don't get me wrong, it was a pretty great lecture. It's just that he did such a great job covering his book in the lecture that most people wondered why they even bothered with the book. But I digress.
Friedman's whole premise was that we are in an age of such advanced technological innovation that the whole world is connected in mere seconds. The world is getting flatter, and America is not ready for it. He describes a huge interplay of events (including 9/11) that distracted Americans from the rest of world while the world slowly leveled the global playing field. Friedman's lecture was of course much more engaging than I can ever do justice to with just three sentences, but I don't intend to summarize his points--you'll have to buy the book or find one of his lectures (personally I recommend the lecture, I heard the book is tedious)--my purpose for writing this post is to talk about baby steps.
Ok for those of you who have no idea why I would go through two whole paragraphs (I know it feels much longer than that) talking about Friedman (and not doing a great job at that) and see no connection whatsoever to "baby steps," you are the reason why this entire next two paragraphs exist.
Americans need to start taking baby steps. I am sure most of you will agree that America is at the forefront of many technological innovations, but I propose that Americans have been at the forefront of technology for so long that they forgot what it's like to be at the tail end. In health care innovations, Americans are the slowest to adopt technologies that have become common placed in other countries. Time-saving, cost-cutting health care technologies such as the smart card utilized in other countries for years is only starting to get some hype in the states. The prime position that America has held for decades in terms of technological utilization has created an entire population that are laggards when it comes to newer technology. The technological drive of the 20th century is grinding to a halt in America as its citizens believe that they are now far more advanced than any other nation in the world. And why should they think otherwise? Americans are the richest population in the entire world, most lead rather comfortable lives, and few even bother to find out what is going on out there in the rest of world. Yet this myopic American view of the world has allowed the rest of the world to creep past America in the technology race. Americans are busy resting in their outdated technologies, while the rest of world comes up with better and more efficient technologies. Just look at how Japanese automakers are annihilating American auto companies with their hybrid fuel saving technology.
And who exactly is to blame for putting the brakes on technology in America? We can throw in the usual suspects of government and corporations, but ultimately it comes down to the individual American. While the world laughs at American ignorance, Americans decide to take the only position they know of--arrogance. In perhaps no other culture would one find a population defending their ignorance with such arrogant pride--they scorn the metric system, and laugh at British English. More amusing is their belief that volume can transcend all language barriers as they travel the world. Americans need to start looking at the world as babies do--in awe and amazement, and as a place filled with creativity and discovery--rather than look at the world as a grouchy old parent. America still leads the world in several industries (which I have of course failed to mention hitherto because I do not wear the American flag as an underwear; someone who does can easily tell you how great America is), but to maintain its lead in those industries and regain its lead in other industries that it has fallen behind in, it is imperative that Americans start taking baby steps. Blink, and the world has just left you behind.
Friedman's whole premise was that we are in an age of such advanced technological innovation that the whole world is connected in mere seconds. The world is getting flatter, and America is not ready for it. He describes a huge interplay of events (including 9/11) that distracted Americans from the rest of world while the world slowly leveled the global playing field. Friedman's lecture was of course much more engaging than I can ever do justice to with just three sentences, but I don't intend to summarize his points--you'll have to buy the book or find one of his lectures (personally I recommend the lecture, I heard the book is tedious)--my purpose for writing this post is to talk about baby steps.
Ok for those of you who have no idea why I would go through two whole paragraphs (I know it feels much longer than that) talking about Friedman (and not doing a great job at that) and see no connection whatsoever to "baby steps," you are the reason why this entire next two paragraphs exist.
Americans need to start taking baby steps. I am sure most of you will agree that America is at the forefront of many technological innovations, but I propose that Americans have been at the forefront of technology for so long that they forgot what it's like to be at the tail end. In health care innovations, Americans are the slowest to adopt technologies that have become common placed in other countries. Time-saving, cost-cutting health care technologies such as the smart card utilized in other countries for years is only starting to get some hype in the states. The prime position that America has held for decades in terms of technological utilization has created an entire population that are laggards when it comes to newer technology. The technological drive of the 20th century is grinding to a halt in America as its citizens believe that they are now far more advanced than any other nation in the world. And why should they think otherwise? Americans are the richest population in the entire world, most lead rather comfortable lives, and few even bother to find out what is going on out there in the rest of world. Yet this myopic American view of the world has allowed the rest of the world to creep past America in the technology race. Americans are busy resting in their outdated technologies, while the rest of world comes up with better and more efficient technologies. Just look at how Japanese automakers are annihilating American auto companies with their hybrid fuel saving technology.
And who exactly is to blame for putting the brakes on technology in America? We can throw in the usual suspects of government and corporations, but ultimately it comes down to the individual American. While the world laughs at American ignorance, Americans decide to take the only position they know of--arrogance. In perhaps no other culture would one find a population defending their ignorance with such arrogant pride--they scorn the metric system, and laugh at British English. More amusing is their belief that volume can transcend all language barriers as they travel the world. Americans need to start looking at the world as babies do--in awe and amazement, and as a place filled with creativity and discovery--rather than look at the world as a grouchy old parent. America still leads the world in several industries (which I have of course failed to mention hitherto because I do not wear the American flag as an underwear; someone who does can easily tell you how great America is), but to maintain its lead in those industries and regain its lead in other industries that it has fallen behind in, it is imperative that Americans start taking baby steps. Blink, and the world has just left you behind.
Who cares about the environment?
Not enough people apparently. And why should they??? What is one really good reason to motivate people to care about the environment besides goodwill, peace on earth, and posterity...I can't think of anything. If capitalism has taught us anything, people only care about themselves and what they can get for themselves in their lifetime. Our greed is so astounding that we don't even dare to admit to it. We set up these corporations to hide behind and shoulder the blame for our greed--after all, these corporations exist solely for profits, and so how can we really blame these entities for doing what they are supposed to do?
So in dealing with the environment, how can we motivate people enough to care about the environment? Obviously goodwill, peace on earth, and posterity is not working out. Human greed trumps any of these feel good reasons anytime when dealing with entire populations. Case in point: for the longest time, I have always wondered why we haven't figured out alternatives to fossil fuels yet. I mean we know it's going to end someday, so why hasn't anything much been done for the past 15 years? Then I watched "who killed the electric car," and it made sense why we are still using outdated technology in our vehicles. We estimate that the world's fossil fuel supply is going to end in the next 20-30 years, and after watching the movie, here's what I think is going in on in some of our minds:
Consumers - I'll think about it when it really affects me... I'll just get on with my life right now.
Politicians - Let's not ruffle any feathers if I don't have to... if it becomes a big enough issue, I'll address it before the next elections.
Corporations - 20-30 years of oil supply... well I guess we'll just have to make as much money as we can while there's still oil around, and make sure the alternatives don't hurt the profits right now.
Everyone is looking out for themselves first, and I am convinced that the only way to make people care about the environment is to capitalize on their greed. Look at microfinancing for example, it works because people can make money from it... so how do make greed work for the environment?
So in dealing with the environment, how can we motivate people enough to care about the environment? Obviously goodwill, peace on earth, and posterity is not working out. Human greed trumps any of these feel good reasons anytime when dealing with entire populations. Case in point: for the longest time, I have always wondered why we haven't figured out alternatives to fossil fuels yet. I mean we know it's going to end someday, so why hasn't anything much been done for the past 15 years? Then I watched "who killed the electric car," and it made sense why we are still using outdated technology in our vehicles. We estimate that the world's fossil fuel supply is going to end in the next 20-30 years, and after watching the movie, here's what I think is going in on in some of our minds:
Consumers - I'll think about it when it really affects me... I'll just get on with my life right now.
Politicians - Let's not ruffle any feathers if I don't have to... if it becomes a big enough issue, I'll address it before the next elections.
Corporations - 20-30 years of oil supply... well I guess we'll just have to make as much money as we can while there's still oil around, and make sure the alternatives don't hurt the profits right now.
Everyone is looking out for themselves first, and I am convinced that the only way to make people care about the environment is to capitalize on their greed. Look at microfinancing for example, it works because people can make money from it... so how do make greed work for the environment?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Fishy politics
So i just got a 10 gallon aquarium tank over the last week and then I got a bunch of fishes for my tank. and here's what i figured about fishes. The bigger fishes always bully the smaller fishes, and the fishes that resist always get picked on. It seems that the puny brains in some the fishes cannot comprehend the idea of cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Now I wonder what happens when you get a 1×1012 km³ spherical ball and place over 6 billion people on the surface...
Thursday, February 8, 2007
the ivory tower
So a friend tells me that Anna Nicole Smith just died today, and I immediately checked my internet to make sure it was true. It was. Here's the thing though, I was just reading an article about malnutrition and death rates in developing countries--and frankly, I was getting really bored of the numbers that the article was throwing at me--when I heard the news of Smith's death. I am not a big fan of Smith, but on hindsight, I found it rather surprising that I was more interested in the death of a "celebrity" than millions of others in the world.
I think I have fallen into the trap of apathy. After having had so much stats thrown my way about world health problems, I just kind of grew indifferent to them--I was starting to accept the status quo about global health issues.
The problem is that the status quo is not doing very well in dealing with global health issues, and the status quo needs to be raised much higher. In order to do that though, we need people who are willing to recognize and change (rather than ignore and accept) the problems with society today. I commend Muhammad Yunus for being one such person.
As public health students, I am sure there are many options open to us professionally, and we have to decide how much impact we want to make professionally. The easy way out is to simply tell ourselves that we don't need bring about much change. That someone else will lead that change, and that we'll just simply follow whatever the prevailing trend is. Let's not take too much risks, let's not make too many ripples, and let's not stand out too much in the crowd. Let's be more concerned about which celebrity died than which person is going without food today. Let's just keep the status quo in my life, and the lives of the millions of others who are impoverished, malnourished, and quite simply dying.
Or we could just decide to do a little better than the average public health professional. If we can change the status quo just a little, guess what, we have just changed the status quo. And if we can learn anything from Yunus, changing the status quo just simply starts with recognizing the problems around you today, and how you can go about changing it.
I think I have fallen into the trap of apathy. After having had so much stats thrown my way about world health problems, I just kind of grew indifferent to them--I was starting to accept the status quo about global health issues.
The problem is that the status quo is not doing very well in dealing with global health issues, and the status quo needs to be raised much higher. In order to do that though, we need people who are willing to recognize and change (rather than ignore and accept) the problems with society today. I commend Muhammad Yunus for being one such person.
As public health students, I am sure there are many options open to us professionally, and we have to decide how much impact we want to make professionally. The easy way out is to simply tell ourselves that we don't need bring about much change. That someone else will lead that change, and that we'll just simply follow whatever the prevailing trend is. Let's not take too much risks, let's not make too many ripples, and let's not stand out too much in the crowd. Let's be more concerned about which celebrity died than which person is going without food today. Let's just keep the status quo in my life, and the lives of the millions of others who are impoverished, malnourished, and quite simply dying.
Or we could just decide to do a little better than the average public health professional. If we can change the status quo just a little, guess what, we have just changed the status quo. And if we can learn anything from Yunus, changing the status quo just simply starts with recognizing the problems around you today, and how you can go about changing it.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Humans 1, Nature 999+++
So we got smallpox eliminated, and maybe soon we'll get polio too. That brings our total to 2. And in the mean time nature throws in a couple more (SARS and Avian flu) to keep us under. In our fight against nature, we don't really seem to winning. Even though we managed to eliminate a huge proportion of mortality due to infectious diseases, nature comes back with non-communicable diseases that is now affecting younger and younger populations. So really why are we going against the inevitable?
Maybe our whole strategy is wrong. Think about it, we come up with antibiotics, and mutant bacteria come about; we come up with new medical technologies, and the cost of implementing these technologies makes us leave the poor (which makes a huge portion of the population) behind. Perhaps it is time to consider the fact that we are simply not made to live that long.
Maybe it's time for a strategy that even a 9 year kid knows about. When I played basketball as a nine year old, I was always up against older kids, but here's my winning strategy--I always joined the team that had the better players. The truth is that I was too insignificant to really affect the game much, so I could decide who I wanted to play with, and I always picked the bigger, taller, faster team. And really in the whole grand scheme of things, humans are really too insignificant to affect the game much--so why do we always pick the losing team just because we are too stubborn to admit that we are simply not made to live forever... why are we picking nature's team already?
I am not saying that we should start hugging trees, and kissing whales, but I am saying that we should start thinking about how we are going to work with what we already have, and cooperating with nature to advance the human race, rather than fighting nature all the time. For starters, we should consider not trying to destroy the environment all the time--Al Gore would probably do a better presentation of this than I can. But beyond protecting our environment, we might have to reconsider ways we can change the whole way we run things. Taking education as an example, rather than trying to just put everyone through decades of education and then have nature take a large proportion of those lives before they become productive, it might be a better idea to have a larger proportion of our population finish their education quickly, and start being productive at younger ages before nature whisks them away. Of course the abridged education would imply that we might have to engage in new and different industries from what we have now, and that's a whole other issue. But the point is that if nature isn't giving us enough time to advance the human race, then we should really consider working with what we're given.
Maybe our whole strategy is wrong. Think about it, we come up with antibiotics, and mutant bacteria come about; we come up with new medical technologies, and the cost of implementing these technologies makes us leave the poor (which makes a huge portion of the population) behind. Perhaps it is time to consider the fact that we are simply not made to live that long.
Maybe it's time for a strategy that even a 9 year kid knows about. When I played basketball as a nine year old, I was always up against older kids, but here's my winning strategy--I always joined the team that had the better players. The truth is that I was too insignificant to really affect the game much, so I could decide who I wanted to play with, and I always picked the bigger, taller, faster team. And really in the whole grand scheme of things, humans are really too insignificant to affect the game much--so why do we always pick the losing team just because we are too stubborn to admit that we are simply not made to live forever... why are we picking nature's team already?
I am not saying that we should start hugging trees, and kissing whales, but I am saying that we should start thinking about how we are going to work with what we already have, and cooperating with nature to advance the human race, rather than fighting nature all the time. For starters, we should consider not trying to destroy the environment all the time--Al Gore would probably do a better presentation of this than I can. But beyond protecting our environment, we might have to reconsider ways we can change the whole way we run things. Taking education as an example, rather than trying to just put everyone through decades of education and then have nature take a large proportion of those lives before they become productive, it might be a better idea to have a larger proportion of our population finish their education quickly, and start being productive at younger ages before nature whisks them away. Of course the abridged education would imply that we might have to engage in new and different industries from what we have now, and that's a whole other issue. But the point is that if nature isn't giving us enough time to advance the human race, then we should really consider working with what we're given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)