From the O-R: K***** Y****, 13, and his sisters K****, 9, and K********, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… K***** also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

An investigation by The Chicago Reporter found that Illinois is arguably the worst state in the nation for Black senior citizens seeking quality nursing home care. There is just one home in Illinois rated “excellent” by the federal government when more than 50 percent of the home’s residents are Black. In Illinois, these facilities get the worst federal ratings and on average have more violations than facilities where a majority of residents are white. And in Chicago, on average, these homes have more medical malpractice and personal injury lawsuits. People in white homes got better care than those in Black homes, even if both were poor.

The Reporter also found that the staff at Illinois’ black nursing homes spent less time daily with residents than staff at facilities where a majority of the residents are white. Of that time, Black residents got a smaller percentage of time with more-skilled registered nurses than facilities where the residents were white [...]

The Reporter analyzed the records of 15,724 nursing homes listed in the federal Nursing Home Compare ranking database to determine if disparities existed in the quality of care. The overall rating is based on a combination of health inspection results, staffing levels and how well each home performs on 10 important aspects of care, like how well residents maintain their ability to dress themselves and eat. The database includes homes that get some of their money from Medicaid or Medicare, more than 95 percent of all nursing homes.

The Reporter found that in Chicago, the worst rating—a one on a five-point scale—was given to 57 percent of Black nursing homes, compared with 11 percent of white nursing homes.

Excellent ratings were given to no black homes in Chicago and 29 percent of all homes with majority-white residents. White seniors had qualitatively better nursing home options than Black seniors—in some cases, even when facilities had the same owner [...]

The Reporter analyzed the ratings for Chicago homes where more than 75 percent of residents’ care was paid for by Medicaid. A quarter of white homes received an excellent rating, compared with none of the black homes. More than half of the Black homes received the worst rating, while 8 percent of white homes earned the same score [...]

“That’s blatant racism,” [state Rep. LaShawn Ford] said. “A lot of the times the owners of these nursing homes treat them [just] as a business. It has to be more of a mission than a business.”

It should be surprising, but it’s not. In just about any way you can identify, it appears that black people are receiving worse care than white people. We can talk about the causes — the value society has placed on particular qualities in a person, the significantly worse performance of for-profit homes — in this case, it even appears that the systemic effect of poverty (which black people suffer under disproportionately) made no difference; poor black people still received worse care than poor white people.

We can talk about support for independent living for people with disabilities, but that is a point where poverty — especially poverty extending deep into a person’s family, rather than individual poverty — would come into play and negatively affect people of color disproportionately.

Research has also shown that black patients receive worse medical care than white patients (this article focuses on diabetes care in particular; I am fairly sure I have seen research that demonstrated similar disparities in hospital care).

This is white privilege: even when you are aging and/or disabled, with all the trouble society gives you, your racial background is still giving you a hand up over those who do not share your privilege.

Thanks to Anna for the link.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

The title of the Telegraph article: “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists. Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped, claim scientists at the University of Leicester.”

The researcher who was interviewed spoke out about the misrepresentations of her work (she is an MSc student and this was her dissertation, which is also apparently unfinished).

According to current.com, the article has been pulled and corrections have been issued. It’s hard to see how they can explain away something like this.

The Bad Science blog offers this update:

Via @jackofkent, here are the articles Richard Alleyne of the Telegraph has written about recently. I’m not saying anything. I’m just saying. Is all.

www.journalisted.com/richard-alleyne

From Pharyngula. H/T hearshot

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

The reason they give, at the end of the article: “the benefits of using the medication for pain relief at recommended doses outweighs the safety risks at this time.” If nothing else, it is somewhat encouraging. If this is their thinking on Darvon/Darvocet, we can hope that similar thinking will guide their decision on Vicodin/Percocet.

***

And according to the New York Times, the FDA

… is not required to follow the recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does.

Emphasis mine. In other words: the ball is rolling.

Vicodin and Percocet are two commonly-prescribed narcotic painkillers. They combine hydrocodone or oxycodone (respectively), the narcotic agent, with acetaminophen, brand name Tylenol.

Acetaminophen is coming under fire because abuse of the drug can lead to liver damage. The safe limit for acetaminophen has generally been regarded as 4,000mg per day. That translates to two extra-strength Tylenol (500mg each), four times a day (eight pills total). The dose of acetaminophen in various combination drugs varies, usually 325mg but ranging up to 750mg.

The panel voted against a ban on over-the-counter cold, flu and sinus relief medications, the vast majority which contain acetaminophen. Apparently these medications aren’t a concern, despite containing just as much acetaminophen and being available over-the-counter, where consumers do not have a doctor and pharmacist counseling them on how to take the medication.

This is not to deny that many practitioners — including, infamously, dentists — throw out prescriptions without a second thought. But the number of such practitioners is much lower than commonly perceived, and restrictions on narcotic painkillers will have a negative effect on chronic pain patients, who have to jump through an increasing number of hoops to obtain effective treatment.

I’m sure many people will jump in the comments to “inform” me that narcotic use for chronic pain is dangerous and inadvisable. This is simply wrong; when there is a medical professional overseeing a patient’s pain management regimen, carefully monitoring the use of such drugs, these pain killers can make an enormous difference in a patient’s quality of life. Dosages will have to be watched, as patients develop a tolerance to narcotics over time, but this does not preclude the use of narcotics whatsoever.

In medical terminology, there is a distinction between addiction and dependence. Generally, addiction occurs when a person takes a drug for which they have no medical need, whereas dependence is a patient taking that same drug for a medical purpose. Another way of putting it is that an addicted person uses a drug to escape from life, whereas a dependent person uses a drug to get on with their life.

With knowledge of the potential for dependence in mind, painkillers are a viable treatment option for chronic pain patients. Many patients do not respond to other available treatments (whether pharmaceutical or otherwise), or they do but those improvements ultimately still leave them in considerable pain. The range of available treatments today may not work for every patient — there may be other conditions and considerations that would make one drug dangerous, or another drug might trigger severe side effects, or another drug may just plain not work for them. Every body is different; every person’s body chemistry will interact differently with a certain drug. Considering this, it is important to leave open the option of using narcotic painkillers for chronic pain patients.

They are, obviously, not a first line treatment! Trust me, we know that. But that doesn’t mean it cannot therefore be an available treatment at all.

One article attempts to assuage the concerns of such patients, in a somewhat patronizing tone. A doctor says that practitioners can simply prescribe acetaminophen-free narcotics and advise the patient to take a Tylenol with it. If a practitioner is going to advise that much to a patient, why can’t sie just advise, “Don’t take more than X per day, and check with us before taking any over-the-counter medication,” in the first place? If it’s as simple as telling a doctor to advise a patient on how best to take the medication — why can’t they just do that, instead of taking away an important treatment option for patients?

It is telling, I think, that they voted to ban the pain killers but not the Nyquil. They see narcotic users as other people — the poor people, the drug addicts and traffickers. But the family next door uses Nyquil. The family next door is trusted to be responsible. The Other People are not.

I have been using Vicodin as a part of my pain management routine for almost seven years. As I wrote in a letter to my doctor earlier this year:

The adjustments we made to my other medications were the driving force behind my ability to take on an increasing amount of work – from six hours a week as a restaurant greeter when I met [my doctor], to 20-30 hours a week retail sales, and now to a full-time nine-to-five clerical job. Up until two months ago, for all the change that I went through physically, my hydrocodone usage only went up a small amount – from 1.5/day average to 2/day average.

And I do not rely solely on medication to treat my pain and fatigue. I practice good sleep hygiene: I make sure to go to bed around the same time every night and wake up around the same time every morning, allowing myself 8-9 hours of uninterrupted sleep. (I know that is actually more than recommended for healthy adults, but because research shows fibromyalgia symptoms seem to stem from an interrupted sleep cycle, making the sleep less restful, I need a little more to make up for it.) I make my sleeping environment comfortable in terms of light, sound, and temperature. I maintain a very careful balance of physical activity and rest. I do my best to get light but regular low-impact exercise – I’ve done everything from light walking to weight lifting to Pilates. I am careful to identify things that trigger pain, such as clothing that is too restrictive around the shoulders and hips or certain chemical odors, and then eliminate them from my life to whatever extent possible. I have been through cognitive-behavioral therapy; I have been to stress-management workshops; I know breathing exercises and other coping strategies. I have an entire collection of heating pads at home – portable ones, electric, moist microwavable pads – which I use quite frequently. Dr. H recently helped me procure a TENS unit to treat my recurrent back pain, which has been the single biggest factor in my ability to work this new full-time job. It reduces my pain significantly and thus reduces my use of the pain killers.

I have also tried a variety of other techniques and treatments that just ended up not working for me. Those listed above are those that turned out to work, and each is an important and indispensable part of managing my chronic pain.

Vicodin is only one part of my pain management routine. But one that would significantly affect me if it were taken away. I would have to quit my job. I would do a lot less work around the house — and my husband already does more than half, even when I’m not working. I would be confined to my house, as the amount of trips outside (grocery shopping, doctor appointments, etc.) would be significantly harder on me. As I explained a bit further down in that letter:

I explained to him that, for everything my other medications do for my pain, there are many times where if I want to be able to get up and do something, I need the pain killers. It not only kills the pain, so to speak, but it gives me energy – to try to describe it more accurately, it lifts a weight from my body, so that I can move more freely. Without it, unless I have been doing absolutely nothing but resting for days previous, just moving, lifting my legs and reaching my arms and pushing my body through the air, is cause for a sort of generalized, all-over ache. I feel it in the skin and muscles of whichever part I am trying to move. With the pain killers, that feeling is gone. I can stand up and walk; I can reach to take something off a shelf; I can write; I can lift and carry, and the only pain I will feel is if I actually do strain anything unnaturally.

So whether I’m wanting to fill the cats’ dish with kibble, or gather my dirty clothes to take down to the laundry room, or go out to the grocery store for some milk and bread, I need those pain killers. Whether I’m wanting to sit in the shower for fifteen minutes, or dry my hair, or prepare myself a meal, I need those pain killers. For these activities, I don’t need them every time. But I also cannot go without them every time. I need them some of the time, to keep that careful balance so that I am not so overwhelmed with pain that I find myself unable to do those things at all.

You can see how this would extend to work activities. If I want to get myself ready in the morning so that I am presentable and professional; if I want to alphabetize the files and begin to put them away; if I want to walk around to the various places I need to go inside my workplace throughout the day, fetching applications and delivering mail – to do these things, I need the pain killers. And because this work is regular and sustained, I will need them more regularly than I do for the home care tasks mentioned above.

This letter was written after a nasty incident with another doctor in my clinic. She gave me all of twenty seconds to explain why I was there before launching into a very loud diatribe about how I was crazy and ruining my life, and she was going to send me to rehab. (If you want that story, it’s highlighted in blue here. The yellow blocks are the purely-necessary background, since the letter is so long.)

That left me with no option but to go to the emergency room to ask for a Vicodin script. The experience was humiliating. Nurses outside my exam room joked to each other “We should put a sign on the door that says ‘We are all out of Vicodin, go somewhere else.’” The doctor who saw me gave me a long and patronizing lecture, telling me that I should be seeing a pain specialist and not having my primary doctor coordinate my care, guilting me for using the stuff at all, with many dramatic sighs and furrowing of the brow.

Before he gave me my prescription, I asked if he had a recommendation for a pain specialist, and he gave me one. I called them up. They requested that I send over my medical records before they would make an appointment, because the doctor sat down to read them for every new patient so that he could establish a customized treatment plan. I did as they requested and two days later, I got a call. His receptionist told me that they were not going to schedule me an appointment, because the doctor said “There’s nothing else we can really do for you” and said to continue doing what I was already doing with my primary doctor.

In other words, I was doing it right.

This is the kind of regular obstactles that are set in the path of chronic pain patients who use these medications. And it seems like every time we turn around, there’s another restriction.

It is good that they are turning their attention to the dangers inherent in acetaminophen. But there are ways to address this without making life that much harder for another set of people. Am I going to have to take a higher dose of narcotics now because they want to “protect” me from the danger? I don’t particularly want to.

Hat tip to Annaham.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

Insurers charge women more than they charge men… studies show the effect is all the more pronounced when you’re dealing with health savings accounts and other forms of high-deductible coverage. A Harvard study from a year or so back ran the numbers and found that men under 45 racked up about $500 in yearly, out-of-pocket costs, while women spent closer to $1,200. Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, the lead author of the study, summed up the findings starkly. “When an employer switches all his employees into a consumer-driven health plan, it’s the same as giving all the women a $1,000 pay cut, on average, because women on average have $1,000 more in health costs than men.”

Here’s why: For most of their lives, men and women use health care very differently. Men seek episodic care: I sawed off my thumb, fell off a mountain, tried to stop an SUV with my Civic. Contact with the health system is relatively rare, and most everything is covered by insurance. Conversely, women seek a lot of routine care. Check-ups, pap-smears, reproductive health care, etc. The expenses are small, but they’re regular. So when you move towards health coverage where small, regular expenses come out of pocket, you’re erecting financial barriers to the type of care sought by women.

It’s also a good object lesson as to the folly of HSAs. The type of care that HSAs put a higher price tag on, and thus discourage, are small and discrete interactions with the health system. So they disadvantage mammograms and pap smears, but leave lumbar surgeries and angioplasties untouched. Anyone want to guess which category accounts for the majority of our health spending? Anyone want to guess which type of care studies suggest we discourage, and which type of care studies suggest we make more broadly accessible?

Why is this not on the front page of every newspaper in the country right now? On the screen of every cable news watching citizen?

What do you think the effect of this is on single mothers? What do you think the effect of this is on poor women? What do you think the effect of this is on disabled women?

How many people are unnecessarily unemployed because the health care that would allow them to work is denied them? How many people end up in the ER in the middle of the night because they put off routine care for so long, because it was money they didn’t have? Money that could instead go toward their education? Money that could instead go toward their children’s school activities?

How many children lose mothers, husbands wives, parents daughters, when one more woman ends up with cervical cancer because she didn’t have the time or money to spare?

Do we really think we can patch things over by throwing a couple dollars at the Komen foundation and calling it a day?

Think about your own mother. Your sister. Your daughter. Your partner, your lover, your best friend. Do you really want to just let this go because “that’s just how things are”?

I am tagging this one under “privilege” to remind you, the reader, if you are able-bodied and able-minded, that I, the bitch, the cripple, am subsidizing your health care. And that woman in the Section 8 housing who just got evicted because of the money she’s spent getting run around the ringer about those abnormal cells on her Pap test? She is subsidizing the yearly checkup you don’t even bother to get most of the time. And when you go home with your Z-Pack, knowing that you are going to be free and clear after seven days and a $10 copay, know that the money to pay for that came directly out of the pocket of that woman and her two infant children. And I hope you’ll find that redistribution worth it when she dies at 42 of cancer that could have been prevented.

Welfare queens? Taxpayer dollars? Hard-earned money? I don’t want to hear it. Fuck you.