The MMR Vaccine

I was thinking of posting about this issue, but anything i would say is done here, and in a far superior way to anything I would write

Iraq

I supported the war in 2003 and I still do. Imagine if we did not go to war in 2003 and two years later Saddam decided to gas 10,000 people somewhere in Kurdistan in 2006? What if we had known he was going to do it in 2005 and did nothing? Would that have been right?

At the end of the day Saddam Hussein was a nasty piece of work who wanted to develop weapons of mass distruction and would have tried to do some if we had left him alone.

No matter what the Chilcott inquiry finds people have already made there minds up with regards to the war with Iraq. Unfortunately I dont think that Iraw as an issue will settle down. Whats more important is to concentrate on the worsening situation in Afganistan

Tennis and Books

Tommorow I am going home and coming back to university life on sunday. This means I shall be able to see the parents, revise in the kitchen with copious amounts of tea, coffee, hot chocolate, biscuits, sandwiches etc. I will be able to go to karate on the Friday night (am very rusty, but still find it fun).

On the train I will get some quiet time and finish off the book I'm reading and hopefully start on Bill Bryson.

And Sunday morning will be spent watching Andy Murray (hopefully) win the Australian Open

Tip Top

The day after antibiotics stop working

Just had a lecture on resistance to antibiotics. This photo was taken from the 1930s and shows how TB was treated back then (without antibiotics). Basically if you had TB you were treated with plenty of fresh air and then you had to hope for the best.

Hopefully the situation shown in this photo wont be repeated. Not over using antibiotics and other precautions are useful and necesarry but what we could do with really are some brand spanking new antibiotics.

When antibiotics were first discovered there was a sudden explosion in the number of antibiotics being found or made(usually a slight modification of an old one). This then tailed of to zero until the late 1990s when the oxazolididones were produced. More new classes of antibiotics from Big Pharma would be much appreciated.

The market though does not give a good incentive for companies to produce new antibiotics, for reasons given

1)Antibiotics are taken for 7-14 days, drugs for diabetes or hypertension are taken for years
2)Big Pharma makes a new antibiotic that then becomes obsolete within five - ten years due to resistance
3)Drug companies make a wonderful new antibiotic, this drug is loved by everyone. So Health Authorities decide to keep it for later and restict the use of it to try and stave off resistance developing. Therefore companies makes no money off it

I am a little scared that when/if I qualify as a doctor I am going to be facing infections that the generation before me could have treated but that I wont

Bugger

Ethics, how to think it all through

Medical students are (hopefully) taught to think logically and in a systematic way. This is useful, consider chest pain and its causes. Thinking in the way described above allows us to break down the problem - Is it a cardiovascular, respiratory or musculoskeletal cause?

This also applies to ethics. Potential medics are often faced with an "ethics" question at interview. A classic is whether or not Patient A or Patient B should get a liver transplant. The decision is made more complicated for the student when the interviewer drops into conversation that patient A is an alcoholic and has been for the last five years. Then student then says patient B should get the transplant. The other interviewer then chirps in and says patient B is unlikely to survive the operation due to a previous illnesses.

Thankfully ethical decision making is made a little easier when students are taught the four ethical principles. These were thought out to help ethical decision making in a more secular world. They are as followed

1)Autonomy - Patients should be allowed to make there own decisions
2) Non-maleficience - Doc should do no harm
3)Beneficience - Do whats best for the patients
4) Justice - How does your decision impact on the wider world? (a very rough definition)

At an ethics OSCE station i was given the following senario

A patient was diagnosed by his GP as having a viral cold. The patients was worried about an upcoming exam and wanted antibiotics (his friend had told him he should be on antibiotics). The GP reassured the patient that it was probably due to a virus, would hopefully disappear within a few days and antibiotics would be useless. Despite protests from the patient his GP refused to prescribe any antibiotics

I was asked "Using the ethical principles explain why the GP did not respect the patients right to autonomy"

Books

I have a few days off before I start working again, which means I have been able to go into town and buy some books. Having read several bill Bryson books (Notes from a small country, a walk in a woods) I brought two more – one about his travels to Australia, the other to Europe. I also purchase More Blood, More Sweat and another cup of tea by Tom Reynolds, a book describing life as an ambulance driver in London.

Despite only being 100 odd pages into the book I am a bit depressed at how nasty some people can be. Already people have put graffiti on an ambulance and stolen another’s sat nav. Other depressing bits mentioned how much time is wasted due to idiots consuming to much alcohol.

Its a good book and it does have some funny and heart-warming bits in. Although I will be happier when I’ve finished it and can move on to Bill Bryson, simply because it’s an easier read and it’ll be more relaxing.

Buses, Taxis and the NHS

Medical School Interviews are inevitably scary; one common question is to ask about the makeup of the NHS, which sometimes lead to a discussion about the future of the NHS and the involvement of the private sector. This can be tricky for people, you need to weigh up the pros and cons of the private sector in medicine and avoid pissing off the consultant who is interviewing you - they might get a significant portion of their income via private patients.



One analogy to start with is the bus and taxi scenario. Queues of people are waiting for a bus, but there are too many people for the bus pending. A few people in the queue get together and pay for a taxi. Everybody wins! The people who get the taxi get to their destination on time and the rest of the people in the queue get to travel by bus. Except the bus driver then decided to go and work as a taxi driver

It seems that patients who need the NHS are becoming like the people waiting for a bus, where the driver has gone over and become a taxi driver. At the moment the private sector is getting the better deal over the NHS

Now it seems medical students may need to learn the pros and cons of franchises. Hinchingbrooke hospital is being lined up to be run by one of five private companies. The aim of a private company is to make a profit to give to shareholders etc. The bottom line when talking about the private sector is that any money a private company does not have to be spent on patients is seen as a good thing, whereas in the NHS any money left over can be used to improve treatment or pay for more nurses etc (or at least in theory)