Should medicine be left to women?

[nine_one_4]

On account it's so subjective? I.e., not objective like other fields such as math, physics and engineering where women are very under represented. They could also leave law and political "science" for the ladies.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/2/218?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Ioannidis&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

[Joeaksa]

You did not know my wife, who does heart transplants for a living....

[nine_one_4]

Yeah, there's no shortage of women in medicine. I also remember reading a few years ago that medical mistakes kill more people each year in the U.S. than car accidents and breast cancer combined. I'm thinking that surgery is like autobody repair - more of an art than a science.

[nostatic]

point?

[bryanthompson]

the only thing women should be left to......

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by nostatic
point?

Leave the subjective to the ladies and the objective to the men. I just remembered that I saved this story

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-15-mediocre_x.htm?POE=click-refer

Study: Most get mediocre health care
By Jeff Donn, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON — Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans — rich, poor, black, white — get roughly equal treatment, but it's woefully mediocre for all.
"This study shows that health care has equal-opportunity defects," said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the non-profit Institute for health care Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.

The survey of nearly 7,000 patients, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, considered only urban-area dwellers who sought treatment, but it still challenged some stereotypes: These blacks and Hispanics actually got slightly better medical treatment than whites.

While the researchers acknowledged separate evidence that minorities fare worse in some areas of expensive care and suffer more from some conditions than whites, their study found that once in treatment, minorities' overall care appears similar to that of whites.

"It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, white or black, insured or uninsured," said chief author Dr. Steven Asch, at the Rand Health research institute, in Santa Monica, Calif. "We all get equally mediocre care."

The researchers, who included U.S. Veterans Affairs personnel, first published their findings for the general population in June 2003. They reported the breakdown by racial, income, and other social groups on Thursday.

They examined medical records and phone interviews from 6,712 randomly picked patients who visited a medical office within a two-year period in 12 metropolitan areas from Boston to Miami to Seattle. The group was not nationally representative but does convey a broad picture of the country's health care practices.

The survey examined whether people got the highest standard of treatment for 439 measures ranging across common chronic and acute conditions and disease prevention. It looked at whether they got the right tests, drugs and treatments.

Overall, patients received only 55% of recommended steps for top-quality care — and no group did much better or worse than that.

Blacks and Hispanics as a group each got 58% of the best care, compared to 54% for whites. Those with annual household income over $50,000 got 57%, 4 points more than people from households of less than $15,000. Patients without insurance got 54% of recommended steps, just one point less than those with managed care.

As to gender, women came out slightly ahead with 57%, compared to 52% for men. Young adults did slightly better than the elderly.

There were narrow snapshots of inequality: An insured white woman, for example, got 57% of the best standard of care, while an uninsured black man got just 51%.

"Though we are improving, disparities in health care still exist," said Dr. Garth Graham, director of the U.S. Office of Minority Health.

Graham, who is black, pointed to other data showing enduring inequality in care, including a large federal study last year. He also said minorities go without treatment more often than whites, and such people are missed entirely by this survey.

Some experts took heart in the relative equality within the survey. "The study did find some reassuring things," said Dr. Tim Carey, who runs a health service research center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

But all health experts interviewed fretted about the uniformly low standard. "Regardless of who you are or what group you're in, there is a significant gap between the care you deserve and the care you receive," said Dr. Reed Tuckson, who is black and a vice president of United HealthGroup, which runs health plans and sells medical data.

Health experts blame the overall poor care on an overburdened, fragmented system that fails to keep close track of patients with an increasing number of multiple conditions.

Quality specialists said improvements can come with more public reporting of performance, more uniform training, more computerized checks and more coordination by patients themselves.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by nine_one_4
Leave the subjective to the ladies and the objective to the men. I just remembered that I saved this story

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-15-mediocre_x.htm?POE=click-refer

What does your first link have to do with anything?

And the above link says nothing about gender in the care providors.

Sorry, but I know plenty of women who are outstanding "objective" thinkers. Some of my smartest colleagues in chemistry at Caltech were women. My first ex is a mechanical engineer that is doing very well at LLNL. My other ex is a Ph.D./J.D. who can think "objective" rings around 99.99% of the people out there.

How about we train people as best we can. And stop trying to impose our personal biases/prejudices on others.

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by nostatic
What does your first link have to do with anything?

And the above link says nothing about gender in the care providors.

The first article is by a prof who pointed out all the contradictory studies that were published in the three major medical journals between 1990 and 2003.

Results: Of 49 highly cited original clinical research studies, 45 claimed that the intervention was effective. Of these, 7 (16%) were contradicted by subsequent studies, 7 others (16%) had found effects that were stronger than those of subsequent studies.

Do you think that 32% of the advances in mathematics or physics over the same 13 year period will be refuted?

[Drago]

Originally posted by nine_one_4
The first article is by a prof who pointed out all the contradictory studies that were published in the three major medical journals between 1990 and 2003.

Do you think that 32% of the advances in mathematics or physics over the same 13 year period will be refuted?

Seems to keep them (the researchers) busy. Hmmm...

[Tobra]

Utter nonsense, both the Medicine being mostly subjective and the fallacious assumption that women are inferior at objective thought

thanks for sharing

[Nathans_Dad]

In order for your post to make any sense at all, you would have to say that the human body is no more complex that say a trestle bridge or a calculus equation.

How many men are there that refute and argue the ideas of quantum physics, string theory or multiple dimensions?

Your poor understanding of both medicine and women is blatantly obvious.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by nine_one_4
The first article is by a prof who pointed out all the contradictory studies that were published in the three major medical journals between 1990 and 2003.

Results: Of 49 highly cited original clinical research studies, 45 claimed that the intervention was effective. Of these, 7 (16%) were contradicted by subsequent studies, 7 others (16%) had found effects that were stronger than those of subsequent studies.

Do you know anything about statistics? I haven't read the article, but the most basic understanding of how interventions are done would answer most of these so-called contradictions. To wit, most studies are powered (look it up) to find a statistically significant difference between treatments based on certain assumptions about frequency of the outcome/benefit. This still allows a 5% risk of not being the correct statistical answer by definition. That doesn't even include trends or borderline calls. Furthermore, many studies are stopped early because of statistical significance which may not be the right thing to do (ie long term data may be different than the original effects of the intervention). That's why practice never should hang on a single study.

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
In order for your post to make any sense at all, you would have to say that the human body is no more complex that say a trestle bridge or a calculus equation.

How many men are there that refute and argue the ideas of quantum physics, string theory or multiple dimensions?

Your poor understanding of both medicine and women is blatantly obvious.

My post would make sense if they published multiple medical studies that were later refuted as being false. Oh wait, they did that. You'd think the major medical journals would ensure that these study's authors would use the scientific method.

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by Tobra
Utter nonsense, both the Medicine being mostly subjective and the fallacious assumption that women are inferior at objective thought

A compelling argument. Thanks for clearing that up.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by nine_one_4
My post would make sense if they published multiple medical studies that were later refuted as being false. Oh wait, they did that. You'd think the major medical journals would ensure that these study's authors would use the scientific method.

are you, or have you ever been, a scientific researcher?

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by artplumber
Do you know anything about statistics? I haven't read the article, but the most basic understanding of how interventions are done would answer most of these so-called contradictions.

The full text of that article is available for free but you have to register (also free). Knock yourself out. Btw, I do know something about statistics. I learned that you can use statistical techniques to determine if there are differences in population proportions. E.g., is the proportion of nobel prize winners from one population higher than the proportion of winners from another population. This would take into account not only the number of winners from each population but also each population's population. You could determine if there is a difference in proportions between winners that are male and female or white and non-white etc.

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by nostatic
are you, or have you ever been, a scientific researcher?

No, but Professor Ioannidis, who is the author of the JAMA article pointing out the multiple contradictions, is.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by nine_one_4
Btw, I do know something about statistics..

So do I. Your comments suggest that you don't understand what statistical methods/results mean for the enduser.

PS:I've also probably read the majority of the root articles that this author is writing about. Why don't you "knock yourself out" reading them

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by artplumber
So do I. Your comments suggest that you don't transition what statistical methods mean for the enduser.

PS:I've also probably read the majority of the root articles that this author is writing about

Cool. Could you summarize what Ioannidis' article "Contradictions in Highly Cited Clinical Research" is saying?

[nostatic]

It's saying that medicine deals with complex systems that a larger percentage of scientists actually care about. And clinical work is fundamentally different than lab work. Pure mathematics is incredibly arcane these days. Compare the research dollars supporting that research v. medical research. And the payoff out the back end.

My guess is that you don't know anything about "the scientific method" beyond what you learned in high school. So maybe look elsewhere for data to support your racism and gender-bias. And post it somewhere else too, Alfred...