If medical schools were to be a shinigami academy, I guess we as third years are looking for placements in various squads. The squads are divided into melee-based (surgery) and kidou-based (medicine). Based on the characteristics of each squad, the fields can be best assigned as below:
1st Squad: Boss of every other squads - politicians
2nd Squad: Assassins - Critical care
3rd Squad: Despair - palliative care
4th Squad: Getting shit on by everyone - ER
5th Squad: Tricked everyone else - The MudPhuds who puppet us using their cunning EBMs
6th Squad: Elites - Derm
7th Squad: Run by a fox - vets?
8th Squad: Stoned womanizer - Addiction medicine
9th Squad: Run by a handicapped - Rehab
10th Squad: Run by a teenager - Pediatrics
11th Squad: Blood-thirsty meathead - Ortho
12th Squad: Researcher - Pathology
13th Squad: TB-ridden captain - ID
The espadas were created by the 5th squad to eliminate all other doctors - big pharmaceuticals?
I'm the biggest dork. I wonder how many people understand what I just wrote.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
The first life that slipped away
I saw someone die today
To be accurate, she died right under my hands as I was told to stop chest compression and she was pronounced dead.
A 14 year-old girl got hit by a bus as she was going to school.
I simply do not know how to react. I was about to break down when they were resuscitating her and realized that she might not make it – I saw her paper white feet when I first walked in and it hit me how bad things were. I guess seeing the big picture of her cut clothes, her blood-soaked head and her blank gaze brought on the gravity of the situation. But when I was doing the chest compression, as I looked back at forth between her face up close and the monitor, I was more worried than sad – probably because I was too occupied by the task at hand.
I left the trauma bay as the medical staff dispersed after she was pronounced dead. She was left on the stretcher, and I wish I had stayed to find out what happened to her after. Since the patient died, she was no longer a surgery patient and so we left, but who puts her away? Who informs her parents? Who takes her out of the trauma bay so that the next unfortunate human being can occupy that space? What happens to our patients after they are dead?
I did not cry after that red trauma – I went back to work with a heavy heart, but things went back to normal. As I was emailing my dad later in the day to wish him a happy father’s day, a tear drop trickled down my face, but no one saw it, and I did not know why I could only keep it together up until then. And even then, it was just a drop – seems so inadequate for what we lost, what I lost.
Later in the day she was on the local news. She was an honors student and had just parted with her mom shortly before she got hit by the bus to go to school. The bus driver has had traffic violations in the past and was nowhere to be found. Her family was crying.
I would never forget her face – her empty stare and blood-shot eyes, her left hand dangling off the stretcher gracing on my leg as I labored away to get her heart working. I would never forget her tiny little body and her cut bra straps, her paper-white feet and the blood weakly pulsating out of her nose as I looked at her for the last time before I walked away, her black straight hair in front of her forehead.
I found a news report of her online. I saw a picture of her prior to the trauma – I see the resemblance of the girl that I came to know, but the realities are so far apart that I don’t think I’ll be able to understand or imagine what she was like before today. To me, she will always be the girl we could not save - the girl that modern medicine could not save.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Written in October
I’m quite depressed…
Mostly because of the world and where it is heading of late…
The economy is in a slump worldwide, potentially because of the action of one man or the decisions of only one country, although I do hope that it takes more than one man for the world to collapse
Thailand is at a political impasse, because the supposedly-intelligent minority is so fixated on the hatred of one man that it is willing to undo years to democracy that my parents and our ancestors have fought for…
People seem to be meaner and ruder to each other, both on the national level and the personal level…
Why is it that human accomplishment is measured with a house and 2 cars, and why do the majority of us strive for such an arbitrary measure when they know it is unattainable for them?
Why is it that people pay tons of money to have a wedding, when that money can be put to better use, like paying for our children’s education, if not spent on others who need it more than we do?
Why must there be cakes at wedding? Why must brides wear white dresses? Why are wedding rings made of diamonds?
Because De Beers picked a random gem and said they are forever? Sounds like a lousy reason to allow for diamond-funded massacre in Africa.
Why are our decisions based on conformism, and not on reasons?
Why aren’t human life goals to help others, to help our own kind, to make a difference, to be missed when we are gone?
Aren’t these more sensible than wedding cakes?
What can we accomplish with making a million dollars before the age of 25? With living in a nice apartment on the Upper East Side? With a huge rock on the left ring finger?
With having a house and 2 cars?
The guy 2 doors down probably won’t even know we have it, and he definitely could not care less if it were gone.
This Christmas, I wish for a world where people are nicer to one another, because that would be the reasonable thing to do.Sunday, September 28, 2008
$700B blank check with a slap on the wrist
Supposedly, the politicians have reached a bailout plan that both parties can agree on. The bailout is still $700B but divided into small portions just so Paulson doesn't spend it all on a shopping spree. A lot of really smart people are supposedly watching over Paulson to make sure he doesn't mess up. CEOs of companies that participate in the bailout can't get more than $500,000 for salary (boo f-ing hoo), and since the government gets a stake in these companies, politicians automatically assume that taxpayers will benefit on the upside, even though as we have seen in history mostly the rich, who never really paid tax to begin with since all their taxes were cut, get benefit from the government when it gets lucky.
And all that was not even the biggest problem I have with this bailout. As some experts have said, the bubble broke a long time ago, since summer 2007, and since then Paulson and Bernanke (FED) have poured hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars into the market to encourage lending, WITHOUT SUCCESS. Somehow, I don't feel like this bailout will work either. And it won't be able to cover up the stench the drives investors away for very long, because this bailout addresses everything but the underlying hole in regulation that allowed this mess to happen in the first place. This is not the first time the finance world behaved irresponsibly and have the poor majority of America pay for it, and yet our government has not learned to prevent these calamities from happening. How long ago was Enron? Tyco? Worldcom? This bailout said NOTHING about coming down on predator lenders, about revising regulations on how securities should be rated, etc.
I think it is clear, as CNN reported (90 no: 1 yes), that most Americans oppose this bailout. True, the reported ratio was before the bailout was changed, but I, for one, still oppose this bailout even after all the extra conditions were added, because it doesn't fix the problem at its source and it is extremely expensive. Yet, supposedly this bailout will be passed tomorrow. I have sent many angry messages to congress even though I don't have a right to vote, and I don't know what to do at this point. I only wrote this note in the hope that you will entertain the point of view presented here and be cautious about what this bailout promises. And, of course, if you know a senator, I hope you will tell him/her to vote no.
And all that was not even the biggest problem I have with this bailout. As some experts have said, the bubble broke a long time ago, since summer 2007, and since then Paulson and Bernanke (FED) have poured hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars into the market to encourage lending, WITHOUT SUCCESS. Somehow, I don't feel like this bailout will work either. And it won't be able to cover up the stench the drives investors away for very long, because this bailout addresses everything but the underlying hole in regulation that allowed this mess to happen in the first place. This is not the first time the finance world behaved irresponsibly and have the poor majority of America pay for it, and yet our government has not learned to prevent these calamities from happening. How long ago was Enron? Tyco? Worldcom? This bailout said NOTHING about coming down on predator lenders, about revising regulations on how securities should be rated, etc.
I think it is clear, as CNN reported (90 no: 1 yes), that most Americans oppose this bailout. True, the reported ratio was before the bailout was changed, but I, for one, still oppose this bailout even after all the extra conditions were added, because it doesn't fix the problem at its source and it is extremely expensive. Yet, supposedly this bailout will be passed tomorrow. I have sent many angry messages to congress even though I don't have a right to vote, and I don't know what to do at this point. I only wrote this note in the hope that you will entertain the point of view presented here and be cautious about what this bailout promises. And, of course, if you know a senator, I hope you will tell him/her to vote no.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The first presidential debate
First of all, I want to acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on who won the debate. I don't think anyone has the authority to call it, and the only thing that really matters is which candidate, as a whole package, will win the election.
I felt like I was going into this debate biased, and I do feel that to the unknowing eye it may seem that McCain knows more about foreign policy, but I would definitely pick Obama as a leader in foreign policy. McCain may seem more confident and assertive to some, but to me he was rude - interrupting the moderator and Obama when it was not his turn. He was also condescending. Do you see the independent line dips down whenever McCain starts being derogatory? It's because it was rude and was not presidential-like. Imagine him saying that to other world leaders - how would they feel? I think Obama is definitely more suitable to be a leader, as shown by his character in the debate tonight. He was polite. He tried not to interrupt McCain until McCain got out of hand. He was humble enough to acknowledge someone when they are right, and even though McCain rudely repeated over and over again that "Obama doesn't understand," Obama never stooped to McCain's level. He was polite to McCain the whole debate. Even though such decency was not returned, Obama kept his integrity and never stooped to McCain's level. Now that is character.
McCain seemed stuck and stubborn like Bush and want to keep pouring resources into a war with a country that has nothing to do with us. The issue of the iraq war is just a stupid pride for McCain, who basically says I don't care what this war is all about, and even though we started it without a good reason, we have to keep plowing through to win it so we don't lose face. What Obama said is right - no mother should have to lose a son, no young man should be without a limb - enough is enough. We don't spend trillions of dollars and gazillion human limbs on stupid pride - we spend it for freedom, for safety, of the US and the world as a whole.
Many other points were touched on but basically experience is not everything. Experience can be provided to the president by advisors - that's what they are for. It is the judgment that matters, and I think Obama has way better judgment than McCain.
And threatening to not show up to the debate? It's like pulling out of a deal that both sides (along with the whole country) already agreed on. If McCain can't multitask and quit every time he's overwhelmed, he's not going to survive as a president.
And the cherry on top of a fantastic cake - Palin interview with Katie Couric: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
I felt like I was going into this debate biased, and I do feel that to the unknowing eye it may seem that McCain knows more about foreign policy, but I would definitely pick Obama as a leader in foreign policy. McCain may seem more confident and assertive to some, but to me he was rude - interrupting the moderator and Obama when it was not his turn. He was also condescending. Do you see the independent line dips down whenever McCain starts being derogatory? It's because it was rude and was not presidential-like. Imagine him saying that to other world leaders - how would they feel? I think Obama is definitely more suitable to be a leader, as shown by his character in the debate tonight. He was polite. He tried not to interrupt McCain until McCain got out of hand. He was humble enough to acknowledge someone when they are right, and even though McCain rudely repeated over and over again that "Obama doesn't understand," Obama never stooped to McCain's level. He was polite to McCain the whole debate. Even though such decency was not returned, Obama kept his integrity and never stooped to McCain's level. Now that is character.
McCain seemed stuck and stubborn like Bush and want to keep pouring resources into a war with a country that has nothing to do with us. The issue of the iraq war is just a stupid pride for McCain, who basically says I don't care what this war is all about, and even though we started it without a good reason, we have to keep plowing through to win it so we don't lose face. What Obama said is right - no mother should have to lose a son, no young man should be without a limb - enough is enough. We don't spend trillions of dollars and gazillion human limbs on stupid pride - we spend it for freedom, for safety, of the US and the world as a whole.
Many other points were touched on but basically experience is not everything. Experience can be provided to the president by advisors - that's what they are for. It is the judgment that matters, and I think Obama has way better judgment than McCain.
And threatening to not show up to the debate? It's like pulling out of a deal that both sides (along with the whole country) already agreed on. If McCain can't multitask and quit every time he's overwhelmed, he's not going to survive as a president.
And the cherry on top of a fantastic cake - Palin interview with Katie Couric: http://www.youtube.com/wat
Sunday, September 21, 2008
$700 billion blank check - the rich get away w/ it once again
I don't know the details of it, but I'm sure you guys have heard about the recent crashes of major banks due to irresponsible credit/loan issued to gain more returns for the CEOs when the economy was going well enough to conceal these practices. Now that the banks fall to pieces to reveal the greedy, irresponsible practices that go on, why is it that all the taxpayers in this country have to pay for all the money that a handful of people take, and why is it that these CEO bastards get to keep their riches after these banks declare bankruptcy?
With the way things are going, many of these practices will continue, because the CEOs know they get to keep all the profits and never have to pay for the losses.
Many people say bad economy only affects the financial sector - laypeople like us aren't really involved with what goes on in wall street or the fed. Well, this is exactly why what Bush does or what the fed decides to do affect all of us directly. If you haven't noticed the upgoing prices of commodities, this is another example of why we are all in this together, and practices like this need be to be stopped.
I wish I knew how to influence changes in this regard. If anyone know what we can do to stop this from happening, please let me know!
With the way things are going, many of these practices will continue, because the CEOs know they get to keep all the profits and never have to pay for the losses.
Many people say bad economy only affects the financial sector - laypeople like us aren't really involved with what goes on in wall street or the fed. Well, this is exactly why what Bush does or what the fed decides to do affect all of us directly. If you haven't noticed the upgoing prices of commodities, this is another example of why we are all in this together, and practices like this need be to be stopped.
I wish I knew how to influence changes in this regard. If anyone know what we can do to stop this from happening, please let me know!
Monday, September 8, 2008
A social experiment
An unstoppable train is coming down the track, which splits into two. One track leads to 3 kids, while the other lead to 1 adult man. The train, at default, will head to the track with 3 kids and run them over, killing all of them.
There is a switch that can change the track of the unstoppable train. If someone pushes the switch, the train will instead run over the 1 adult man, saving the 3 children.
The unstoppable train, obviously, cannot be stopped. The 3 kids and the adult man cannot leave the tracks. No matter what happens to the switch, either group of people have to die.
You are at the switch...what would you do?
Things to keep in mind: Doing nothing to the switch is a type of action, in which you choose to kill 3 kids instead of the adult man
Personally, I would not touch the switch. I know I am making a choice of killing the 3 kids by doing nothing when I could have saved them.
If you have seen Batman *spoiler alert*, near the end of the movie, the Joker was doing a social experiment, in which he told people on two different boats that there were bombs on both boats. They both have a switch that will activate bombs on the other boat. If they blow up the other boat, they get to live. One boat was filled with criminals - the other boat was filled with the good citizens of Gotham.
In the movie, one person on both boats had the switch in their hands. The argument was made that the boats filled with criminals are worth less than the boats filled with good citizens, and the criminal boat should be sacrificed. But in the end, no one on either boat had the heart to push the switch that would kill hundreds of people.
And that is why I would not touch the switch in this train track scenario either. Shooting someone in the head and letting someone starve to death are both evil, but I do think that they are different levels of evil, as shown by the Batman example - no one could do it because they felt it was wrong, even though by not pushing the switch, they are murdering their boat-mates. There is a difference in pushing the bad fortune onto someone else instead of letting the bad fortune take its course.
Hippocrates said, "First do no harm." Why is it that doctors who didn't stop to help dying victims from a car crash do not get arrested, while the ones that poisoned patients with cyanide do?
If you answer that you would push the switch so that the 3 kids could live, imagine yourself on one of the Gotham boats, would you really push the switch?
There is a switch that can change the track of the unstoppable train. If someone pushes the switch, the train will instead run over the 1 adult man, saving the 3 children.
The unstoppable train, obviously, cannot be stopped. The 3 kids and the adult man cannot leave the tracks. No matter what happens to the switch, either group of people have to die.
You are at the switch...what would you do?
Things to keep in mind: Doing nothing to the switch is a type of action, in which you choose to kill 3 kids instead of the adult man
Personally, I would not touch the switch. I know I am making a choice of killing the 3 kids by doing nothing when I could have saved them.
If you have seen Batman *spoiler alert*, near the end of the movie, the Joker was doing a social experiment, in which he told people on two different boats that there were bombs on both boats. They both have a switch that will activate bombs on the other boat. If they blow up the other boat, they get to live. One boat was filled with criminals - the other boat was filled with the good citizens of Gotham.
In the movie, one person on both boats had the switch in their hands. The argument was made that the boats filled with criminals are worth less than the boats filled with good citizens, and the criminal boat should be sacrificed. But in the end, no one on either boat had the heart to push the switch that would kill hundreds of people.
And that is why I would not touch the switch in this train track scenario either. Shooting someone in the head and letting someone starve to death are both evil, but I do think that they are different levels of evil, as shown by the Batman example - no one could do it because they felt it was wrong, even though by not pushing the switch, they are murdering their boat-mates. There is a difference in pushing the bad fortune onto someone else instead of letting the bad fortune take its course.
Hippocrates said, "First do no harm." Why is it that doctors who didn't stop to help dying victims from a car crash do not get arrested, while the ones that poisoned patients with cyanide do?
If you answer that you would push the switch so that the 3 kids could live, imagine yourself on one of the Gotham boats, would you really push the switch?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
