Latest news with #medicalprofessionals
The Verge
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Verge
Fax spam is apparently still a thing.
The Supreme Court sent a fax spam case back to a lower court after determining it erred in deferring to the Federal Communications Commission's legal interpretation. After the FCC said the law didn't cover online fax services, a lower court decertified a class of fax recipients seeking damages for receiving unsolicited ads. SCOTUS says the court should have made its own interpretation, which could be meaningful for medical professionals who still use faxes.
Medscape
4 hours ago
- Health
- Medscape
Stretch Your Resident Salary With These Tips
This transcript has been edited for clarity. It is well known that residents get paid little to no money for the number of hours that they are working in a hospital setting for their residency. I wanted to give you some tips to budget on a resident's salary. My first and favorite tip is to utilize activities that are free. Let me give you some examples.I live in San Diego and there are so many things that I do on the weekend that cost no money at all. I absolutely love to go to the beach, I love to surf, and both of those activities are free. If you don't live near the beach, you can always go on a walk with a friend. That is a great way to catch up with somebody you haven't seen in a whileand it's also totally free. Another big expense in residency is rent. Where you are living can make or break how much extra expense money you have throughout the month. I highly suggest living with a roommate or with a partner because it will cut your rent in half or a third. This is also a great way to save money. Overall,I know it is intimidating to save on a residency budget, but it is definitely possible if you get creative.
Forbes
a day ago
- Health
- Forbes
Why Autism Diagnoses Are Increasing: What Changed In 2013
Changes in diagnostic criteria drove an increase in autism diagnoses. Autism has been in the spotlight as more public figures react to rising diagnosis rates. Some frame it as an epidemic, prompting speculation about causes. But what many don't realize is that much of the increase can be traced to two major changes in how autism is diagnosed. Starting in 2013, people already diagnosed with ADHD could now also be diagnosed with autism, something that was not allowed previously. Further, doctors were now encouraged to consider a person's internal distress, not just observable externals, when determining whether their autistic experience qualified for diagnosis. These two changes account for a significant portion of the increase in autism diagnoses. To receive a mental health diagnosis, a person must show evidence of impairment. For autism, this means behaviors associated with a differently wired brain must cause real life challenges--not just exist. But how do we define impairment? During my medical training, that was a determination for the professionals to make. These standards were defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, the manual doctors used to determine mental health diagnoses. Originally published in 1994, the DSM-IV defined a mental disorder as causing 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.' In the DSM-IV, impairment was assessed by external signs such as poor grades, job loss, or visible dysfunction. Internal distress, like working twice as hard as other just to keep up, was not considered. It was left to the doctor to determine what elements of a patient's story were 'clinically significant' and whether they were in 'important' areas of functioning. If someone had autistic features but excelled in school or work and had relationships, they might be told they weren't impaired and did not meet criteria for a diagnosis. Their internal experience--how hard things felt or the emotional toll it took--wasn't relevant. That changed in 2013 with the publication of the DSM-V, which heralded a critical shift in psychiatry: valuing a patient's internal experiences over mere appearances. While the fundamental definition of mental disorder remained the same, the DSM-V considered a person's internal suffering when evaluating them for clinically significant distress. For example, in the past a student would have to be failing classes to be considered impaired. But after DSM-V, a student getting As only through intense effort and personal cost--exhaustion, anxiety, and emotional burnout--could also be understood as experiencing impairment. This change meant that people who previously would have been dismissed now had their experiences validated. Jaimie Goralnick, MD, a child and adult psychiatrist in California recalls what it was like to consider autism prior to 2013. 'In my training, I was taught only to notice the people who fit a stereotypical image of what we think autism is, and that is only a small percentage of people who are autistic.' Today, fewer people are denied a diagnosis because they make eye contact or have friends. Clinicians are learning to ask deeper questions: Is that eye contact forced and exhausting? Have they faced lifelong bullying or exclusion, even though they also have friendships? This has been particularly important in recognizing women with autism, who often present more subtly. The second major change in DSM-V was the removal of the exclusion rule that prevented someone from being diagnosed with both ADHD and autism. Before 2013, meeting criteria for one ruled out the other. Since ADHD symptoms are often more visible, this led to many people's autism being missed. 'In my practice, there are many people who have been diagnosed with ADHD, and later realized they also are autistic,' says Dr. Goralnick. 'It's been life changing for them to be able to make sense of their experience in a clearer and more positive way." Currently, the scientific literature estimates that between 50 to 70% of people with autism also have ADHD. (Hours 2022) The reverse is harder to measure due to under-diagnosis, but studies have found that between 30 to 65% of children with ADHD also show clinically significant autistic traits. (Clark 1999, Ronald 2008, Sokolova 2017). This means that a significant number of people with ADHD are now also diagnosed with autism, leading to an apparent boost in autism numbers. With autism in the press so often lately, it is important to understand that while diagnosis rates have risen, autism itself has always been with us. The 2013 changes in the DSM allowed us to get better at recognizing it. And that's vital, because it gives people a chance to understand themselves, heal from rejections they've faced, connect with the autistic community and access therapies designed for autism. "Many of my patients are able to figure out ways to fit in and fly under the radar with some of their challenges,' Dr. Goralnick. 'They struggle a lot with depression and severe anxiety that just never quite responded to treatments, and there were a lot of things that just never made sense. But once we together realized they were autistic, the pieces came together and we began to understand their experience.' Autism wasn't invisible because it wasn't there. It was invisible because we weren't looking for it in the right way.
Medscape
3 days ago
- Health
- Medscape
Should the GMC Regulate Doctors on Social Media?
Dr Arya Anthony Kamyab Doctors have always held strong opinions, but where these were once exchanged in the privacy of hospital corridors, they are now broadcast globally via posts on social media platforms. In January 2024, the General Medical Council (GMC) issued updated guidance titled "Using Social Media as a Medical Professional." This document underscores the importance of maintaining professionalism, upholding patient trust, and establishing clear boundaries online. Among its central tenets is this recommendation: 'You must not use social media to abuse, discriminate against, bully, harass or deliberately target any individual or group.' Implementing this principle raises difficult questions. Where is the line between legitimate critique and perceived harassment? Is a doctor who publicly challenges unsafe working conditions within the NHS engaging in necessary advocacy or crossing a line by targeting leadership? Are discussions about the role of physician associates constructive criticism or professional bullying? The GMC offers little definitional clarity, placing doctors in ethically ambiguous territory. In practice, social media has become an increasingly fraught space for healthcare professionals. Platforms such as X are rife with disputes — among colleagues, with administrators, and increasingly directed at the GMC itself. The ongoing debate around physician associates has inflamed tensions further, with allegations ranging from misinformation and professional gatekeeping to outright bullying. While the GMC has acknowledged the increasingly toxic tone of online discourse, its response has largely been limited to expressions of concern rather than decisive action. This leads to a broader, more contentious question: Should the GMC be responsible for regulating physicians' conduct on social media at all? Some argue that professionalism is not confined to clinical settings and that behaviour inconsistent with medical ethics, regardless of context, undermines public trust. Others view such oversight as overreach, contending that physicians retain the right to express personal views outside of work. The GMC now finds itself in a delicate position. Excessive enforcement risks accusations of censorship and the stifling of free expression; insufficient enforcement, however, may undermine its authority as a regulator. The power of professional regulation extends beyond legal authority — it includes reputational impact. A doctor facing a tribunal over an online post may endure not only formal investigation but also public scrutiny and reputational damage. Free to Misinform? It is tempting to view this free speech debate from a legalistic standpoint: Free speech is a right, and any interference is therefore a violation. But this simplifies what is a very complex moral discussion. Doctors occupy a very privileged epistemic position. Our speech is not just personal expression; it carries what can be referred to as epistemic weight. When doctors speak, people listen, and they often shape their actions in response. This could be dismissed as their responsibility, but to say so is to be naive about the forces that influence human behaviour. During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors who spread misinformation didn't just express unpopular views; they misled millions precisely because they were trusted by the public. Any ethical analysis must therefore conclude that doctors, by virtue of their training and the trust they hold, bear a higher moral burden. Their views must meet a threshold of intellectual honesty and evidential rigour. Has it therefore ever been more important for doctors to understand the hierarchy of evidence and the scientific method as a route to knowledge? The Value of Dissent We must resist the impulse to reduce all nonconforming speech to danger, however. Recognising that not all nonconforming speech is equal is also vital. There is a long tradition of those who challenged prevailing consensus and were vindicated over time: Ignaz Semmelweis, a pioneer of antiseptics; and Gregor Mendel, with his groundbreaking studies on inheritance, to name just two. But what separates such figures from conspiracists and pseudo-intellectuals is not what they challenged but how they did it. If one engages critically with the evidence, welcomes scrutiny, and embraces the methodology of the scientific process, then dissenting speech becomes not only valid but vital. Therefore, if the GMC wishes to guide online professionalism without veering towards censorship, it must distinguish between these types of speech. However, the danger is that even the most well-intentioned guidance can become irrelevant in the context of social media. Social media is not a neutral forum. Its algorithms do not select for truth. Rather, it is an attention economy optimised for outrage, tribalism, and performance. Platforms such as X reward impulsiveness and reactivity over reflection and deliberation. If social media's algorithms are designed to fuel hyperbole and outrage, can professionalism be meaningfully maintained within this space?
Health Line
3 days ago
- Health
- Health Line
Using Hydrogen Peroxide to Remove Earwax
Ear drops with hydrogen peroxide may be a safe, cost-effective, and easy-to-use treatment to help remove earwax buildup at home. Hydrogen peroxide is a common ingredient in liquid ear drops, known as cerumenolytics. These are typically the first methods used to help treat an ear impaction, which may be caused by excess earwax. They may also be used to soften earwax before other treatments. Ear wax, or cerumen, is a natural substance that helps protect your ear canal from water, infection, and irritants. However, nearly 6% of people in the United States have cerumen impaction, which may cause: Seeking prompt medical attention If you experience any of the following symptoms, see a medical professional promptly because these are not symptoms of a wax impaction but could be a sign of a more serious cause: acute pain leaking of liquids bleeding in your ear Treating an ear wax impaction Over-the-counter (OTC) cerumenolytic solutions typically contain 3% hydrogen peroxide. They release oxygen to soften, break up, or dissolve your earwax. Carbamide peroxide is a commonly prescribed ear drop. Ear drop treatment Here's a general approach to using hydrogen peroxide ear drops: Lie on your side with the affected ear facing the ceiling. Administer the instructed number of drops into your ear canal. It's common to hear a crinkling, fizzling, or bubbling sound when the liquid solution enters your ear canal. Keep still for 5 minutes or as long as the ear drops' guidelines state. Sit up and lean over a sink to allow any liquid to leak out or use a tissue to blot the outer ear. Repeat this process for your other ear if necessary. The treatment amount, frequency, and duration may vary depending on the brand and solution type. For example, you may need to administer your drops more than once per day over several days. Always read the ear drop application guidelines. Risks of using hydrogen peroxide ear drops Speak with a doctor before using hydrogen peroxide ear drops, especially if you've had, or currently have, a ruptured ear drum, infection, or tympanostomy tubes. In some cases, cerumenolytic solutions may cause: ear canal infection ear canal irritation, itchiness, or pain contact dermatitis Alternative treatments for earwax impaction If hydrogen peroxide ear drops aren't doing the trick for you, speak with a doctor to discuss safe alternative earwax removal methods, such as: irrigation microsuction manual removal, such as with a pic, curette, or alligator forceps oil- or water-based ear drops home remedies It's important never to put objects cotton swabs and ear candles in your ears. Despite popular belief, these may push the earwax further into your ear and cause serious complications. Frequently asked questions about hydrogen peroxide for earwax Does hydrogen peroxide really dissolve ear wax? Hydrogen peroxide eardrops can help soften earwax. They release oxygen to soften, break up, or dissolve your earwax. They may be available over-the-counter or in a stronger prescription form. Hydrogen peroxide eardrops can help soften earwax. They release oxygen to soften, break up, or dissolve your earwax. They may be available over-the-counter or in a stronger prescription form. How long should you leave hydrogen peroxide in your ear for it to be effective? Lie on your side with the affected ear facing up. Stay in this position for 5 to 10 minutes to allow the hydrogen peroxide to penetrate and soften the earwax. Afterward, tilt your head to allow the excess solution to drain onto a tissue or cotton ball. Lie on your side with the affected ear facing up. Stay in this position for 5 to 10 minutes to allow the hydrogen peroxide to penetrate and soften the earwax. Afterward, tilt your head to allow the excess solution to drain onto a tissue or cotton ball. Is it safe to put hydrogen peroxide in your ear? Hydrogen peroxide eardrops are generally safe to use. Do not use hydrogen peroxide if you have an ear infection, a perforated eardrum, or tympanostomy tubes in your ear. Hydrogen peroxide eardrops are generally safe to use. Do not use hydrogen peroxide if you have an ear infection, a perforated eardrum, or tympanostomy tubes in your ear.
