Archive for the ‘Medical’ Category

Service of Pandemic-Caused Rigmarole That’s Hard on City Seniors & the Time-Pressed

Monday, December 14th, 2020

Block long line to be tested for Covid-19, 8:30 a.m.

The pandemic is hard on everyone. Here are a few things I noticed about getting things done in the city that impact seniors, those with disabilities and the time-pressed.

It’s ironic because a city like New York allows seniors to be independent with its myriad transportation options, nearby watering holes and entertainment opportunities.

Standing for Service

Photo: iphoneroot.com

I needed a battery for my iPhone. The Apple staff at the store at Grand Central Terminal couldn’t have been nicer. But there was a lot of standing around waiting: to go upstairs after being checked in; on a line upstairs properly socially distanced–and then hanging out in the station for an hour while the phone was fixed. My appointment was in early evening so the few stores that remain in business at the station were shut. There were neither seats nor distractions.

Standing for Testing

We’re encouraged to be tested for Covid-19. The procedure at urgent care locations in Manhattan is daunting I’m told. You must have an appointment and can only sign up for one the same day. At certain hours I pass long lines outdoors, some with people better socially distanced than others, on cold, rainy and mild fall days [photo above].

I wonder, as I head for the gutter to keep more than a 6-foot distance, why are these people in line? Have they been exposed to Covid-19? Are they feeling ill?

Photo: statnews.com

One friend found a place that had no line. She made an appointment and they called her when they had a free time-frame which gave her 30 minutes to get back. Best that you live very near this place and choose a day with no appointments because you don’t know when you’ll get the call.

Goodness only knows what the rollout to get a vaccine will be like.

A benefit of the suburbs is that you can wait for a test in your car.

Pin the Tail on a Bank: Three’s a Charm

I needed to have a document notarized and was told by my bank that every branch had notaries. No longer accurate. I asked a customer service staffer at the first branch to call another one to confirm that they had a notary. Nobody picked up so I walked there. That customer service man disappeared in a back office.

After I waited the length of time in which three people could have had their signatures notarized he returned and told me I needed an appointment for the next day. At least this customer service person knew of a branch that had a few notaries so off I raced.

I appreciated the mileage I’d covered–recorded on my iPhone–but not the stress and I couldn’t help wonder what if I was unable to hotfoot it around town?

Just Sayin’

I love Trader Joe’s but notice that many shelves are empty during early senior hours no doubt because there hasn’t been time, at 8 a.m., to restock them.

Have you noticed other topsy-turvy situations during the pandemic that have impacted the way/how quickly you do business and/or conduct your life? Do you observe situations that especially impact seniors and the time-pressed?

Photo: liveoak.net

Service of Need to Know: If You’re in the Covid Trial Placebo Group, Do You Get a Vaccine ASAP?

Monday, December 7th, 2020

Photo: newatlas.com

I admire anyone who volunteers to test a potentially lifesaving drug. I was curious as to why piling on $billions from the US Government and Bill Gates Foundation, among many, helped speed up discovery of a vaccine by over three years. I guess it’s because the human guinea pigs are paid and to have the numbers injected to ensure efficacy and safety at $250 or more a pop requires deep pockets on the spot.

Carl Zimmer and Noah Weiland pose a dilemma in their New York Times article, “Many Trial Volunteers Got Placebo Vaccines. Do They Now Deserve the Real Ones?”  Seems it’s not an easy “yes” or “no.”   The tens of thousands injected with the placebo who thought they’d get a real shot in the arm after the vaccine was approved may wait as long as two years they reported.

Photo: savethestudent.org

Some scientists think these volunteers “should be moved toward the front of the line in exchange for [her] service for the greater good.” Last week “18 leading vaccine experts — including a top regulator at the Food and Drug Administration — argued that vaccinating placebo groups early would be disastrous for the integrity of the trials. If all of the volunteers who received placebo shots were to suddenly get vaccinated, scientists would no longer be able to compare the health of those who were vaccinated with those who were not.”

As background they explain that “It’s vital that neither the volunteers nor the staff running the trial know who is randomly assigned to get the vaccine or the placebo. This ‘blinding,’ as it’s called, eliminates the chance that people will behave differently depending on which treatment they get, potentially skewing the trial’s results.”

Pfizer “said it would propose to the F.D.A. that volunteers who got the placebo could get the real vaccine.” Richard Peto, a medical statistician at the University of Oxford and his colleagues argue that “once a placebo group disappears from a clinical trial, the chance to collect rigorous data about a coronavirus vaccine will vanish.”

Researchers claim they need to keep secret the placebo group to learn about how long the vaccine protects the recipients, how many get sick in subsequent months as compared to the placebo group.

Dr. Anthony Fauci Photo: businessinsider.com

Zimmer and Weiland reported that “If the companies were to encourage unblinding their trials, that could also harm their chances of receiving the F.D.A.’s full stamp of approval — a license. And allowing a trial to continue may also be good for their bottom line, because knowing when immunity from a vaccine begins to wane will dictate how frequently people will need their product.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci had a great solution: everyone gets an injection in reverse: Those who received the vaccine get a placebo and vice versa. Secret is preserved.

Assuming that there are fixed costs to discovering a vaccine and putting it through its approval paces, why else, other than the cost of assembling and paying sufficient numbers of human volunteer guinea pigs, would money be the answer to the record breaking time it took for discovery? Why wasn’t money used before to attack such pestilence as polio, cholera and AIDS? Do you know anyone who has volunteered to take a drug during a trial period? Do you agree that Dr. Fauci’s compromise, while costly, would be the solution to protecting the volunteers who received the placebo? Are you planning to be vaccinated?

Photo: theconversation.com

 

Service of Symbols III

Thursday, May 14th, 2020

1918 pandemic. Photo: designyoutrust.com

I wrote about religious and tourist symbols in 2011 and 2013 respectively. Some symbols, like the heart, dove, and owl that represent love, peace and intelligence, achieve their associations naturally. For 12 years I wore a school uniform–another form of symbol. We were asked to behave when out and about in NYC because we represented the school.

Masks in spring 2020 inadvertently have come to represent a range of things well beyond what the Center for Disease Control [CDC] attributes to them such as respect of the medical community that’s limping from overwork. It’s also a sign of cooperation with the effort to arrest a pandemic that is faced by the nation in some places more than in others.

1918 pandemic Photo: pinterest.com

Dr. Anthony Fauci told the Senate hearing on May 12 that “the mask should be a very regular part of preventing the spread of infection.” Note: He did not say “it’s more important in New York than in Oklahoma or North Dakota.”

The same day, at his daily news conference, New York Governor Cuomo said the mask means: “I respect you, your health, your privacy. And out of respect for you I wear this mask. This mask says I respect the nurses and doctors who killed themselves through this virus to cure people. I don’t cause more stress on nurses and doctors. I respect essential workers who drive the bus, train, deliver the food and keep lights on so I can stay home and safe. So I respect others.  The masks represent community unity.”

The CDC wrote on the nuts and bolts of mask use during this pandemic:

1918 pandemic Photo: tampabay.com

“In light of new data about how COVID-19 spreads, along with evidence of widespread COVID-19 illness in communities across the country, CDC recommends that people wear a cloth face covering to cover their nose and mouth in the community setting. This is an additional public health measure people should take to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in addition to (not instead of) social distancing, frequent hand cleaning and other everyday preventive actions. A cloth face covering is not intended to protect the wearer, but may prevent the spread of virus from the wearer to others. This would be especially important in the event that someone is infected but does not have symptoms. A cloth face covering should be worn whenever people must go into public settings (grocery stores, for example). Medical masks and N-95 respirators are reserved for healthcare workers and other first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.”

I am surprised by how many people in NYC wear masks. We’re a maverick bunch. Most don’t like to be told what to do–for example we jaywalk and cross against the light much of the time. An incentive is that most stores won’t let people inside without a face covering. Only in a potentially crowded situation are New Yorkers asked to wear a mask which may be why some still don’t wear them walking in the street.

Is the converse true: Does not wearing a mask symbolize indifference and disrespect in addition to creating potential danger of spreading a deadly virus? Do you say anything to people who don’t wear one? Do you think wearing a mask–or not–has taken on political significance?

Photo: sciencealert.com

Service of Too Good to be True II

Thursday, June 28th, 2018

Photo: depositphotos.com

I’ve followed highlights of the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos criminal case for a while in newspaper and radio coverage and a few things nag at me:

  • How did high profile investors, partners and board members get duped by a machine and service that never worked?
  • Even though “Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against Theranos Inc. founder Elizabeth Holmes and the blood-testing company’s former No. 2 executive,” news focus brushes over life-changing damage done to patients who think they are OK when they’re not.

The charges allege “that they defrauded investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars and also defrauded doctors and patients.” This quote and the one above made up the lead to John Carreyrou’s recent Wall Street Journal article.

Photo: en.wikipedia.org

“The blood test machine her company created doesn’t work — and never has,” Scott Simon wrote recently, capturing an interview with Carreyrou on NPR’s Morning Edition that he hosts. “She raised almost a billion dollars from investors, including Rupert Murdoch, Carlos Slim Helú, and the family of Betsy DeVos, and signed contracts with Walgreens and Safeway, by lying to them.” Carreyrou’s original coverage led to the 2½ year investigation.

He also wrote a book about the scandal, “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup,” and the test that was expected to revolutionize the industry by costing less and using blood drops from a finger pin prick.

Simon continued quoting Carreyrou: Holmes and “Sunny Balwani, who was the number two of the company, knew as they were rolling out the blood testing services in Walgreens stores in California and Arizona that the blood tests were faulty, and yet they still went ahead with the rollout. And there were, I came across personally in my reporting more than a dozen patients who had health scares because they received bad results from Theranos.”

Photo: pehub.com

This was the most in-depth comment I could find about the patient victims of the scandal. Others mostly referred to them though in his New York Times coverage, Reed Abelson wrote that the so-called tests endangered lives.

So how did Holmes get away with bamboozling five star board members along with all the rest? Carreyrou told Simon “she capitalized on this yearning there was, in Silicon Valley and beyond, to see a woman break through in this man’s world in Silicon Valley.” In addition, he said, the investors based their decision on the Walgreens contract, figuring the company had confirmed the accuracy of the tests. This was a false assumption. Holmes refused to show the equipment claiming she was afraid the competition would discover the secret sauce.

About venture capitalists Abelson shared the prediction of Lakshman Ramamurthy, a former FDA official, now with Foundation Medicine, who “is not certain investors have learned their lesson. Companies like Theranos, which offered little hard evidence that its tests worked to its investors, ‘have their own rules,’ he said. ‘That hasn’t changed. The Silicon Valley hubris remains.’”

According to Ken Sweet’s AP article, referring to Holmes and Balwani: “If convicted, they could face prison sentences that would keep them behind bars for the rest of their lives, and total fines of $2.75 million each.” At one point the company, built on lies, was worth $10 billion +. I wonder if the fine covers the damage to investors sufficiently.

Surely lawsuits will follow should patients prove they were harmed either because they weren’t properly diagnosed or were damaged because they were given harmful medicines they didn’t need. Are you surprised that such high profile businesses, canny investors and high profile board members were deceived by the old “I can’t show you the goods” trick so soon after Bernie Madoff played the same card?

Photo: harp-onthis.com

Service of Genetic Tests: Do You Want to Know or Not?

Monday, April 17th, 2017

Photo Brockpress.com

Photo Brockpress.com

Most of my friends and colleagues present themselves for medical tests and checkups when they should while I drag my feet attending to only the most essential. My philosophy: Who wants to know?

So it would be very unlikely for me to send away to 23andMe at any time in my life to learn whether one or more of the 10 diseases the company tests for, such as late-onset Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, will afflict me.

There are many chomping at the bit to find out and now the FDA says that they can: No more need to pass by a genetic counselor or through a doctor for the privilege. Spit into a receptacle to provide a sample of saliva; send $199 and voila—you’ll soon know about how or if you relate to any of the 10.

Jessica Boddy, NPR summarized info on an FDA press release: “The testsBlood pressure test assess genetic risk for the conditions but don’t diagnose them, the FDA says. The agency urges consumers to use their results to ‘help to make decisions about lifestyle choices or to inform discussions with a health care professional.’”

The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health director Jeffrey Shuren said “‘it is important that people understand that genetic risk is just one piece of the bigger puzzle, it does not mean they will or won’t ultimately develop a disease.’ Other known factors that can play into the development of disease include diet, environment and tobacco use.” 

Photo: thefactfile.org

Photo: thefactfile.org

We already know about the importance of a healthy diet and the risks of tobacco use as they relate to all sorts of diseases–so nothing new here–and I can’t do much about my environment. Loosening regulations on power plants and reducing fuel efficiency standards for cars is going to impact everyone in a bad way. I wonder if people in 45’s administration realize that they, their children and grandchildren might suffer as a result?

Referring to test results Boddy quoted a Harvard Medical School professor who warned that the “information is complicated.”

Nobody in the article spoke up for those who don’t want to know. Do you want to learn what your genetic makeup indicates might happen? Would you be irritated if at 68 you sold your house and all your belongings to move into an adult care facility and found yourself at 95 in great form still with no signs of late-onset Alzheimer’s? Would knowing spoil what’s left of your life be it 20 or 70 years? Would you cancel your marriage plans if you wanted to have children and you learned that both you and your intended had similar genetic indicators for a nasty disease?

 

Photo: reference.com

Photo: reference.com

 

Service of Cost vs. Benefit in Healthcare: Who Decides?

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Photo rinehartclinic.org

Photo rinehartclinic.org

This New York Times article, “Cancer Doctors Offer Way to Compare Medicines, Including by Cost,” made significant—if terrifying–points in addition to how cost impacts what drugs a patient may get. Given their ineffectiveness, I wondered why those given as examples are prescribed in the first place.

If you or a loved one has a heart condition, don’t click away just yet: Reporter Andrew Pollack noted that cardiology societies are following in oncologists’ footsteps. And I wouldn’t be surprised if this trend soon affects patients with any and all conditions if it effectively cuts costs for insurers. 

Actor Robert Young playing Marcus Welby, MD

Actor Robert Young playing Marcus Welby, MD

Pollack wrote “Roche’s Avastin, when added to chemotherapy, had a net health benefit of 16 out of 130 possible points when used as an initial treatment for advanced lung cancer. Its monthly cost was $11,907.87, compared to $182.09 for the chemotherapy alone.

“Eli Lilly’s Alimta for that same use had a net health benefit of zero with a cost exceeding $9,000 a month compared to about $800 a month for the drugs it was compared to in the clinical trial.”

Later in the article Pollack spelled out the rating system: “Drugs for advanced cancer are given a score from 0 to 130. Up to 80 of the points are based on a drug’s effectiveness in prolonging lives, delaying the worsening of cancer or shrinking tumors. Then up to 20 points can be added or subtracted based on side effects. And up to 30 bonus points can be granted if the drug relieves cancer symptoms or allows a patient to go without treatment for a period of time.” 

Actor Hugh Laurie who plays Dr. House

Actor Hugh Laurie who plays Dr. House

Regardless of cost why would anyone prescribe a drug that benefits a patient from zero to 16 “points” out of 130?

Other news that was unsettling: “The release by the American Society of Clinical Oncology of what it calls its ‘value framework,’ is part of a change in thinking among doctors, who once largely chose drugs based on their medical attributes alone.” [The underline is mine.] Silly me: and I thought doctors still prescribe what they do according to how a drug helps a patient.

According to Pollack the average cost of cancer drugs runs $10,000/month and some as much as $30,000/month. This is information, Dr. Richard Schilsky said at a news conference, that some doctors don’t know nor do patients. Schilsky is chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. [Why is this significant? Even if you’ve been paying for health insurance for eons and have hardly used a cent until you need to, you can reach the ceiling when off goes the insurance spigot.]

Pollack wrote that this value framework considers the cost to the patient and the health system.  I assume “health system” translates to government supported Medicare and Medicaid plans. 

Ingrid Bergman playing Dr. Constance Petersen

Ingrid Bergman playing Dr. Constance Petersen

As a result, Pollack observed, doctors are now put in the role of “being stewards of societal resources.” He continued, “That is somewhat of a controversial role for doctors, since it might conflict with their duty to the patient in front of them. But the oncology society said it did not see those roles as being in conflict.”

Other points Pollack made include:

  • A rep for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said the cost of drugs represents only 20 percent of treatment.
  • The cost of drugs is unrelated to how “novel it is or whether it prolonged life versus just shrinking tumors.”
  • In Britain, a drug is rated according to its “cost per extra year of life they provide adjusted by side effects and symptoms.”
  • Starting in June United Healthcare requires “oncologists to get prior approval from the insurance company for every cancer drug they administer. The company will then track what happens to patients and eventually provide information to doctors about how well each drug works.”

Summarizing the questions:

  • Why prescribe a drug that does little if anything to better a patient’s health or length of life?
  • Is a doctor who chooses a drug for a patient based solely on its medical attributes old fashioned and out of step and will he/she soon be forced out of work by insurance companies?
  • If a patient can scrape together the co-pay of a super expensive drug, can an insurance company refuse to pay its part? Then what?
  • Will United Healthcare only use its approval to track drug effectiveness, as Pollack suggests, or eventually will it control costs by refusing to pay?
  • Is the American Society of Clinical Oncology correct when it asserts that there is no conflict for doctors who are now made responsible for the country’s medical resources and their responsibility to their patients?
  • Unless people have unlimited incomes, most adults are aware of what they pay for food, beverages, clothing, shelter and only recently have they become aware of the cost of healthcare. Isn’t this a good thing?

  pills 2

Service of Credibility II

Monday, October 13th, 2014

Trust me

I keep hearing on newscasts and in quotes by doctors and politicians how we shouldn’t panic about the ebola virus, that you can only catch it if you come in direct contact with an infected person’s fluids; that if you share the air of an elevator or plane with a sick person, you won’t catch it and that this or that city is ready to isolate and harness any case that crops up.

One of the doctors pointed out that only one person has died of ebola in this country in comparison to 20,000 who die each year of flu. [I checked the Center for Disease Control website to confirm this figure. It can’t track a statistic as states are not required to report deaths from flu of people older than 18.]

The problem is how often have public figures told us not to worry when it turnedworld trade center pile out we should? Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey Governor and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency told workers at the World Trade Center pile that they were in no danger of getting sick. Since then many have succumbed to cancer. Perhaps she was instructed to say this. Not only did it trash her political career, it was one more nail in the coffin of the public forced to question the people they are supposed to believe.

Congressional committees have let corporate executives get away with product safety claims for years while the facts proved otherwise: Smoking is one glaring example.

Train tunnel ny njWhat about the crumbling infrastructure? Governor Christie cancelled a train tunnel project between New Jersey and New York called “Access to the Region’s Core” which would build a new tunnel. The existing one was built between 1904 and 1908, according to Wikipedia. True, “they knew how to build things in those days.” But is counting on an essential 106 year old structure realistic just because the Governor says it is? Especially if you suspect the real reason is that he doesn’t want to spend the money under his watch?

Do you accept what you hear and go about your business or are you more skeptical?

 Pinnochio

Service of Seeing the Light

Thursday, April 10th, 2014

eyes 3

Iris Bell described the impact of her cataract operation in an enlightened way. She is a graphic artist which is apparent in her descriptions of color.

If you know someone faced with such a procedure and is hesitating, it would be worth passing along her narrative. She noted: “It’s as if the very stuff the world is made of has changed.”

This is what else she wrote:

eyes 4I had the cataract in my right eye removed and replaced with a lens that gave me 20/20 vision. The result: I see colors accurately and have perfect distance and night vision.

People who’ve had similar procedures told me the effect was dramatic. I knew the brownish cast of my cataract had made it hard for me to see the difference between my blue and green bracelets unless I looked at them under a strong light. Over the last year I also noticed I had trouble seeing outside after dark.

Throughout this period of change I wondered what the real colors of some things were and how bright or intense colors and whites might be. After the surgery my husband, Paul, and I took the bus home. For 10 blocks I looked out the window at the familiar shop fronts, checking back and forth between my eyes, one as yet uncorrected. The effect was as if I took on and off sunglasses with brown lenses.

eyes 5When I got home I was overwhelmed by the feeling of joy the colors gave me. It was exciting to look at my things with my corrected eye. I’d bought many items for their special colors because they have a major effect on my emotions.

With my uncorrected eye my periwinkle items looked grayish blue. With my corrected eye I saw the color I loved. I’ve always thought of periwinkle as the last blue before a color become lilac. The cataract hid the essential subtle reddish tint which turns a blue into periwinkle.

In subsequent days I’ve been shocked by rediscovering the true colors of things I’d lived with for years: A kitchen sponge is vibrant lilac; a sparkle-covered fingernail file an elegant purple not what I’d previously thought of as an unremarkable pinkish purple and a ream of paper and bath towel are the color of the newest spring grass with sunlight shining through…not the dull hue of older grass. And I’d forgotten how bright green bok choy at my favorite Chinese restaurant looked.

eyes 6Dyes on different fabrics are too subtle for my uncorrected eye to register and the intense purple underside of a vine I’ve grown under plant lights for years is back for the right eye.  The gas flame in the stove startled me,  transformed from dull aqua to a brilliant spectrum blue with a fine edging of purple.    

There was a loss: My corrected eye sees the russet and golden grapes in a photo hanging in the kitchen as bland pastels, no longer the richer colors tricked by the cataract.

The most startling effect of the surgery lasted only a few minutes some 10 hours afterward. We were in our supermarket just before twilight: The clear glass front window looked as if it had been replaced by blue stained glass. We’d spent time walking in the grocery, with its warm lighting. I was now looking out at the cool light of early evening. It had been years since I’d recognized either of these types of light. My brain didn’t know what to do with them. By the time we were on the sidewalk I was getting proper information from my brain, there was nothing special to see, no bright blue light. Only if I was planning to paint a watercolor would I study the quality of the light and notice it had a blue cast to it. Non-artists usually don’t notice the color of light.

One of the reasons I wanted the operation was that my night vision was  so poor that I was uncomfortable walking outside after dark, even on our block. People would suddenly appear walking toward me. I’d only see them when they were several feet away.  The day after my surgery it was hard to believe this block had always been this brightly lit between the street lights, decorative lights on buildings and from entryways.

This new world of lovely colors and light sources is a pleasure to experience. I’m not ready to have my other eye corrected quite yet, I’m having such fun comparing the two worlds I see with my two eyes.

Since she wrote this, Iris said she plans to have the other cataract removed in a few months.

Not once did she mention discomfort or pain. Isn’t it remarkable that she took a bus home after an operation that once kept people in the hospital for a week? Have you undergone a procedure–or known someone who has–that has similarly so dramatically [and effortlessly] transformed a life?

eyes 7

Service of Simplicity

Monday, December 30th, 2013

Tis a gift to be simplechicken sandwich

Technology can be time and life-saving but not always.

Next Time Add Mayo

During halftime on Saturday, a dry chicken sandwich caught in Chris Fowler’s throat. He was one of two ESPN commentators at this weekend’s Rutgers-Notre Dame Pinstripe Bowl game at Yankee Stadium. A simple Heimlich maneuver by Jesse Palmer, the other commentator, saved the choking announcer. I saw how a Heimlich rescued a man at my table at a business awards dinner and will never forget how effective it was–and how scary were the moments before.

En Voiture!

Cars in ParisFrench car manufacturer Peugeot introduced a vehicle with zero gewgaws. At eye height is a gauge indicating gas and speed, period. Does a car that gets you from A to Z place without built-in GPS, movie screens and gauges galore represent a trend? Note: The car is not available in the U.S.

Knee-Jerk ReactionKnee Physical Therapy

On the news last week results of a study on knee surgery suggested that physical therapy alone was as effective as an operation plus therapy in some cases. Physical therapy solved a severe shoulder injury for me–it seemed like a miracle.

Neither Rain nor Snow nor Heat nor Gloom of Night….

mailman in bad weatherI continue to recommend that job candidates follow up with both an email and standard mail thank you immediately after an interview. The stamped missive will distinguish you and amplify your interest in a non-intrusive, positive way. It will also stand out which yet another email won’t. Note: First class stamps increase three cents to 49 cents on January 26.

Will we increasingly see more examples that highlight the value of simplicity? Media appears to enjoy them or I wouldn’t know about most in this post. Are some seeking a balance from everything tech-hip?

homemade loaf

 

Service of Trust

Thursday, February 21st, 2013

trust2

This blog doesn’t usually pinion a brand by name, but when it is number five in a list of most trusted, and when its executives have done something dastardly and incomprehensible, I make an exception to my blog’s policy.

I read in David Reich’s post, “Who do we trust,” on his “my 2 cents blog,” about a Harris poll of 19,000 people at random who felt that Amazon was the most trusted brand and the rest were, in order, Apple, Disney, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, Whole Foods, Sony, Procter & Gamble and Costco.

caneI am shocked as much by the deed as by the cavalier attitude by management about something that takes so long to gain and a second to lose: Trust. I am appalled by yet another heartless business decision made by people who obviously have zero empathy about the pain and suffering they cause others.

Here’s the story:

“The note sent by a doctor to several executives at Johnson & Johnson was blunt: an artificial hip sold by the company was so poorly designed that the company should slow its marketing until it understood why patients were getting hurt,” Barry Meier wrote in a February News Analysis piece The New York Times. This was a follow-up to his January front page Business Day story, “Maker Hid Data About Design Flaw in Hip Implant, Records Show.”

Continued Meier in the analysis, “The doctor, who also worked as a consultant to Johnson & Johnson, wrote the note nearly two years before the company recalled the device in 2010. And it was far from the only early warning those executives got from doctors who were paid consultants. Still, the company’s DePuy orthopedic unit plowed ahead, and those consultants never sounded a public alarm to other doctors, who kept implanting the device.”

I recommend that you read the analysis for the reasons/excuses he posits that more doctors didn’t make a fuss as well as his earlier piece where I first read about this nightmare.

hip-replacementI take such a decision personally and feel enraged by it. An operation is scary for most and things can go wrong such as infections or heart failure or unforeseen reactions to the anesthesia.  And now and again there might be a kink in a device–mistakes happen. But a manufacturer that lets doctors use something its executives know doesn’t have a chance of working boils my blood.

Draconian as it sounds, I think that in future executives who know about  flaws in the devices they manufacture should have one of them implanted in their body or if they sell lousy medicine be forced to take it. It may be the only way to stop such conduct. Fining is useless.

How have we allowed companies to succeed without being expected to exhibit an iota of social responsibility? How do we protect ourselves from such a device being implanted in a friend, family member or ourselves?

old-hands

Get This Blog Emailed to You:
Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Clicky Web Analytics