health - Page 3

Vitamin D3 and Lupus

3278 views

The untimely death of 23-year-old Sasha McHale, daughter of professional basketball’s Hall of Famer Kevin McHale, recently shocked the world.

Sasha inherited her father’s athleticism, energy, enthusiasm for life, and love of the northern U.S. state of Minnesota. An insidious disease called lupus prematurely snatched Sasha from her family, friends, and life.

Lupus is a chronic autoimmune disease that attacks the body’s cells, tissues, and organs, and results in severe inflammation, fatigue, and, in some cases, death. The medical name for the most common form of the lupus is “systemic lupus erythematosus” (SLE). According to the Lupus Foundation of America, about 1.5 million Americans, and over five million people globally, suffer from a form of lupus. Ninety percent of persons diagnosed with the disease are women, many of whom are in their child-bearing years.

Mounting evidence suggests adequate vitamin D3 in the body may protect against the development of autoimmune diseases including lupus. Genetic and environmental factors including vitamin D3 deficiency have been linked to lupus. Sensitivity to sunlight, the primary source of vitamin D3, is common among SLE patients. Scientific research indicates a high prevalence of vitamin D3 deficiency among people suffering SLE:

Researchers at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic studied 124 female SLE patients to understand, inter alia, their circulating vitamin D3 levels. Eighty-four percent of the women had vitamin D3 blood serum levels less than a sub-optimal reading of 32 ng/mL.

The Medical University of South Carolina conducted a study of vitamin D3 blood serum levels of 123 individuals who had been recently diagnosed with SLE. The findings suggested vitamin D3 deficiency as a possible risk factor for SLE.

Researchers studied 25 Canadian women diagnosed with SLE and found that over half of these patients had less than 20 ng/mL of vitamin D3 circulating in their blood. The research also suggested that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug used to treat SLE, may inhibit vitamin D3 production.

A study published in a 2012 edition of the journal Dermato-Endocrinology not only documented the prevalence of low vitamin D3 in SLE patients but recommended oral vitamin D3 supplementation for SLE patients. The researchers lauded the safety, low cost, and wide availability of vitamin D3 supplements as well as their potential effectiveness against SLE progression.

Maintaining adequate vitamin D3 levels may forestall the development of autoimmune diseases including lupus. In addition, vitamin D3’s capability to reduce inflammation may alleviate lupus symptoms. Further research is required to confirm the extent of vitamin D3’s connection with lupus.

Copyright ©2012 by Susan Rex Ryan
All rights reserved.

Share

Thanksgiving Dinner: Ideas for Diabetics, Vegetarians and Everyone in Between

1692 views

The holidays symbolize a joyous time of family, friends and food. As a big proponent of a plant-based diet, this time of year has usually served as a conundrum for me. While my family is carving the turkey and noshing on honey-baked ham, I have always found myself turning to the carbohydrate-heavy side dishes. I have decided I am done torturing myself and have taken to the Internet and vegan/vegetarian cookbooks for help in planning a healthy, plant-based holiday. Rather than turkey, I indulge in acorn squash stuffed with spinach and a bit of Gorgonzola (or, for my vegan audience, try a quinoa mushroom pilaf stuffing instead). The traditional turkey, stuffing and mashed potatoes is not necessary for a fulfilling holiday.  If you are curious about plant-based Thanksgiving dishes, I highly recommend sites such as The Post Punk Kitchen, Vegetarian Times or One Green Planet. For me, experimenting with new, healthier foods has been an exciting and challenging adventure.

Regardless of dietary status, it is important to recognize that the average person consumes anywhere between 5,000 to 6,000 calories throughout Thanksgiving Day. Such a deluge of food into the human body overworks our system. According to Joanna Gorman, a registered dietitian quoted in the Las Vegas Review Journal, insulin and the breakdown of fat kick into high gear and cause unnecessary strain and stress. For those among us who must monitor their insulin, there are a number of substitutions one can make on Thanksgiving, such as switching out potatoes for mashed rutabagas, parsnips or cauliflower for more fiber and lower carbs. Try sautéed green beans with garlic instead of casserole, which can be heavy with cheese and cream. Use whole-grain bread crumbs (or even brown rice) and double the veggies for your stuffing. The Mayo Clinic and dLife (a Diabetes resource site) both share a number of recipes and ideas for a healthful holiday.

The best way to avoid overeating for one big meal is to partake in smaller meals throughout the day. Portion control and light exercise is key; rather than sitting on the couch all day, maybe take a little walk around the block with a loved one instead. Listen to your body and don’t keep allowing yourself to eat out of boredom or based on the deliciousness of a particular dish. Not only should we keep ourselves from overeating, we shouldn’t push our loved ones to eat more when they are already sated either.

It is important to enter the holiday season armed with knowledge on how we can better care for each other and ourselves. Many choices we make during this time of year, such as overindulging in sweets or tripling our calorie count can be harmful to our bodies. I know I have made these mistakes many times and felt remorse and physical pain as a result of my overeating. I truly hope these resources will allow my readers to seek out new and interesting recipes and partake in a healthy and happy holiday season.

Share

Are We Really that Fat and Does it Matter?

3484 views

Body mass index (BMI), the dreaded math calculation used for decades to tell us whether we are merely fat or morbidly obese, suggests that over 41 million or 35% of us are in the latter category. As bad as that may seem, it’s about to get a whole lot worse. Researchers from New York University found that BMI underestimates the obesity numbers, especially for women.

In a study published on PLoS ONE, a peer reviewed open access journal, researchers suggest that when more accurate measures of adiposity (fat) are used, at least 74 million Americans (64%) should be deemed obese. Whoa.

BMI and Women’s Health

It appears that BMI (weight in pounds/(height in inches)2×703) while a quick and easy indicator of obesity, ignores several important factors that tend to underestimate obesity levels in the female population. Most importantly, BMI doesn’t account for the relationship between lean body mass and fat mass. Sarcopenic obesity, the loss of lean mass or muscle combined with the increase of fat mass, plagues women more frequently than men, especially as we age. As we age and lose more lean mass, BMI measures of obesity become less and less accurate. According to the research, BMI underestimates the obesity levels in women by 40% across all age groups, but for the older age groups, >60 years, the number approaches 60-70% error. This is striking, not only because of the high mis-classification rate in women (remember medical decisions are made based upon BMI assumptions) but also, because BMI potentially underestimates the number of women who should be considered obese. Or does it?

While I agree that many of us are not as slim as we should be, I wonder if we might not need new measures of health and fitness. I am thinking of the female athletes in the Olympics – not the gymnasts or divers (although even as petite as those athletes are, their weight, because of muscle mass, to height ratio could be skewed by BMI standards), but the female weight lifters, boxers, wrestlers, judokos, and even the water polo players. Many of these women would be considered overweight  by current BMI standards, and yet, they are at the pinnacle of health and fitness. What does that say of the BMI standards when those at the height of health and fitness can be considered fat while those at edge of illness, who are noticeably overweight are considered normal weight because of skewed lean to fat mass ratios?

The Paradox of Obesity: Why BMI Doesn’t Predict Health

And here we have the paradox of obesity (and the problem with BMI); obesity doesn’t correlate with mortality. Indeed, with many conditions and under many circumstances-stroke, cardiovascular disease, hemodialysis, cancer and others, being overweight increases survival. Maybe it’s not the fat, or even the lean muscle to fat ratio, but the fitness level that should be measured. Research shows that individuals who are metabolically healthy regardless of weight, have no increased risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease than their normal weight counterparts.

Resting Heart Rate Better than BMI

It is well known that athletes, no matter their BMI, have lower resting heart rates than couch potatoes. Perhaps resting heart rate might be a better indicator of overall health. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that a low resting heart rate may be a better indicator of cardiovascular and metabolic health in women than BMI. So, before we go starving ourselves to reach some physical notion of health (and beauty) based upon a faulty metric, embrace your inner athlete and exercise.

To the researchers who bemoan the growing obesity epidemic and associated health costs, it’s time to move beyond what we look like as a matter of predicting health and move toward how our bodies function. Resting heart rate may be one solution, biomarkers may be another, but BMI is not an effective metric for evaluating women’s health.

Share

Health at the Nexus of Economics and Innovation

1840 views

Health innovation exists largely because of the promise of great profits. Whether it is new drugs, devices or even health insurance, the development of these products are firmly established capitalist endeavors. Health itself, however, like life, liberty or even the pursuit happiness exists on a different plane entirely, more closely aligning with the right of life than with a corollary product or commodity. Where it gets squishy is in determining who is responsible for paying for that right, especially when someone chooses to ignore the responsibility of good health, is genetically burdened with ill-health, faces poverty, or as is the case in modern industrial society, is sold ill-health by companies whose very existence depends upon products that cause illness.

Where do one’s right of life and presumably some quality of life or health end and the right to profits begin? Who shall pay for these rights? And are there innovation opportunities in defining or re-defining health as a right versus a product or a commodity?

Understanding Moral Hazard and Modern Health Care

In 2009, with the financial system in ruins, the phrase moral hazard burst into the daily lexicon. One could not listen to a news report without hearing how those responsible for the crisis pushed all of the risks of their highly profitable ventures on to everyone else – textbook moral hazard. And then, to make matters worse, we were being asked to bail out these giant institutions that crumbled our economy, while they continued to reap huge salaries and bonuses. The gall…

Many view health insurance and by association, healthcare, as an industry based upon moral hazard. Unlike the moral hazard of the current financial markets, however, where the chosen few distribute risk downward to the many, the moral hazard in health care presumes that the many distribute the risk back up to the few, those presumably responsible individuals, who are healthy. Indeed, the distribution of risk penalizes good health with the increased cost of bad health borne by all. “How dare we be asked to pay for our neighbor’s smoking or obesity?” The gall…

What is often missed in our moral outrage, is how being sick reduces the profitability for those at the top of the insurance industry. This is the crux of modern health care’s fatal flaw – a skewed version of moral hazard where health care is a commodity that few at the top of the food chain are willing to risk on those at the bottom.

Health Economics

Modern theories of health economics argue that the act of providing health care services to all and the distribution of those costs amongst everyone will reduce the total financial risks but also increase the need for care, and therefore reduce profits. The presumption is that when people are given low-cost health care will, they will choose to partake in more health care services in much the same way that lower prices encourage other product purchases.

Appendectomy anyone?

Despite the almost comical notion that people enjoy going to the doctor’s office and/or to the hospital in the same way they enjoy purchasing a new handbag, or that these services are like any other commodity driven purely by access and cost, this concept of moral hazard pervades the health care/insurance debate, with nary a question of its legitimacy or utility. What is more, this model likely reduces overall profitability of the industries that seek to reap the rewards from health while increasing the profits of those who benefit from illness or at least benefit from ignoring the illnesses their products cause.

Health Innovation

If health innovation (the products within the health care system, new drugs, devices, programs, vitamins etc.) are only developed on the promise of great profits, how does that square with the notion that individuals really don’t want to go to the doctors unless they have to? How do we reconcile the need for health innovation to maintain our economic and health vitality and the premise that health care isn’t a product in the traditional sense; that it isn’t needed or wanted until it is needed?

Marketing Health (or Illness)

The current healthcare business model answers that question with marketing. Make the consumer or the physician want or believe they need the products being sold. The pharmaceutical industry is quite successful marketing must-have medications and products and they do so by employing the same tactics and strategies used to market any other consumer product.

Indeed, the newer model products/drugs are akin to the designer versions of a handbag and yield the same ‘must-have’ response from the consumer (even the physician) who is willing to pay premium prices for the latest and greatest medication. Like the must-have handbags, newer drugs often have no more efficacy than older ones (sometimes are worse), often contain only single isomer changes  (meaning molecularly they are almost entirely the same drug as the earlier, cheaper version e.g. Lexapro and Celexa) and more often rest the perceived utility solely on re-branding. A brilliant model if it wasn’t health or life and death that was for sale.

Another Way

What would happen if health was re-conceptualized as a right? If it were considered a right, then there would be a duty to protect it, legally. The current practice approving drugs and devices would look very different than it is today. From a market standpoint, the backlash from those who profit from illness would be swift and intense, but the potential for innovation and profits from other sectors could be equally strong, if the opportunity is recognized.

As it stands, we have big pharma, big agriculture (pesticide and herbicide use), big coal, big tobacco and other industries profiting wildly from their products, while distributing the health and economic risks downward to the masses in the classic model of moral hazard. These industries bear little to no responsibility for the true health costs of their products. Those risks are dispersed over time and over millions of people.

On the other side, we have the health care industry, straddled with the burden of caring for an ever less healthy populous while simultaneously having to answer to shareholders demand for profits. Their model of moral hazard proscribes increased profits for the top, increased cost for the healthy, and reduced services for everyone else. The health care industry pushes back on the individual, dis-enrolling, reducing access, but pays little attention to the purveyors of bad health. They buy hook-line-and-sinker the notion that the individual is solely responsible for his/her health. And while that is true in many cases, in today’s cesspool of environmental carcinogens, dangerous and eventually recalled (although not before the damage is done), pharmaceuticals and devices, endocrine disruptors, and generally unhealthy food supply, no individual alone can avoid all contact with the garbage that is in our environment and ultimately causes illness. And they shouldn’t have to. If the industries that currently lose money from illness (insurance, hospitals, employers), would step in and push back against those that profit from illness, we would see a radical change in disease rates, an enormous reduction in health care costs and an incredible increase in innovation.

If health were a right akin to the right of life, then products that affect health would be judged not just on the perceived profit margin, but on the actual cost/benefit ratio to health. The economics of health would switch from how do we distribute the cost of ill-health among the masses to how do we reduce ill-health of the masses. If a product causes more ill health and costs more than it benefits, perhaps it shouldn’t be on the market. Right now the debate is over how not to break the bank by including sick people on the insurance rolls or providing access to care for the poor, perhaps the math would work better if we looked how to prevent illness in the first place.

Share

Healthy Behavior No Longer A Personal Choice

1818 views

It’s a strange state of affairs when the comedy channels break more important stories than the news shows. Just last week a report by Wyatt Cenac, from the John Stewart show set off a firestorm of discussion on the blogosphere.  HR 3472, a bill proposed by former Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, would have offered incentives (insurance discounts) for healthy behavior (not smoking, losing weight, controlling cholesterol) was defeated in committee not by partisan politics (both parties were in favor of the bill) but by intense lobbying efforts from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Why would the big three associations, which are supposedly for health and prevention, oppose legislation that rewards improved health? According their perfectly jumbled released statements:

ADA
The impact of these provisions would have been to penalize people with pre-existing health conditions and certain health risks who could not meet these targets by charging them more for their health care. In addition, the legislation would have applied to health plans sold in the individual market, where people do not have the support of a formal workplace wellness program to help them achieve these goals.”

AHA
This bill might open the door for discrimination of people with pre-existing conditions, and also those who are genetically predisposed to these conditions. Most importantly it would restrict access to healthcare to those who need it most and research has shown that this has a negative effect on health.”

ACS
In fact, the bill would have enabled employers to reduce the health care premiums of people who met specific health targets (such as not smoking or maintaining low blood pressure), but also penalize people with pre-existing conditions who could not meet the targets by charging them more for their health coverage.  The Society supports comprehensive wellness and health promotion programs that utilize incentives, such as discounted gym memberships, for employees. But we oppose restricting access to health care for those who need it most.”

If their stated opposition is understood correctly, it boils down to, unless everyone benefits from these discounts, no one can benefit. Aside from the absurdity of this argument for the essentially capitalist endeavor that is our insurance industry, in what strange twist of reality did smoking and eating junk food cease to become choices?   And how does offering incentives for eliminating said activities, equate with penalizing those who choose not to partake? Even those with genetic predispositions to high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes would benefit from not smoking, from eating healthier and exercising more.  What do you think?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
How a Bill Doesn’t Become a Law
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

 

Share

The Match Game Of Healthcare That Works (Part II)

2255 views

“What is the sign of a healthy person? Such a person is happy anywhere. He or she is relaxed everywhere – always at ease and in peace, within and without. Even in hell, such a person will be at ease. A healthy person hates no one, dislikes nothing. Total love, universal love emanates from within. There is no tension anywhere, no stress or friction. These are the signs of real health.”

Swami Satchidananda

Make healthcare truly about you – your personal definition of “health”

From Part I of this Match Game series you have a sense of how a payment system (health insurance) has been setting the playing field determining what constitutes health and well-being for millions of Americans.

To experience healthcare that works for you, we have to change the nature of the game – “reset” our current paradigm.  This reset starts with your personal worldview of health and the relationship, or lack of relationship, between the physical, mental and emotional bodies (see related article).  This worldview will naturally integrate with your definition of health and well-being.

Crafting your personal worldview of health likely resulted in one of two primary worldviews:
• Newtonian – from the namesake of Isaac Newton.  Very simply, in this worldview the world is seen as a mechanical machine.  The physical body is like a machine, divided into parts to be worked on like a machine.   Mind and emotions have little, if any, impact on the physical being.  Healing is rarely considered.  Practitioners treat illness or disease in separate parts of the physical body.
• Quantum – from understanding the world through the lens of quantum physics.  Very simply, at a quantum level everything is interconnected.  Physical, emotional and mental aspects of our being influence each other.  Our outer world and inner world are also connected.  Consciousness matters.  This worldview encompasses healing.  Practitioners treat the person, not the disease.

You may have a blended worldview, or a different lens for different circumstances.  Whatever your result, keep this in mind as you explore the nature of “health.”

What is health?  What is well-being?  And, where does healing fit in?

Health does not mean the same thing to all people.  Reflect on the nature of health described in the opening quote of this article.   It is basically about one’s “being-ness.”  No mention of disease or of physical vitality.

Healthcare physicians, practitioners, all have a different view of what constitutes health, which has been influenced by their field study and experience.  Physicians can only engage with you from their framework of knowledge and understanding.  As a result, for example, you can now see that talking about well-being from a quantum lens with a physician with a Newtonian framework is a mismatch on many levels.  It’s likely both of you will be frustrated.  Having a mismatched partnership is not a good foundation for well-being and healing.

You deserve health and care that fits YOUR unique being, your worldview.   These are very personal decisions.  To find people for your healthcare team requires matching healthcare providers concepts of health to your beliefs and principles.  The starting point is not a list provided by an insurance company.  The starting point is your worldview of well-being and your personal definition of health.

Every medical science, from ancient sciences to current sciences, has a definition or a guiding principle of what “health” means.   Just like worldviews, these generally fall into two categories.

Newtonian health science

The current dictionary definition of health is “freedom from disease.” This is the view followed by most allopathic doctors (M.D.s).  This is the mechanical worldview.  The physical body is a machine made up of parts.   Think about that list of practitioners found in health insurance paperwork – it’s a list that divides the body into parts.   This health science focuses on disease management.  Osteopathic medicine (D.O.s) uses the same tools, treatments and technologies of medicine as M.D.s, so for these very general purposes, they fall in the Newtonian field.

If your worldview is generally Newtonian, you will likely be satisfied with allopathic specialists.  For each symptom you may need to seek a new “mechanic” to address different parts of your body.  You may be the one coordinating care between the various pieces.

Quantum health sciences

While quantum physics is considered a new science, the ancient medical sciences viewed “health” through a quantum lens ‒ systems of health in which everything is connected.  Side effects don’t exist in these older sciences.  There are only “effects” because these sciences have studied well-being and the impact of all their treatments and medicines on the entire mind/body/spirit system for hundreds and thousands of years.  These health sciences focus on healing, eliminating the root causes of suffering, and balance.

Ancient sciences include:

• Ayurveda is the traditional medicine from India, the sister science of yoga.  You may be familiar with this from Deepak Chopra.  Ayurveda is the science of life, with a very precise definition of health. “Health is the state where the Tridosha, digestive fire, body tissues and components, and physiological processes are in perfect unison; and the soul and the sense organs and mind are in a state of total satisfaction and content.”  While this seems to be a complex definition filled with Sanskrit words, the point is for 5,000 years this science has focused on what a healthy mind/body system is, and how to measure, attain and maintain health.
• Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is derived from Ayurveda, and so there are similarities.  Like Ayurveda, it is based on the notion of harmony and balance.  Health is viewed as a means to a good life – when an individual lives in harmony with her community and her physical and spiritual environment.  Many people are familiar with acupuncture, a primary TCM treatment to create overall balance.

Mid-millennium sciences include:

• Homeopathy, which is about 200 years old, believes one has a state of health when you experience freedom and creativity.  It’s interesting to consider how this seemingly simple definition effortlessly integrates physical, emotional, mental and spiritual aspects of well-being.  Disease is considered a breakdown of vital forces and can only be known according to symptoms – so all “symptoms” are of equal importance in treating the whole person.
• Naturopathy evolved from homeopathy.  Naturopathic medical schools include curriculum a range of medical sciences including TMC, homeopathy and herbal medicines.

If your worldview in primarily quantum, you will likely enjoy a positive relationship with doctors practicing these sciences to experience the essence of health you desire.  You may still need (or want) a team approach.  You’ll generally find physicians in the quantum sciences understand something about other quantum sciences, so you can actually achieve complementary care (meaning practitioners, treatments and medicines work well together, not in opposition to each other).

Your definition of health is what equips and empowers you to live your best life

Declaring “I want to be well;” or “I just want to not feel bad and get back to my life;” may seem like simple statements to make when requesting that a medical professional be your partner in well-being.  As we see from the viewpoints above, it’s not so simple.

This is why it’s really important to know at a very deep level what you’re seeking.  Be as clear with yourself as possible.   Research the essence of health, well-being, vitality, healing.  This article just provides some basic guidance to get you started.  Take your time.  And also be willing to evolve or change over time.  What starts as a quest for pain relief in a very allopathic sense of suppressing symptoms in a particular location may evolve to wanting to experience peace and freedom, regardless of physical challenges.

Being clear on what health and well-being mean to you puts you in the driver’s seat of this healthcare match game.   You have now declared your personal “reset” of the vast and complex healthcare system.  You can now confidently:

• Identify practitioners who actually fit your needs.
• Know when you have a mismatch and feel comfortable firing medical professionals who don’t resonate with your needs.
• Communicate effectively with your chosen professionals and develop strong partnerships with them.
• Know when to shift approaches if a particular physician or medicine/treatment isn’t working to support your journey to well-being.
• Spend your time, money and energy wisely, in a way that lets you experience your best life.
• Analyze what payment system (insurance) will work for your health, and make decisions based on what care fits your needs.  For example, if TCM or homeopathic is a fit for you, seek a payment system that pays for the care you use.  Alternatively, be confident that it’s okay to pay for care rather than contributing to an insurance corporation’s profit for “benefits” that don’t fit your needs and therefore you don’t use.  .

Resources you may enjoy to explore this further:
–The Quantum Doctor by Amit Goswami, PhD
–The Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton
–Other inspiring people who offer a range of views for your exploration:  Deepak Chopra, MD; Larry Dossey, MD; Greg Brayden and Stephen Schwartz

Note:  This is part an ongoing series to equip you with a process, a path, to identify and experience healthcare that works for you.
— Foundation:  The heart of healthcare that works:  know your personal worldview of health:  http://www.hormonesmatter.com/the-heart-of-healthcare-that-works-know-your-personal-worldview-of-health/
— The match Game of healthcare that works series ‒ Part I: Understand the landscape set by insurance companies: http://www.hormonesmatter.com/the-match-game-of-health-care-that-works-part-1/
— The match Game of healthcare that works series ‒ Part II:  (current article)

Deb is co-owner of Experience In Motion, which equips organizations with tools to curate meaningful experiences for customers and employees.  Deb’s personal journey from decay to wellbeing inspired an emphasis in improving healthcare experiences for patients and practitioners by focusing on experiences that heal, and self-caring as a way of organizational being.  www.experienceinmotion.net.

 

 

 

Share

Unite Walking Uteri: Repair the Economic Moral Fabric, One Woman at a Time

1375 views

For a website devoted to women’s hormone health research, I seem to write a lot about the current economic and political situation. That may seem odd on the surface, but a deeper dive reveals an inextricable connection. The recession has forced American values into re-alignment and like or not, health is at the center. And women’s health, because we bear children, is at the nexus.

As a woman, who has born children, I take offense to the fact that in political, economic and healthcare debates, women have become no more than walking uteri. From both the political Left and Right, our choices to bear or not bear children seem to represent the sum total of the interest in our health. Sometimes our breast health is considered and on a rare occasion other aspects of our physiology enter into public discourse and even research, but mostly it is our childbearing that garners the attention.

Even so, the pretense that the debates currently dominating the public arena involve anything closely related to women or health is false. These are debates about money and power—getting it and keeping it– and we are simply the tokens of that economy. But we don’t have to be, because as walking uteri, they have failed to recognize one important point- we can walk the other direction.

Although we are only 50% of the population, we consume 80% of the medical care and we control the medical decision-making in most families – that is our power. The makers of HRT know this all too well.  They saw their profits drop by as much 70% when the unfounded marketing claims that HRT cured everything came to light.  Millions of women transferred their consumer purchasing power to the bio-identical hormone, nutraceutical and other health-related industries. As hospitals began dictating C-sections, a whole movement of home-birth evolved; home-birth in the 21st century- who could have predicted that?  As more and more toxins are found in our foods and especially baby products, companies marketing healthy, organic products are born. Our uteri are walking right out the door and creating entire industries that place health and well-being center stage.

So, while politicians covet big money from the corporations that obliterated the economy and decimated women’s health; while protestors protest the profligate practices of Wall Street (finally) and pundits decide which side of the ratings fence they are on, women are quietly re-building the economy. Inc.com indicates that women lead 40% of all business in the US (2010), but received less than 8% of investment capital. Perhaps as a result of the lower capital, we are better at bootstrapping, have higher growth, better returns and our businesses succeed more frequently than companies led by men. Our companies are less risky; none of the high-flying financial shenanigans that got us into this mess in the first place. Perhaps because of the inequities in healthcare and research perpetrated on women by men interested only in the functionality of our collective uteri, we’re building companies that address women’s health-beyond the uterus.  Companies like Lucine, and many, many others.

Are the attempts to de-fund women’s health important, even though they pertain to the most narrow definition of health? Yes. They serve as a reminder that we have more power than we think. We are the consumer market that matters. We can take our consumer buying power and our voting power elsewhere. We can create the industries that matter to us. In doing so, we repair what David Brooks called the ‘moral fabric of our economy.’

Hormone health research and diagnostics matter to me and my colleagues at Lucine. What matters to you?

Share

The Heart of Healthcare that Works: Know Your Personal Worldview Of Health

2831 views

Healthcare Matters

“All the evidence that we have indicates that it is reasonable to assume in practically every human being, and certainly in almost every newborn baby, that there is an active will toward health, an impulse towards growth, or towards the actualization.”
–  Abraham Maslow

Google “healthcare” and it returns 99,900,000 results. Healthcare seems to be a vast, complex, inconsistent, and perhaps unavailable or expensive system ‒ sometimes seemingly devoid of personal connection.  At a minimum, it can be confusing to find what will work for you.  Really work for you, on all levels.

Here’s the good news:  when you define healthcare for yourself, the path towards growth and actualization Maslow speaks of becomes easier to find and follow.  Forget what healthcare is for your best friend, your family, or a generic patient with similar symptoms you read about online.  Forget about some list in your health insurance policy.   That’s just a list based on contractual relationships, which may or may not relate to what works best for you.

Healthcare is deeply, deeply personal.  Only you know what healthcare is for you. It depends on your values, your beliefs, your worldview.  And, those can change over time.

Finding healthcare that works for you is a bit like going on a quest – an adventurous exploration.  You have to know what you’re seeking, the signposts to know you’re on the right path, and some friendly support along the way (wisdom, people, or places) helps too.

To narrow the vast landscape of healthcare to what will work for you, begin by understanding, or perhaps taking this opportunity to create, your personal worldview of health, healing, and well-being.  If your choice of physicians, practices and medicines doesn’t resonate with your worldview, there will be discord.  Discord, at a minimum, makes communication with practitioners challenging.  In some medical sciences this discord would be believed to have a negative impact on healing at a very deep level.  Knowing your worldview gives you a foundation for harmonious choices.

To explore your worldview, some questions to ask yourself include:

• Do you believe health is based on primarily how each part of the physical body separately functions?
• Do you believe the mind can influence the physical body?
• Do you believe there is an interrelationship between mind, body and spirit; a holistic view of your being?
• Do you believe the body is basically like a machine (also identified as a Newtonian view of the world); and should be treated in a mechanical nature?
• Do you believe your choices – from the food you eat, to your relationships (including work), to the surroundings you live in – influence your well-being?
• Do you believe in a “one solution fits most” medicine; or that each person is unique and therefore may require varying paths to well-being, even if the diagnosis or symptoms are similar?
• Do you believe in treating the illness or the person with an illness?
• Do you believe in focusing on the disease (diagnosis, symptoms); or on health and well-being?
• Do you believe in healing, curing, pacifying symptoms, or something else?  Or all of those in different situations?
• Do you generally believe in an interconnected world?  Or a world where all beings and things are separate?

Answering these types of questions will significantly narrow the landscape of your quest – narrow down what will work for you. No one can answer these for you.  You may want to write a personal worldview statement to crystallize your worldview.

Equipped with your personal worldview of health you can then move on to the next steps in your quest:

• Identify what health, well-being and healing mean to you
• Know what qualities of care are important to you
• Understand what “medicines” resonate with you

In the coming articles we’ll delve into each of those areas with more questions to help you find healthcare that works for you.

 

Share