I always loved science, specifically anatomy and physiology. I really loved when we got to dissect pigs and frogs in high school. As a psych major, we weren't required to take any advanced A&P courses in college, but we did get to do neuroscience. I loved it. During 'family dinners' my junior year of college, I would tell my housemates all about the brain, specific neurotransmitters, why people can't quit smoking, why smell is so strongly associated with memory, why we get drunk and then subsequent hangovers... I thought I was going to study the brain as a career. As it happened, I got the opportunity to work in a few very applied settings, and realized that I really love the application of science to solve practical problems.
However, if someone had told me that I would get to watch surgery as part of my professional life, I would've laughed. I feel like the luckiest person in the world when I get to go into the operating room. I am always amazed at what happens in there. Before we moved to Scotland, I used to get to go down to the cardiac surgery operating rooms whenever I wanted to and watch the surgeries (I wasn't just going down to watch, it's not a sporting event, I actually did some studies and all that). The awe never has worn off for me.
When I first started spending lots of time in the OR, my job was to help think of ways to improve teamwork and patient safety in the cardiac surgery division. However, that's pretty difficult when you know absolutely NOTHING about the task that the team is trying to accomplish. So for a few weeks, I just went down to the OR and watched. I remember the first surgery I was in, the surgeon introduced me to the team, and the circulating nurse asked if I was squeemish. I told her I didn't know, becuase I'd never seen anything like this before. She said 'if you start to feel woozy, just try to fall backward' (ie: not onto the sterile table). Helpful tip.
As the surgery started the circulator came over to me and said 'You can go stand up at the head of the table if you want'. So I went around where the anaesthetist stands, and asked if I could look over. Side note: in some surgical disciplines, they hang a sterile sheet between the patient's head, where the anesthetist works, and the surgical field. The sterile sheet is a bit like a huge flexible post-it, with adhesive on one side that sticks to the patient, and then gets pulled up and clipped to IV poles on the anaesthetic side. This way the anaesthetist can monitor the patient's head and all their equipment without worrying that it'll get blood on it from the surgery. Surgeons and anaesthetists call this the 'blood-brain barrier' (brain joke!). Anyway, so I went around and stood on a stool and looked over the sheet. The surgical assistant was watching me (probably for signs of faintness, and to make sure I didn't touch anything sterile), and when I caught his eye and almost laughed out loud. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was a heart! A real heart! It was beating, moving, keeping the patient alive, even though their chest was cracked open. It looked like a science project. As a novice, I almost forgot that there was a person, a living breathing thinking feeling person, attached to the open chest that I saw.
The heart is awesome (not in the 'duuuude! awesome!!' way, but in the formal definition of the word). It's not like a balloon that fills and then empties. Rather it's a muscle that twists on itself to push the blood through. It's such a complex thing. If you make a fist with your hand, and then squeeze it, pinky first, then ring finger, middle finger, index finger, and hold it, then release, that's a beat. It is a muscle. You can strengthen and train it like you can any other muscle, and it atrophies or stops working properly if you don't care for it. On the outside, it looks very smooth, usually pink, but it depends on the age of the patient and the progression of the disease. The inside is very complicated, lots of small compartments and intricate muscles and valves that open and close to allow blood and nutrients in and to push waste out. When one of these valves or chambers is broken, it means that bad things are coming in when they shouldn't, and good things aren't coming in when they should.
In order to do heart surgery, the team must stop the heart from beating (in most cases, sometimes they do beating heart surgeries) which they do by re-routing the blood into a machine that oxygenates it and sends it to the brain and body, and that takes the waste out when the blood comes back the other way. There are about a million very complex steps to this process, which I know very little about, despite some very patient and intelligent people explaining it to me over and over. This is called cardiopulmonary bypass. The point is, they have to stop your heart in order to fix it. They have to do a manual reset.
Throughout history, emotions have been associated with the heart, although most scientists will say that they exist because of interactions in the brain. I've said time and time again 'I know it in my heart' or 'my heart is telling me...', 'my heart goes out to you', 'my heart will go on' (just kidding) etc. Even in the bible there's reference to God hardening pharoh's heart. Aristotle (I think it was Aristotle) rejected the brain, seeing it a superfluous to the heart, which he thought was the seat of emotion and reason. Historically, the Egyptians thought that the heart was the center of emotion because the pulse would change with great emotion, and would create visible differences in the psyche.
There is some research that says that the heart has an effect on emotion because it effects blood flow to the brain and oxygenation, which makes sense. Negative emotions, stress, frustration, anxiety, can lead to heart diesease. It's also been shown that the heart has a very strong electromagnetic force, because of all the electrical activity that's going on in there. I suppose this is why sometimes I can swear that I've felt my heart hurt or swell or twinge when something really good or really bad is happening.
Its really interesting to consider that there's such a connection between the physiological and the psychological. I've heard that a lot of heart surgery patients feel like their heart is giving up on them when they are faced with heart or valve disease. Like their heart rejected their body. Maybe all it needed was a manual reset? I don't know. There's a small but forceful push in medicine to start to investigate more holistic treatments for patients- ie: treat the patient not the disease. Using things like yoga, psychological therapy, homeopathy, etc. as a compliment to surgical intervention to fix a leaky mitral valve.
In my work, I don't interact much with patients, rather with their care-givers, hoping to improve the system in which the care-givers work, thus improving outcomes for patients. But this is a really interesting, and entirely different perspective that I've only recently begun to think about. Obviously, it's something I need to think about more.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
My Americanicity is as gooder than you
I wanted to write my first post on this blog when I got inspired enough to say something that mattered to me. Over the course of the last six months, I've had several unique opportunities to experience being an American in a different way than how I grew up. I've lived in a foreign country since June 2009, and I only know one other American in Aberdeen other than my wife.
Several months ago, I bought dinner form a fish & chips shop down the street, and struck up a conversation with the owner while my fish was in the fryer. He asked if I was American, I told him I was, and he asked if I had voted for Obama. I smiled and nodded, not sure of how he would respond. He gave me a big thumbs-up and said in a eastern European accent," I love Obama! He is great man, and I wish my country had him."
Admittedly, I've toned down my political intensity level since the elections, and Sarah's been keeping me up to date on the progress of various legislation and political warfare. I still read CNN and BBC, but much more casually than during the elections. Once Obama had been elected, I thought I'd let him take it from there. But, today was different. Today, the House of Representatives passed history-making legislation to help provide health insurance to many of our citizens who are so desperately in need. Estimates put the number of uninsured Americans at 32 million. As Sarah and I went to sleep last night, the vote still hadn't occurred and we wouldn't know the outcome would be.
When we woke this morning, we read the news and I was...happy. Not bouncing off the walls, but happy. As the day went on, I thought more and more about what had just happened. An initiative that traces its roots back to President Theodore Roosevelt has taken a monumental step. Millions of people can now afford to take care of their own bodies. It is truly a great day. A day to be proud! To be excited for what we have accomplished! There are certainly plenty of those out there who disagree with providing cheaper health insurance, though those complaints seem to come mostly from people who already have it. But, like so many other issues, we disagree and we must move on.
As I close, I'd like to say that I am a Democrat. I'm a damn proud Democrat, but I am a prouder American. I take personal offense to the notion being spread out there that Democrats are unpatriotic, socialists who either want to see our great country fail, or were stupid enough to be duped into voting for someone who does. My wife and I are intelligent, well educated, and have a roof over our heads and food on our table every day. However, we understand that we are not all given the same fortunes of life; that alone, we cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It is NOT okay to acknowledge that tremendous gaps exist in our country and to say," well, that's just the way it is." We must strive each day to eradicate poverty and ignorance, to improve the lives of our fellow man no matter if it takes one presidential term or one million. We who have, must extendour hand to those who have not. My government ought to be an extension of that thought, and today, to my deep gratification, it was.
Cheers.
-Mike
Several months ago, I bought dinner form a fish & chips shop down the street, and struck up a conversation with the owner while my fish was in the fryer. He asked if I was American, I told him I was, and he asked if I had voted for Obama. I smiled and nodded, not sure of how he would respond. He gave me a big thumbs-up and said in a eastern European accent," I love Obama! He is great man, and I wish my country had him."
Admittedly, I've toned down my political intensity level since the elections, and Sarah's been keeping me up to date on the progress of various legislation and political warfare. I still read CNN and BBC, but much more casually than during the elections. Once Obama had been elected, I thought I'd let him take it from there. But, today was different. Today, the House of Representatives passed history-making legislation to help provide health insurance to many of our citizens who are so desperately in need. Estimates put the number of uninsured Americans at 32 million. As Sarah and I went to sleep last night, the vote still hadn't occurred and we wouldn't know the outcome would be.
When we woke this morning, we read the news and I was...happy. Not bouncing off the walls, but happy. As the day went on, I thought more and more about what had just happened. An initiative that traces its roots back to President Theodore Roosevelt has taken a monumental step. Millions of people can now afford to take care of their own bodies. It is truly a great day. A day to be proud! To be excited for what we have accomplished! There are certainly plenty of those out there who disagree with providing cheaper health insurance, though those complaints seem to come mostly from people who already have it. But, like so many other issues, we disagree and we must move on.
As I close, I'd like to say that I am a Democrat. I'm a damn proud Democrat, but I am a prouder American. I take personal offense to the notion being spread out there that Democrats are unpatriotic, socialists who either want to see our great country fail, or were stupid enough to be duped into voting for someone who does. My wife and I are intelligent, well educated, and have a roof over our heads and food on our table every day. However, we understand that we are not all given the same fortunes of life; that alone, we cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It is NOT okay to acknowledge that tremendous gaps exist in our country and to say," well, that's just the way it is." We must strive each day to eradicate poverty and ignorance, to improve the lives of our fellow man no matter if it takes one presidential term or one million. We who have, must extendour hand to those who have not. My government ought to be an extension of that thought, and today, to my deep gratification, it was.
Cheers.
-Mike
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Renaissance Man
One of the hardest questions that I've ever been asked is 'what do you want to be when you grow up?' Seriously, I have absolutely no idea. Still. And I'm getting a PhD. Not that that makes me smart, rather it makes me specialized an a really specific area. Really, is that a good idea?? ONE specific area? I dunno about this.
When I was a kid and people would as me that question, my response was 'a ballerina, a mom, a lion tamer, a doctor, a dentist, a pastor...' all at the same time. I would say this list in one big breath. I am sure whoever asked the question was like 'Oh what a lovely little girl. It wouldn't hurt to smack her every once in a while'. I wanted to do everything, and I wanted to do it ASAP. Can't wait. There's too much to do! In college, I decided on psychology mainly because it allowed me to study people, which is just about the only thing I'm good at.
I asked Mike what he used to say to this question and he said a policeman then a businessman (like his dad), then a musician. In college he thought about psychology, religion, politics... all very different with a wide variety of practical applications. His desires had a more logical, reasonable progression. (This is one of my favorite things about Mike- he's very thoughtful about everything.) Even as a kid, he wanted to find a profession that involved things he liked doing and do things that people he admired did.
For both of us, as we've gotten older and despite the fact that we both have advanced degrees, the answers aren't much clearer. My answers have become 'an improviser, a researcher, a doctor, an actor, a writer, a psychologist, a political operative, a chef, a mom...' Mike's answer is 'Lets just say, work in progress.'
All of this has made me wonder about historical figures that have managed to excel in many different disciplines, specifically how were they able to become experts in so many different fields? Ben Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Schweitzer, Leon Battista Alberti, Nikola Tesla. How did they do it? Were they insomniacs? Where did they get the money to learn for so long? How were they able to think so deeply about so many different things? What books were on their bedside tables? How did they become Rennaisance Men?
A Renaissance man is someone that excels in many different fields. Predictably, the idea comes from the Italian Renaissance, a time of open and extensive creative and scientific exploration. During that time, people believed in Renaissance humanism, or the idea that humans are "empowered, limitless in their capacities for development, and led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible." (Wikipedia- I'm a little ashamed). People sought to develop skills in all areas of knowledge, in physical development, in social accomplishments, and in the arts.
But being a Renaissance man takes this idea one step further. You can't just be interested in lots of different things at a superficial level- that makes you a generalist. You have to be more thoughtful than that- proficient, accomplished etc. in many fields. You need to play an instrument, write non-fiction, be able to program a computer, speak German and Norwegian, and publish your poetry in a peer reviewed journal regularly. Oh yeah, and be athletic. So when you're done with that history on the origins of macadamia nuts, go run a marathon.
As a graduate and ongoing student of a liberal arts education, I think this is a great idea. I subscribe completely to the philosophy that humans are limitless in their capacity, the idea that it's not just your academic pursuits that are important. It's more than that- it's art, it's deep thought, it's physical. It's learned from more places than a classroom.
However, it occurs to me that this is incredibly difficult in this day and age. We are not interested in polymaths. Even the colloquial 'jack of all trades, master of none' is used in a self deprecating way. We want experts. Superspecialization is highly valued- you don't have doctors, you have orthopedic surgeons with an interest in 2nd knuckle breaks of the left index finger. And, I would bet, if you had a break in that pesky 2nd knuckle, you'd want the specialist, not a generalist. I would too. Our education system isn't built to accomodate a specialization in more than 3 subjects. And 3 is probably too generous. And as you get further and further into education, you get more and more specialized; my academic journey is a perfect example. First I studied lots of stuff, then psychology, then human factors, and now leadership. It's like an upward funnel. And as you go up through that funnel, you get more financial rewards, so there is implicit (or explicit) value associated with increased narrowing.
I looked and couldn't find a good example of 'today's renaissance man'. I wish we had one. Is there too much knowledge out there, too many particulars, for anyone to be an expert in more than one subset of one topic of one subject?
We'll just call this a work in progress.
When I was a kid and people would as me that question, my response was 'a ballerina, a mom, a lion tamer, a doctor, a dentist, a pastor...' all at the same time. I would say this list in one big breath. I am sure whoever asked the question was like 'Oh what a lovely little girl. It wouldn't hurt to smack her every once in a while'. I wanted to do everything, and I wanted to do it ASAP. Can't wait. There's too much to do! In college, I decided on psychology mainly because it allowed me to study people, which is just about the only thing I'm good at.
I asked Mike what he used to say to this question and he said a policeman then a businessman (like his dad), then a musician. In college he thought about psychology, religion, politics... all very different with a wide variety of practical applications. His desires had a more logical, reasonable progression. (This is one of my favorite things about Mike- he's very thoughtful about everything.) Even as a kid, he wanted to find a profession that involved things he liked doing and do things that people he admired did.
For both of us, as we've gotten older and despite the fact that we both have advanced degrees, the answers aren't much clearer. My answers have become 'an improviser, a researcher, a doctor, an actor, a writer, a psychologist, a political operative, a chef, a mom...' Mike's answer is 'Lets just say, work in progress.'
All of this has made me wonder about historical figures that have managed to excel in many different disciplines, specifically how were they able to become experts in so many different fields? Ben Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Schweitzer, Leon Battista Alberti, Nikola Tesla. How did they do it? Were they insomniacs? Where did they get the money to learn for so long? How were they able to think so deeply about so many different things? What books were on their bedside tables? How did they become Rennaisance Men?
A Renaissance man is someone that excels in many different fields. Predictably, the idea comes from the Italian Renaissance, a time of open and extensive creative and scientific exploration. During that time, people believed in Renaissance humanism, or the idea that humans are "empowered, limitless in their capacities for development, and led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible." (Wikipedia- I'm a little ashamed). People sought to develop skills in all areas of knowledge, in physical development, in social accomplishments, and in the arts.
But being a Renaissance man takes this idea one step further. You can't just be interested in lots of different things at a superficial level- that makes you a generalist. You have to be more thoughtful than that- proficient, accomplished etc. in many fields. You need to play an instrument, write non-fiction, be able to program a computer, speak German and Norwegian, and publish your poetry in a peer reviewed journal regularly. Oh yeah, and be athletic. So when you're done with that history on the origins of macadamia nuts, go run a marathon.
As a graduate and ongoing student of a liberal arts education, I think this is a great idea. I subscribe completely to the philosophy that humans are limitless in their capacity, the idea that it's not just your academic pursuits that are important. It's more than that- it's art, it's deep thought, it's physical. It's learned from more places than a classroom.
However, it occurs to me that this is incredibly difficult in this day and age. We are not interested in polymaths. Even the colloquial 'jack of all trades, master of none' is used in a self deprecating way. We want experts. Superspecialization is highly valued- you don't have doctors, you have orthopedic surgeons with an interest in 2nd knuckle breaks of the left index finger. And, I would bet, if you had a break in that pesky 2nd knuckle, you'd want the specialist, not a generalist. I would too. Our education system isn't built to accomodate a specialization in more than 3 subjects. And 3 is probably too generous. And as you get further and further into education, you get more and more specialized; my academic journey is a perfect example. First I studied lots of stuff, then psychology, then human factors, and now leadership. It's like an upward funnel. And as you go up through that funnel, you get more financial rewards, so there is implicit (or explicit) value associated with increased narrowing.
I looked and couldn't find a good example of 'today's renaissance man'. I wish we had one. Is there too much knowledge out there, too many particulars, for anyone to be an expert in more than one subset of one topic of one subject?
We'll just call this a work in progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)