Pie Palace

I occasionally get emails regarding the Asperger test hosted here on PiePalace. Some of them are heartbreaking:

I am trying to find information on how to test my son for Asperger’s. [... he has a hard time socializing... has difficulties with kids his own age...] Our insurance does not provide for testing and I can not afford to have him tested.

I know Canada’s health care system has problems, but at least anyone can get their kid in front of a doctor.

CBC’s Canadian doctors should face regular testing: medical school head is a great example of poor journalism. The gist of the article is simple: a doctor has recommended that Canadian doctors should be periodically recertified. The journalist has found another doctor else who says “No! doctors shouldn’t be retested.” Without talking to the journalist, we can’t tell if that was to create a sense of conflict, or to make the story more “balanced.”

There are three problems here:

1. The No doctor’s statement:
   

   What we do every day is not really a book learning thing, [...] To say, in fact, that because you pass an exam makes you a good physician every 10 years is absolutely wrong.

   is exactly refuted by the CMAJ editorial:
   

   In Quebec, investigators found that family physicians’ scores on their certification examination and Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination were related to provision of quality care after 4–7 years in practice. More recently, Holmboe and colleagues found that physicians’ scores on the American Board of Internal Medicine’s Maintenance of Certification examination was associated with higher rates of performance in care for Medicare patients.

   which goes on to cite the studies in question.
2. The Yes doctor, Wendy Levinson has qualifications as a medical instructor, and appears to study how patients interact with their doctors and is a chair at department of medicine.
3. Meanwhile, the No doctor, Howard Conter does not appear to have any any relevant publications or appointments.

News stories like this are important. They get people to think about how healthcare is delivered in Canada, and how that can be reformed. It’s a pity that the story took the form of “she said, he said” instead of dipping into the empirical studies behind the editorial.

I don’t want to start out on the wrong foot here, so before I begin, let me say that I appreciate breasts. Not just any breasts, specifically, women’s breasts.

Although I’ve spent a fair portion of my life (figuratively) medatating on the female bosom, I haven’t put much thought to breast implants. For the most part, I’d just thought they were something that trashy wannabe starlets bought. Sure, there might be health concerns, but who cares? Who gets ‘em anyway?

That was before I stumbled across an ad for implants in Marie Claire magazine. The ad wasn’t all that notable, but the next page showed a listing of the health problems associated with new funbags.

Common risks associated with breast augmentation:

These numbers are much higher than those published in the Risks section of Implant Forum, but they’re published by the manufacturer, so I suspect that they’re lowballed.