Don’t Blur the Message on Cancer Screening

This week the USPSTF renewed its position on ovarian cancer screening. The panel reminded the public that there’s no value in doing blood tests, like measuring the CEA, or having sonograms to evaluate healthy-feeling women for the possibility of ovarian cancer. One problem with the CEA measurement is that it goes up in various conditions; it’s not a specific test. Similarly, abdominal ultrasounds tend to pick up all kinds of blobby images that are rarely ovarian tumors. More often than not, ovarian cancer screening tests lead women to undergo more tests, such as CT scans and even surgery, without any benefit. The CEA tests and ultrasounds rarely “catch” ovarian tumors in an early stage.

This information on the lack of effective ovarian cancer screening methods is hardly news. What I hope is that this week’s headlines and editorials don’t add to the blurriness of the public’s perception of cancer screening – that people might think it’s a bad thing all around. The details matter. For some cancers, screening the general population – if it’s done right – can save lives and dollars. That’s because for most tumor types, treating advanced, metastatic disease is costlier than treatment of early-stage, curable tumors.

A few words on other cancers and screening –

Prostate cancer screening by PSA testing has never been shown to save lives. Because prostate cancer is unusual in young men and occurs commonly in elderly men, and in those cases tends to be slow-growing, screening’s potential – even if it were safe and effective – to save men’s life-years is limited. What’s different, also – and I think this is where some journalists get the story wrong by omission – is that early treatment of prostate cancer is rarely beneficial. By contrast, early treatment of breast cancer is often life-saving.

Lung cancer screening may be helpful in people at high risk, such as smoking, but one could argue that the CT scans used in those studies – which involve more radiation exposure than do mammograms, besides that they’re more costly – need a higher threshold of benefit to justify their use.

Colon cancer screening has been shown to save lives. For this tumor type, I think the issue is whether it’s worth doing colonoscopy in everyone over the age of 50, periodically, or better to test everyone for tiny amounts of blood (or, in the future, cancerous DNA markers) in the stool. Checking for occult blood in stood samples is a simple and perfectly safe method of getting a little bit of information about the probability of someone having a polyp or frank malignancy in the gut. If people who want to be screened for colon cancer would reliably take a sampling, it’s possible they might safely skip colonoscopy if there’s no evidence for bleeding or other signs of disease.

As for cervical cancer screening, that has definitely been an advance. Pap smears and other liquid cytology methods, now, perhaps HPV testing, have successfully countered this disease. Years ago, women would present, typically in their 30s, 40s or 50s, with large cancers pushing into the body of the uterus and lower abdomen. These were rarely curable. Rather than a scrape, or slightly bigger procedure in a gynecologist’s office, the women needed hysterectomies and radiation to the pelvis, which caused problems down the road if they were lucky and survived. In communities where young women get gynecological care now, we rarely see advanced cases of cervical cancer. For this disease, the question now is in fine-tuning the frequency of screening and understanding how HPV tests can inform or supplement the Pap smear.

As for mammography in breast cancer screening, please don’t get me wrong. I am not fixed in my position that it’s worthwhile and should be performed every other year in most women over the age of 40 until they reach the age of 70 or so, depending on their wishes and overall health. Rather, I acknowledge it’s far from a perfect screening tool, and I genuinely hope that in the future we’ll prevent breast cancer entirely or at least find a better, safer way to detect it early on. But until that happens, for the time being, mammography is a well-established, routine procedure that is the best we’ve got to prevent tens of thousands of middle-aged women from dying every year in the U.S. from metastatic BC.

I generally ascribe to the “less is more” school of medicine. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore early-stage breast tumors, especially when they occur in young-ish women. Rather, it means that we should treat what cancers we do find carefully and conservatively, with the least therapy needed to raise a woman’s chances of leading a normal, healthy and full life.

All for now,

ES

Related Posts:

Notes on the Social History of American Medicine, Self Reliance and Health Care, Today

Over my vacation I read a bit on the history of health care in the United States. The Social Transformation of American Medicine, by Paul Starr, was first published in 1982. The author, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton, gives a fascinating, relevant account in two chunks. In the first section, he details the rise of professional authority among physicians in the U.S. In the second part, he focuses on the relationship of doctors to corporations and government.

I couldn’t put this book down. Seriously, it’s a page-turner, at least in the first half, for anyone who cares about medical education, doctors’ work, and how people find and receive health care. In an early chapter, on medicine in colonial and early 19th Century America, Starr recounts the proliferation of medical schools and doctors, or so-called doctors, in the years after 1812. One problem of that era, besides a general lack of scientific knowledge about disease, was that it didn’t take much to get a medical degree. State licensing laws didn’t exist for the most part, and where they did come in place, such as in New York City, they were later rescinded. Then as now, many practicing folks didn’t want regulations.

Doctors were scarce and not always trustworthy. People, especially in rural areas, chose or had to be self-reliant. Many referred to lay sources for information. Starr writes of the “domestic” tradition of medical care:

…Women were expected to deal with illness in the home and to keep a stock of remedies on hand; in the fall, they put away medicinal herbs as they stored preserves. Care of the sick was part of the domestic economy for which the wife assumed responsibility. She would call on networks of kin and community for advice and illness when illness struck…

As he describes it, one book – William Buchan’s Domestic Medicine, was reprinted at least 30 times. It included a section on causes of disease and preventive measures, and a section on symptoms and treatments. By the mid 19th Century a book by John C. Gunn, also called Domestic Medicine, or Poor Man’s Friend…offered health advice in plain language.

Starr considers these and other references in the context of Protestantism, democracy and early American culture:

…while the domestic medical guides were challenging professional authority and asserting that families could care for themselves, they were also helping to lay the cultural foundations of modern medical practice – a predominantly secular view of sickness…the authority of medicine now reached the far larger number who could consult a physician’s book.

Reading this now, I can’t help but think of the Internet and other popular and accessible resources that challenge or compete with doctors’ authority. Other elements of Starr’s history pertain to current debates on medical education, credentialing and distribution of providers.

Just days ago, for example, the New York Times ran an editorial on a trend of getting Health Care Where You Work. The paper reported on Bellin Health, an allegedly non-profit entity, that designs on-site clinics for medium-sized companies. “It has managed to rein in costs while improving the availability and quality of care — in large part by making it easier for patients to see nurses and primary care doctors,” according to the Times opinion. The clinics are “staffed part-time by nurses, nurse practitioners or physician assistants, who handle minor injuries and illnesses, promote healthy living and conduct preventive screenings.”

The editorial touts Dartmouth Atlas data and other high marks for the care Bellin provides at low costs to possibly happy workers and their satisfied employers. Still, it’s not clear to me that an on-site clinic would be a great or even a good place to seek care if you had a subtle blood disorder or something like the newly-reported Heartland virus.

On reading the editorial on delivering health care to the workplace, I was reminded of Starr’s tale of the development of clinics at railroad and mining companies in the first half of the 20th Century. This happened mainly is rural areas where few doctors lived, at industry sites where injuries were frequent. The workers, by Starr’s account, were generally suspicious of the hired physicians and considered them inferior to private doctors whom they might choose if they became ill. They resented paying mandatory fees to support those on-site doctors’ salaries. Doctors’ groups, like the AMA, generally opposed and even ostracized those “company doctors” for selling out, or themselves, at a lower price.

The second half of the Social Transformation, on failed attempts at reform before 1982, is somewhat but not entirely outdated in light of Obamacare and 40 years intervening. But many of the issues, such as consideration of the “market” for doctors and the number of physicians we need, relate to the papers of this week including an Economix column by another Princeton professor, Uwe Reinhardt, who puts forth a view that, well, I don’t share. As I understand his position, Reinhardt suggests that there may be no real shortage of doctors, because physicians can always scrunch their workloads to fit the time allotted. But that’s a separate matter…

In sum, on the Social Transformation, today: Worthwhile! Curious! Pertinent! Starr’s book is chock full of history “lessons” that might inform medical practice in 2012. And I haven’t even mentioned my favorite segments – on prohibiting doctors’ advertisements (think websites, now), the average workload of physicians before 1900 (think 5 or so patients per day), and the impact of urbanization on medical care and doctors’ lives and specialization.

Lots to think about, and read.

All for now,

ES

 

Related Posts:

Breakfast Will Never Be the Same Again

#Ordinary, heart-wrenching: “I remember one time when my mom asked me to get her a bowl of Cheerios, and we ate them together” – http://bit.ly/OsFfHO

I couldn’t fit the hash-tagged words above, with the link, into 140 characters. So here’s a post for the weekend and school year ahead:

Some of the breast cancer bloggers have been posting lately on the ordinary things that contribute to our well-being. The idea is one I’ve considered previously and attribute in part to Mom-blogger and post-lymphoma person Jen Singer, who once wrote about the immeasurable value of doing laundry, or something like that.

The point is – it’s not all about the vacations in Thailand, birthdays and rock concerts. Or opera, if you’re into that. Rather, it’s the everyday stuff that fills our lives.

Before I get too Hallmarky…

This morning Lisa Fields, aka @PracticalWisdom, sent a Tweet that caught my interest. Nominally, it was on the “geography of verbs” as considered in a commencement address. I clicked. The Guilford College speaker, author Patti Digh, recalled a young family that appeared a few years back on the Oprah show.

The mom was dying, with cancer. Digh recounts:

After she died, Oprah welcomed the family back to her show and asked the kids a question: “What is one of your favorite memories of your mom?” I’m sure Oprah imagined they would talk about swimming with dolphins or one of their big adventures with her, but the little girl said very quietly, “I remember one time when my mom asked me to get her a bowl of Cheerios, and we ate them together.”

Bingo. It’s the little stuff, as Digh explains. What the child – or an adult “survivor” in the sense of one who outlives the person and remembers selectively – values may or may not match what matters most to the patient.

This is the opposite, or at least a twist in perspective, relative to what the bloggers are talking about. And it’s the same. A logical puzzle, maybe, for life.

#EveryDayMatters.

Enjoy the weekend, all!

Related Posts:

Why Hurricanes Remind Me of Patient Care

Last week, Tropical Storm Isaac started tracking toward the Gulf of Mexico. As usual, the prediction models offered varying forecasts. Nonetheless, by this weekend a consensus emerged that the tempestuous weather system would, most likely, affect the City of New Orleans.

National Hurricane Center image

The Mayor, Mitch Landrieu, didn’t panic. I watched him on TV on Sunday evening in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett. Isaac wasn’t a hurricane yet, although a Category I or II storm was predicted by then. He didn’t order an evacuation. Rather, he emphasized the unpredictable nature of storms. There’d be business as usual the next day, on Monday morning August 27. Mind the weather reports, and do what you need to do, he suggested to the citizens. He did mention there’d be buses for people who registered.

“Don’t worry,” was the gist of his message to the citizens of New Orleans. The levees should hold. He exuded confidence. Too much, perhaps.

Some people are drawn to leaders – or doctors – who blow off signs of a serious problem. “It’s nothing,” they might say to a woman who fell after skiing and hit her head, or to a man with a history of lymphoma who develops swollen glands and fever. It’s trendy, now, and sensible, to be cost-conscious in medical care. This is a terrific approach except when it misses a treatable and life-threatening condition or one that’s much less expensive to fix earlier than later.

“Every storm is different,” meteorologist Chad Myers informs us.

Like tumors. Sometimes you see one that should have a favorable course, like a node-negative, estrogen-receptor breast tumor in a 65 year old woman, but it spreads to a woman’s bones within a year. Or a lymphoma in a 40 year old man that looks to be aggressive under the light microscope but regresses before the patient has gone for a third opinion. But these are both exceptions. Cancer can be hard to predict; each case is a little different. Still, there are patterns and trends, and insights learned from experience with similar cases and common ways of spreading. Sometimes it’s hard to know when to treat aggressively. Other times, the pathology is clear. Sometimes you’re wrong. Sometimes you’re lucky….

In New Orleans, the Mayor’s inclination was to let nature take its course. He’s confident in the new levees, tested now by Isaac’s slow pace and prolonged rains. I do hope they hold.

Related Posts:

Talking About Physician Burnout, and Changing the System

Dear Readers,
I have a new story at the Atlantic Health. It’s on burnout among physicians. The problem is clear: Too many have a hard time finding satisfaction in the workplace. Many struggle with work-life balance and symptoms of depression.

With many difficult situations, the first step in solving a problem is in acknowledging it exists. After that, you can understand it and, hopefully, fix it. Our health care system now, as it functions in most academic medical centers and dollar-strapped hospitals, doesn’t give doctors much of a break, or slack, or “joy,” as Dr. Vineet Arora suggested in an interview. You can read about it here. The implications for patients are very real.

Glad to see that research is ongoing about physicians’ stress, fatigue and depression. Thank you to Drs. Tait Shanafelt, Mary Brandt, Vineet Arora and others for addressing these under-studied and under-discussed issues in medicine. Through this kind of work, policy makers and hospital administrators might better know how to keep doctors in the workforce, happy and healthy.

ES

Related Posts:

Living Like It’s Shark Week, Take 3

It’s Shark Week, or at least that’s the situation over at Discovery Channel. The annual, virtual immersion into the world of cartilaginous fish has been adopted by your author as some sort of metaphor, but she’s not sure for what.

“Live every week like it’s shark week” is a puzzle. In fact, this statement in a 30 Rock episode lurks at the periphery of Medical Lessons year-round. By now I should confess I’ve never watched an entire Shark Week program. But that doesn’t stop me from wondering about the significance.

Remotely, it’s about mental health. Science, too. I could head into a discourse on cartilage and the alleged beneficial effects for illnesses like cancer, but I don’t believe there’s any evidence to support those claims. Surely, Shark Week has to do with whether you embrace more risk or take a safe route, swim where divers go or watch TV about nature. At another level, it’s about time – a reminder that there are only so many days and nights in each week, in each month, in each year, by which we mark our lives.

So it’s about mortality. Maybe.

An alternative theory is that Shark Week is entirely devoid of deep meaning. It could be nothing more than a tool by which the Discovery Channel turns a profit in August. This year, the event was delayed until August 12. Although I’ve never taken a course in cable network programming, I would hazard a guess that this scheduling change had to do with the end of the Olympics programming that same day.

For 2012, I’ve decided to celebrate Shark Week by not watching TV. Furthermore, I won’t write on anything that has to do with breast cancer or hard science. This morning, I walked to a beach and went for a swim before breakfast. It was fantastic.

Enjoy August! And please rest up, dear readers, because I’m likely to get serious again, soon,

ES

Related Posts:

Another Take on Not Smoking, the Law and Tolerance

The New Yorker published a story this week, on smoking, that caught my attention. It’s by none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald. The author died in 1940 at the age of 44, after a ruinous period of addictions including alcoholism, debts and other problems.

F. Scott Fitzgerald (June, 1937), photo by Carl van Vechten

Thank You for the Light dates to 1936. The main character is a woman: “Mrs. Hanson was a pretty, somewhat faded woman of forty…” She sold girdles and craved cigarettes. Smoking had the power to “rest and relax her psychologically.” He describes her growing frustration at not being able to take a drag in offices where she did business.

The story suggests that although public and workplace smoking wasn’t illegal back then, it was frowned upon in cities like Chicago. The protagonist longs for past years and places where she could chat and share a drink or cigarette with clients after work. Times had changed, she reflects.

In Fitzgerald’s words:

…Not only was she never asked if she would like to smoke but several times her own inquiry as to whether anyone would mind was answered half apologetically with ‘It’s not that I mind, but it has a bad influence on the employees.’

This vignette offers a 1930s perspective on what some call social health – that an individual’s behavior might be influenced by neighbors’ and coworkers’ attitudes. In this story, the woman finds solace in a church. I won’t give away the ending.

The short read lingers. What’s unsettling, still, is whether the socially-driven ban on smoking helped or harmed the woman.

According to the New Yorker’s Page-Turner, the magazine rejected Fitzgerald’s story when he submitted the piece. The writer’s granddaughter recently uncovered it. This time around, it passed muster.

 

Related Posts:

A Closer Look at the Details on Mammography, in Between the Lines

Recently I wrote a review of Between the Lines, a helpful handbook on bio-medical statistics authored by an acquaintance and colleague, Dr. Marya Zilberberg. In that post, I mentioned my concern about some of the assumptions and statements on mammography. One thing I liked the book, abstractly, is the author’s efforts to streamline the discussion so that the reader can follow the concepts. But simplification and rounding numbers, “for ease of presentation” (p. 29) can mess up facts, significantly in ways that some primary care doctors and journalists might not appreciate. And so I offer what I hope is a clarification, or at least an extension of my colleague’s work, for purposes of helping women understand the potential benefits and risks of mammography.

In the section on mammography (pp. 28-31), the author rounds down the incidence of breast cancer in women between the ages of 40 and 50 years, from “1 in 70” (1.43%) to “1 in 100” (1%). As any marketing professional might remind us, this small change represents a 30% drop (0.43/1.43) in the rate of breast cancer in women of that age group. This difference – of 30%, or 43%, depending on how you look at it – will factor into any calculation of the false positive (FP) rate and the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test.

For women ages 40-49 Have breast cancer Don’t have breast cancer
If estimate 1 in 100, 1.0 % 100 9,900
If estimate 1 in 70, 1.43 % 143 9,857

Keep in mind that these same, proportional difference would apply to any BC screening considerations – in terms of the number of women affected, the potential benefits and costs, for the 22,996,493 women between the ages of 40 and 49 counted in the 2010 U.S. Census,

My colleague estimates, fairly for this younger age group of women (who are relatively disposed to fast-growing tumors), that the screening technology (mammography) only picks up 80% of cases; 20% go undetected. In other words – the test is 80% sensitive; the false negative, FN, rate is 20%. In this same section, she considers that the FP rate as 10%. Let’s accept this (unacceptably high) FP rate for now, for the sake of discussion.

As considered in Between the Lines:

If FP rate is 10%, prevalence 1 in 100 Really have BC Don’t have BC Total
Mammography + 80 990 1,070
Mammography – 20 8,910 8,930
Total 100 9,900 10,000

But the above numbers aren’t valid, because the disease affects over 1 in 70 women in this age bracket. Here’s the same table with a prevalence of 1 in 70 women with BC:

If FP rate is 10%, prevalence 1 in 70 Really have BC Don’t have BC Total
Mammography + 114 986 1,100
Mammography – 29 8,871 8,900
Total 143 9,857 10,000

In this closer approximation to reality, the number of true positives is 114, and false positives 986, among 1,100 abnormal screening results. Now, the PPV of an abnormal mammogram is 114/ (114+986) = 10.4%. So the main statistical point – apart from the particulars of this discussion –  is that a seemingly slight rounding down can have a big impact on a test’s calculated and perceived value. By adjusting the BC rate to its prevalence of approximately 1 in 70 women between 40 and 49 years, we’ve raised the PPV from 7.5% to 10.4%.

Here I must admit that I, too, have rounded, although I did so conservatively very slightly. I adopted a 1 in 70 approximation (1.43%) instead of 1 in 69 (1.45%), as indicated on the NCI website. If we repeat the table and figures using a 1 in 69 or 1.45% prevalence rate and 6% FPS, the PPV rises a tad, to 10.5%.

Now, we might insert a different perspective: What if the false positive rate were 6%, as has been observed among sub-specialist radiologists who work mainly in breast cancer screening?

If FP rate is 6%, prevalence 1 in 70 Really have BC Don’t have BC Total
Mammography + 114 591 705
Mammography – 29 9266 9,295
Total 143 9,857 10,000

As you can see, if we use a FP rate of 6% in our calculations, the total number of FPs drops to 591 among 10,000 women screened. In this better-case scenario, the PPV of the test would = 114/ (114+591) =16%. Still, that’s not great – and I’d argue that public health officials, insurers and patients should be pushing for FP rates closer to 2 or 3% – but that’s irrelevant to my colleague’s point and her generally instructive work.

My second concern has to do with language, and making the consequences of false positives seem worse than they really are. On page 29, the author writes: “ So, going back to the 10,000 women being screened, of 9,900 who do NOT have cancer… 10%, or 990 individuals will still be diagnosed as having cancer.” The fact is, the overwhelming majority of women with positive mammograms won’t receive a cancer diagnosis. Rather, they’ll be told they have “an abnormal result, or a finding that suggests the possibility of cancer and needs further evaluation,” or something along those lines. It would be unusual in practice to jump from a positive mammogram straight to a breast cancer diagnosis. There are steps between, and every patient and journalist should be aware of those.


Finally, if I were to write what I really think, apart from and beyond Between the Lines – I’d suggest the FP rate should be no higher than 2 or 3% in 2012. This is entirely feasible using extant technology, if we were to change just two aspects of mammography practice in the U.S. First, require that all mammograms be performed by breast radiologists who get extra training and focus in their daily work almost exclusively on breast imaging. Second, make sonograms – which, together with mammograms, enhance the specificity of BC screening in women with dense breasts– universally available to supplement the radiologists’ evaluations of abnormal mammograms and dense breasts in younger women.

By implementing these two changes, essentially supporting the practice of sub-specialists in breast radiology, we could significantly lower the FP rate in breast cancer screening. The “costs” of those remaining FPs could be minimized by judicious use of sonograms, needle biopsies and other measures to reduce unnecessary surgery and over-treatment. Over the long haul, we need to educate doctors not to over-treat early stage disease, but that goes far beyond this post and any one woman’s analysis of mammography’s effectiveness.

All for now,
ES

Related Posts:

What Does a Bikini Parade Have to Do with Breast Cancer?

A recurring question on this blog is this: Is there a limit, in terms of appropriateness or “correctness,” in fundraising for causes that would help put an end to breast cancer?

My blogging colleague and friend, fellow BC ~survivor/advocate/NBCC summit attendee and former chemo recipient, AnneMarie Ciccarella, @chemobrainfog wrote about an upcoming bikini parade planned by a tanning salon owner in Madison Lake, MN. Proceeds from the march will go toward a nonprofit group called the Breast Cancer Natural Prevention Foundation (preventbc.org). This true story is problematic at many levels, as AnneMarie points out.

But sometimes an extreme case of something – here what’s billed as a BC fundraiser – can be instructive. A few months ago I wrote about Boobstagram – a French website that asks women to submit pictures of their breasts to increase awareness of the value of healthy breasts. The site, vaguely and with few words, tries connecting the barely clad images with “the fight against cancer.” Although I’m still not convinced that the concept utterly lacks merit in principle, and maintain that some of the voices raised here were, perhaps, too quickly dismissive and uptight about the possibility of fundraising or BC activism by this method, I acknowledge that the men running that company seem to be doing nothing useful in terms of reducing breast cancer or its complications.

The Minnesota bikini march will take place on July 28. The line-up starts at noon. The walk will begin at 1PM. According to the announcement on the Electric Beach Mankato website, “only females in bikinis will be counted toward the world record.” The organizer and salon owner, Cynthia Frederick, needs 451 participants to break the Guinness World Records mark for largest bikini parade. That site lists the record as 357 women, based on a 2011 event in Queensland, Australia. But that achievement was recently surpassed in Panama City, FL. What’s different about the prior demonstrations is that there was no pretense of raising money or awareness to help fight, prevent or cure breast cancer.

Minnesota bikini parade participants will pay $20 or $25 for tee shirts. Net proceeds will to go the Breast Cancer Natural Prevention Foundation. The foundation’s site suggests that sunlight prevents BC by increasing vitamin D levels (which is total BS, to be perfectly clear). Taking too much vitamin D can do damage, as can excessive sun exposure.

As I read this, a tanning salon – a business that causes melanoma and other skin cancers – is promoting a walk of bikini-wearing women in midday summer sun to break an amusing world’s record. The parade will, if anything, harm those women who, naively or otherwise, believe they’re supporting a legitimate effort to prevent breast cancer. Any funds raised will support a foundation that promotes what’s tantamount to snake oil for the disease.

So there is a line, in the sand… And it’s been crossed!

If I were an investigative journalist, I’d want to know more about the organization that calls itself the “Breast Cancer Natural Prevention Foundation.” Does it get tax breaks? If so, why?

Related Posts:

Three Reasons to Celebrate the Supreme Court’s Decision on Obamacare

I’m thrilled about today’s SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court upheld the gist of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Am I surprised? Yes, like pretty much everyone – I didn’t anticipate Chief Justice Roberts’ clever argument about the individual mandate.

What I see in this is first, a win for patients, who now are more likely to get health care if and when they need it – preventive and otherwise. L’Chaim!

Second, it’s a win for the Obama administration and the Democrats. And although I went to journalism school at Columbia University and was told that “real journalists don’t share their opinions,” I do: I’m a registered, reliable, primary-voting Democrat. The ACA is, so far, President Obama’s signature achievement. This SCOTUS decision supports the President’s goal of simultaneously reining in health care costs and expanding coverage to all. It raises the likelihood of President Obama’s re-election. Cheers!

Finally, and at a deeper level, the decision reflects the power of one man’s thoughtfulness to change the outcome of a seemingly bleak situation. (This can happen in oncology and other kinds of medicine, when most of the doctors or specialists on a case throw up their hands or say “it’s impossible because of blah, blah, blah,” and they might refer to some old published studies on old drugs, or something like that.) What Chief Justice Roberts did was think out-of-the box, carefully and within a legal framework. Like a good, smart doctor, morally grounded and, perhaps, influenced by compassion (hard to tell), the Chief Justice figured out a legally acceptable way for his court to do the right thing. By his wisdom, he will have saved more than a few lives. Bravo!

Related Posts:

newsletter software
Get Adobe Flash player