http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/health/research/18faith.html?_r=1
I'm starting to notice that in some of these Health articles, the writers have a little bit of leeway with attribution. For example, the article asserts that "aggressive end-of-life care can lead to a more painful dying process, researchers have found, and greater shock and grief for the family members left behind." The reader is given no information about the researchers that found this or the statistics that prove this.
The article itself is not about the study that produced those results; the article is about a study that showed that patients of strong faith are three times as likely to try to prolong life even during the last weeks. The sources are the author of the study and a cancer specialist who has also studied end-of-life decision making. I think that it might have added a human element if the article had included a patient's voice, but instead the author of the study speculates how patients must feel. Interviewing a terminally ill patient could definitely cross the line when it comes to minimizing harm, but an interesting perspective could have been someone of strong faith who pursued aggressive treatment and lived.
The article is for the most part focused and clear, but at the end, I thought the quote from Silvestri was confusing. "Doctors don't always acknowledge, and I'm pretty sure patients are telling us, that God is really important in their lives." God is really important in whose lives? And he's "pretty sure" they're telling "us" this? I feel like this could have made much more sense as a paraphrase. The paragraph directly following this quote has the same problem. "While cancer patients listed their oncologist's recommendation as the most influential factor affecting their decisions about medical care, their faith in God was the second most influential factor." This makes it sound like patient's are looking for oncologists with faith in God. Those two distracting mistakes at the end of the article left a bad final impression.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/health/18faith.html?ref=health
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
President Promises to Bolster Food Safety
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15address.html?ref=health
The first thing I noticed about this article was that the headline changed. I began this blog and came back to it a few days later, and in that time it went from "Obama Plans Team to Overhaul Food Safety" to "President Promises to Bolster Food Safety." I feel like the new headline casts a more positive light on Obama--now he's not just putting a team together to change things, he's promising to "bolster" food safety himself. The original headline is closer to the truth.
The summary lead gave all the necessary information, including Obama's name because of his prominence and a startling statistic that grabs the reader. I wanted to continue reading to learn more about this "fractured food-safety system."
I feel like the additional announcement about the banning of "downer cattle" throws off the flow of the article. It is related, but maybe would have been better if it was included later in the article, since the article shifts right back into talking about Obama's food safety team. At this point, the article started to lose my attention, but caught it again with Obama's colorful quote about Hamburg bringing new life to a "demoralized agency" as health commissioner in New York City. The article could have gotten bogged down in statistics, but I feel like the writer chose only those which would make an impact--like the fact that only 7,000 of 150,000 domestic food facilities were inspected last year.
It was also a good choice to include the quote "Whenever a president uses such strong language, that's a big, meaningful occurrence," because it shows us that the news is not only that Obama is creating this team, it's that he is actually taking a strong and clear stance on this issue. Harris concludes the article with another powerful statistic to prove just how newsworthy of an issue food safety really is.
The first thing I noticed about this article was that the headline changed. I began this blog and came back to it a few days later, and in that time it went from "Obama Plans Team to Overhaul Food Safety" to "President Promises to Bolster Food Safety." I feel like the new headline casts a more positive light on Obama--now he's not just putting a team together to change things, he's promising to "bolster" food safety himself. The original headline is closer to the truth.
The summary lead gave all the necessary information, including Obama's name because of his prominence and a startling statistic that grabs the reader. I wanted to continue reading to learn more about this "fractured food-safety system."
I feel like the additional announcement about the banning of "downer cattle" throws off the flow of the article. It is related, but maybe would have been better if it was included later in the article, since the article shifts right back into talking about Obama's food safety team. At this point, the article started to lose my attention, but caught it again with Obama's colorful quote about Hamburg bringing new life to a "demoralized agency" as health commissioner in New York City. The article could have gotten bogged down in statistics, but I feel like the writer chose only those which would make an impact--like the fact that only 7,000 of 150,000 domestic food facilities were inspected last year.
It was also a good choice to include the quote "Whenever a president uses such strong language, that's a big, meaningful occurrence," because it shows us that the news is not only that Obama is creating this team, it's that he is actually taking a strong and clear stance on this issue. Harris concludes the article with another powerful statistic to prove just how newsworthy of an issue food safety really is.
When Patients Feel Abandoned By Doctors
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/health/12chen.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=health
The concept of the article is a sensitive one, and I think that the fact that it was written by an M.D. changed the way I read it. It uses first person and includes personal stories and assessments as well as "objective" ones.
The article is based off of a study of terminally ill patients and their caregivers and doctors, but this study only followed 55 patients. Not many details are given about the study--what percent of patients felt abandoned? The whole article builds off of the premise that this is a rampant problem, but there's not much support either way. In the personal example of Chen's patient John, she fails to communicate with the patient's family after his death. However, despite Chen's statement that closure "mitigates any feelings of abandonment," the story does not prove that. Chen doesn't include the reaction of John's niece--did this person crave closure and feel abandoned? The reader has no idea, and the story is poignant but not very effective towards Chen's point.
Dr. Back's quote about the two types of doctors is a good one. So is the one about patient death feeling like failure and looking for meaning. Despite the fact that he led the study about feelings of abandonment, I felt like this article lacked authority. There is a lot of speculation about why these feelings occur and how things can change, but it feels just like people guessing at causes and solutions.
At the end of the article, Chen finally mentions that this is a column, which was a surprise to me because the beginning presents itself as a news article detailing the results of a scientific study. The fact that it is a column doesn't change the fact that Chen didn't really support her assertion well. All I know now is that some number of patients, out of a study of 55, were somehow measured as having feelings of abandonment towards doctors. The article ends well, though, incorporating the visual picture of the ducks used earlier in the article.
The concept of the article is a sensitive one, and I think that the fact that it was written by an M.D. changed the way I read it. It uses first person and includes personal stories and assessments as well as "objective" ones.
The article is based off of a study of terminally ill patients and their caregivers and doctors, but this study only followed 55 patients. Not many details are given about the study--what percent of patients felt abandoned? The whole article builds off of the premise that this is a rampant problem, but there's not much support either way. In the personal example of Chen's patient John, she fails to communicate with the patient's family after his death. However, despite Chen's statement that closure "mitigates any feelings of abandonment," the story does not prove that. Chen doesn't include the reaction of John's niece--did this person crave closure and feel abandoned? The reader has no idea, and the story is poignant but not very effective towards Chen's point.
Dr. Back's quote about the two types of doctors is a good one. So is the one about patient death feeling like failure and looking for meaning. Despite the fact that he led the study about feelings of abandonment, I felt like this article lacked authority. There is a lot of speculation about why these feelings occur and how things can change, but it feels just like people guessing at causes and solutions.
At the end of the article, Chen finally mentions that this is a column, which was a surprise to me because the beginning presents itself as a news article detailing the results of a scientific study. The fact that it is a column doesn't change the fact that Chen didn't really support her assertion well. All I know now is that some number of patients, out of a study of 55, were somehow measured as having feelings of abandonment towards doctors. The article ends well, though, incorporating the visual picture of the ducks used earlier in the article.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
"Liked the Show? Maybe It Was the Commercials"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/health/03mind.html?ref=research
This article wasn't really newsworthy or timely, but it was still interesting. The article details evidence from several studies that "commercials make T.V. programs more enjoyable to watch." There are some good quotes from the expert sources, especially when talking about reactions that people have to this research. The article's topic is a simple idea to grasp because the writer avoids scientific jargon. He uses specific word pictures to drive home a point. By describing "a mind-bending trek through the Australian outback," "listening to vacuum cleaner noise" and "a morning in the hotel hot tub," he defines the experiences that the article is approaching scientifically, but makes them accessible to the reader's imagination.
The article is very focused and drives its point home again and again, but using different sources. At one point, I scrolled back up to the top of the article because I thought he was using the same source the entire time: that's how cohesive all of his quotes and the studies behind them are. At the very end, though, he does admit that not all pleasurable experiences are enhanced by interruption. Again, he uses an easily understood example: artist or musicians being lost in their work who are stopped by the lunchtime whistle.
Overall, this was just a fun read. It's more like trivia information than anything else; it has no broader application or extension into a person's life, other than understanding why the strategically placed commercial breaks in The Bachelor make it that much more intense.
This article wasn't really newsworthy or timely, but it was still interesting. The article details evidence from several studies that "commercials make T.V. programs more enjoyable to watch." There are some good quotes from the expert sources, especially when talking about reactions that people have to this research. The article's topic is a simple idea to grasp because the writer avoids scientific jargon. He uses specific word pictures to drive home a point. By describing "a mind-bending trek through the Australian outback," "listening to vacuum cleaner noise" and "a morning in the hotel hot tub," he defines the experiences that the article is approaching scientifically, but makes them accessible to the reader's imagination.
The article is very focused and drives its point home again and again, but using different sources. At one point, I scrolled back up to the top of the article because I thought he was using the same source the entire time: that's how cohesive all of his quotes and the studies behind them are. At the very end, though, he does admit that not all pleasurable experiences are enhanced by interruption. Again, he uses an easily understood example: artist or musicians being lost in their work who are stopped by the lunchtime whistle.
Overall, this was just a fun read. It's more like trivia information than anything else; it has no broader application or extension into a person's life, other than understanding why the strategically placed commercial breaks in The Bachelor make it that much more intense.
Monday, February 23, 2009
"In Turnabout, Children Take Caregiver Role"
The first thing I noticed about this article was that the lead uses the full name of a person whose name we don't recognize. I think it works here because the whole article is very personal and includes a lot of quotes from different families. The article is about children who act as caregivers for family members and how this responsibility affects their lives. It is an interesting subject that hasn't received a lot of attention, I feel. The article quotes child caregivers, their family members, teachers, and experts on the topic. It also includes some relevant statistics, like how in 2005, 3 percent of households with children ages 8 to 18 included a child caregiver. The only criticism I would make of this article is that it obviously supports The Caregiving Youth Project. Three examples of success stories through the Caregiving Youth Project are given. I wondered who is paying for the program and if it really is the best option for these children--it seems like it gives them a break from their responsibilities but then sends them right back to those responsibilities. The article makes the program out to be a godsend, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E3D7143FF930A15751C0A96F9C8B63
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E3D7143FF930A15751C0A96F9C8B63
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)