Now on ScienceBlogs: Unitary mindfulness in collective action

Seed Media Group

The Cheerful Oncologist

"Courage and cheerfulness will not only carry you over the rough places in life, but will enable you to bring comfort and help to the weak-hearted and will console you in the sad hours." -Sir William Osler

« And Now a Word From Dr. Joe Pesci | Main | Keeping America Safe From Blackguards, Rascals and Knaves »

It's a Family Affair

Category: Commentary
Posted on: September 9, 2007 5:00 PM, by Craig Hildreth

You can't leave, 'cause your heart is there
But you can't stay, 'cause you been somewhere else!

You can't cry, 'cause you'll look broke down
But you're cryin' anyway 'cause you're all broke down!

-Sly & the Family Stone


(From the Department of Common Sense:)

"Testing patients' families could prevent 850 heart attacks a year"

A new Scottish study concludes that the "close relatives" of a heart attack patient are at increased risk of also suffering a coronary event and might avoid this fate by reducing their risk factors, excluding the factor entitled "positive family history of heart disease," of course, which would be difficult to disguise even with a false mustache, but one must be magnanimous in the affairs of heredity.

"Up to now, the only way of stopping heart attacks in the general population was to screen everyone, which is not really practical. We have now found a potential way of targeting screening at a group which will benefit most," [Professor Jill Pell, one of the study authors].
Such a move could mean that once someone is admitted to hospital following a heart attack, their close family could be contacted and invited to see a doctor. They would then be asked about their lifestyle, such as whether they smoke, details of their diet and how much exercise they take. Their blood pressure and cholesterol levels would also be checked.

As I mentioned, this appears to be another example of stating the obvious. If one is a devotee of smoking, overeating, and avoiding exercise; if one has hypercholesterolemia or hypertension and has failed to bring such transgressions under proper control, then it would seem logical that one might also be at risk of a heart attack if a close family member just had the same. Yes, quite logical, even indubitable, my dear Watson.

Treatment could include advice on how to lose weight or stop smoking. Cholesterol-lowering drugs or other remedies could also be prescribed to tackle high blood pressure.

Didn't I just state that? So what's the holdup? What's that? Who's going to pay for all this screening and treatment, you ask? Well, what about that wonderful place from whom all blessings flow?

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "We are reviewing the coronary heart disease and stroke strategy and will take account of emerging evidence on the identification of cardiovascular disease and how it can be applied."

Hmm...anyone who can translate government-speak is invited to have a crack at that statement from the home office. I wonder how much the guv'mint pays its employees to "review and take account" of medical data. Surely they'll get right on this brilliant new plan, right?

Or is our spokeswoman merely plagiarizing from this little Manual of Helpful Tips for Officials When Asked for Quotes on Subjects They Know Nothing About and Could Care Even Less?

Comments

1

Here's the link to the full paper:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/335/7618/481.pdf

Now, to be fair to the authors, they do use the word "obvious" in the title.

As I understand the paper - and I haven't read it very carefully - they argue that targetting screening at relatives of heart-attack victims should be more effective than targetting the general population or attempting to identify high-risk subjects by other means.

They talk about something called "the polypill" which is a pill combining low doses of cardiovascular preventative drugs and estimate the reduction in cardiovascular events from using it to treat relatives of sufferers from premature myocardial infarction.

So yes, it's easy to scoff but I don't see anything immediately wrong with their proposal, but neither would I expect the government to change their health strategy overnight on the basis of one paper, however well researched.

Posted by: csrster | September 10, 2007 4:57 AM

2

This is the Scottish government right?

Have you given helpful advise to your patients on how to lose weight lately?

Posted by: emmy | September 10, 2007 3:14 PM

3

It's just one step away from the government saying 'Did we hear that? I don't think we did. I think we need to wait for further research that suggests humans do indeed speak. For confirmation, you see.'

Posted by: B | September 15, 2007 7:10 PM

4

It's just one step away from the government saying 'Did we hear that? I don't think we did. I think we need to wait for further research that suggests humans do indeed speak. For confirmation, you see.'

Posted by: youtube | February 24, 2008 2:13 PM

5

I would say it was my little contribution to saving trees in the world. I’m so glad that people and countries are now realizing how wasteful it has been. Thanks so much for this tip.

Posted by: travesti | March 23, 2008 6:41 AM

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Enter to win

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM