Every morning now, I am watching Kim’s face as it goes through the process of healing itself from the traumatic faceplant that she inflicted on it on Thanksgiving day. The real cause for thanks that day was certainly not the fall or its cause (digestive distress due to her bariatric surgery…now over three years ago) or even the concussion and broken nose that she suffered, but that her ER doctor told her there was nothing extra she could or should do for any of it except to let the body heal itself gradually and to take it easy enough to afford it every opportunity to do so. We all love modern science and medicine and how much better our lives are for it, but more often than not, my experience is that the best approach is for the body to heal itself. This is a more controversial stand right now given all the chatter about RFK Jr. and his impending cabinet appointment by Trump as the “Health Czar”.
My friend Steve recently sent around a notice about a PBS special which is called Shot in the Arm and is specifically about vaccinations (the good and the bad). There seem to be two issues at play that are making this a highly politicized topic. The first is what I am mostly talking about in this story, which is when is it better to use science and medicine to cure something versus letting the body heal itself. The second is far less relevant in my opinion, and that is about personal freedom and whether the government has the right to impose requirement or even broad influence programs for people to do things to themselves or their children like obtain vaccinations. I choose to dismiss this second issue because it is like the nonsense when people scream about free speech and their first amendment rights despite how their speech may impact others. As we all know, screaming “Fire!” In a crowded theater is not something that was intended to be nor should be protected under the first amendment. That is a case of libertarianism taken to a harmful extreme. The same is true about vaccinations against or even protections (think masks and quarantines) of highly contagious diseased. The comment on some libertarian’s car rear window says it all, “Your health is NOT more important than my liberties.” If we accept that notion and feel that the government is simply not allowed to prevent people from harming one another, we have basically given up on civilization.
Those of us in the motorcycling community have wrestled with this issue for years. Nineteen states say it is a law that everyone must wear a helmet. Three states (Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire) have no helmet laws whatsoever. The remaining 28 states have laws that require helmets only based on age or degree of experience. In theory this is a case where the outcome of not wearing a helmet is solely on the rider and no harm is directly done to anyone else, and yet there is still debate about how much individual freedom should overrule common sense and safety. The arguments run into the issue of the cost to the state and citizenry for caring for the irresponsible in the event of a non-fatal tragedy. It’s a thorny question to be sure with widely divergent views as expressed in the differing state laws.
To me, the trickier question is still that of vaccination against dangerous diseases where the health of others in the community is jeopardized when people choose to go unvaccinated. The hard evidence shows that vaccinations against infectious diseased has been amazingly successful at saving lives and reducing health care costs. Since 1796 when Dr. Edward Jenner came up with the smallpox vaccine, the empirical evidence has piled up enormously in favor of the greater good of vaccinations as a matter of public health. My generation grew up with Salk and Sabin polio vaccines (not to mention smallpox dime-sized vaccination marks on our arms) and the widely or universally held belief that the citizenry should submit and submit their children to vaccination programs for our own good AND the greater good of society. Now, the combination of growing distrust of government, large institutions (like the CDC), and big Pharma, has created a cadre of anti-vax activists that challenge that convention and wisdom. Articles and movies like Shot in the Arm, work very hard to objectively present the facts that overwhelmingly support the efficacy, cost effectiveness and safety of vaccines and there is scant evidence that holds up under professional scrutiny to support the ant-vax arguments.
But vaccines are only one form of medication to be considered. My pet topic is orthopedic procedures. To be sure, no one is promoting mandatory orthopedic procedures, but the use of this palliative by our aging population is pretty pervasive at this moment. In my family and friend base, there are an abundance of artificial knees, hips and shoulders and plenty of stories that go with them. Kim has two artificial knees and swears by the life-changing process of getting those new knees. I, on the other hand have steadfastly avoided even considering surgery (even less radical types that involve fixes rather than replacements). My reasoning is my own and has mostly to do with suspicion that my size makes such alternative less productive and more problematic. I do not have statistical evidence to support my views, but instead I have personal experience that my joints have done a good enough job of healing themselves when traumatized to give me confidence that I am not yet in need of any of those procedures. I do feel empirical data would bear out that the success rate for people with more normal builds than mine would fare much better with replacement and rehabilitation rather than letting the body heal itself. By the same token, I am less convinced that the empirical data would bear out as compelling for people outside one standard deviation of normality of size…like me (I may be two or three standard deviation from normal for all I know). But my getting a knee or hip replacement really only affects me unless you think that without it I may fall on you and harm you. I suppose my potential caregiver could argue that it also affects her, but that is between me and her.
We know people who could really benefit from bariatric surgery and/or the use of Semaglutides (Ozempic or Wegovy or others like that). Kim has used both, I have used the former. But while both Kim and I know after a lifetime of trying to control our weight unsuccessfully, that we needed a prophylactic measure. We are both very happy and successful users of those weight loss aides. Nonetheless, you can do no more than lead the horse to water and then the horse has to choose to drink.
There is little debate from any of us that healing yourself is always the preferred solution to any medical problem or need. The lengths you choose to go in that effort and the decision to stay away from prophylactics or embrace them is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make. That should be your decision and yours alone unless not doing so endangers others. At that point I believe you do lose total control and the government does have the obligation to all other impacted citizens to make a decision in our collective best interest. We all know that there will always be exceptions that make it seem compelling that people be left to choose for themselves, but the lion’s share of the risk suggests otherwise. So, my bottom line is heal thyself whenever possible and get help whenever you need it, but don’t fight against the common good because you almost always lose and it chips away at your soul to put others at risk.