Categories
Nonfiction Observations Seattle Systems

What Seattle Got From Amazon.

Yesterday’s New York Times had an article with the title “Amazon’s HQ2 Will Benefit From New York City. But What Does New York Get?” I don’t know what New York (and Crystal City) will get, but here are my observations (as someone who lived in Seattle from 2004 to 2008, and then from 2011 to now) as to what Seattle got:

Lots of young people. Some of these people look like they’re 12 years old, but that’s because I’m now officially old. And some of these young people, fresh out of college, make six-figure salaries. Sometimes it shows. Sometimes it doesn’t.

Lots of blue badges. Amazon employees wear blue badges. You can tell your proximity from the Amazon campus (which is a campus; it occupies an entire neighborhood) by the density of blue badges hanging from lanyards, dangling off of belts, and swinging off of coats.

Food trucks. The young people apparently like food trucks. Caravans of food trucks rumble towards South Lake Union, the site of the Amazon campus. The rotating food trucks sell Thai bowls, Italian sandwiches, barbecue wings, Turkish kebabs, Hawaiian poke bowls, and other international cuisines from their portable kitchens.

Hip restaurants that sell overpriced food. Here’s an anecdote that I share with some bitterness: One such restaurant has the following item on its dessert menu:

Warm chocolate chunk cookie with whole milk. $8.

Long-time readers know that I am fond of cookies, particularly the chocolate chip variety. Upon seeing this item, my eyes lit up, but the light drained from my eyes when I saw the price.

“No cookie and milk is worth $8,” I said. “Even my favorite cookie (the Levain Chocolate Chip Walnut Cookie) is just $4.”

“But what if it is the best chocolate cookie you will ever eat?” my husband countered.

“I doubt it. This is a restaurant, not a bakery.”

“Let me buy it for you.”

I relented and ordered the warm chocolate chunk cookie with whole milk, my taste buds eager and my mind skeptical.

What actually arrived? Two cookies, each about four inches in diameter, and a glass holding about six ounces of milk. The cookies were barely warm, the chocolate was not chunky, and the overall texture of the cookies was dry. The milk was wholly unremarkable. The dessert was rich only in the flavor of disappointment.

These restaurants can charge $8 for cookies and milk because they know that the young people who work at Amazon have no qualms spending such a ridiculous sum on a treat that is sweet only in memory.

Traffic. The tens of thousands of people who moved to the Seattle metropolitan area have to get around somehow. When I was a resident, I saw few taxis downtown or on Capitol Hill. Taxis of all colors now zip around the city, along with ride sharing vehicles. There are a lot more fancy cars—Teslas, Porsches, and the like—crawling up the hills. The buses, streetcars, and trains are packed with well-heeled young people.

High rents and expensive homes. The city of Seattle is in King County. The average rent in King County is $1,731, which doesn’t seem impressive compared to rents in other major metropolitan areas. The rent in King County, though, has increased 155% in the past twenty years. Furthermore, Seattle, by far, is the most expensive and developed city in the region and pulls the average up, as other areas in the county are sparsely populated and considered rural.

Income inequality. I don’t know if Amazon was/is the cause of the homelessness crisis in this region (remember, correlation does not mean causation). As young people with gobs on money have moved in, more people with little money have moved out onto the streets. Certainly the higher rents have pushed many people out of the city: Some people work in Seattle and live in neighboring counties, as that is the only way they can afford their rent or mortgage. Landlords in Seattle know that they can charge nearly $3000 for a one-bedroom apartment because someone from Amazon can afford to pay that. (Just like restaurants can charge $8 for cookies and milk.)

Anti-Amazon and anti-Jeff Bezos graffiti. It is not uncommon to see graffiti painted on sidewalks and buildings that denounce Amazon and Jeff Bezos. Some of it is frankly disturbing (e.g., death threats), though it illustrates the strong feelings people have about Amazon.

Spherical buildings. They took all the trees / And put ’em in a tree museum / And they charged the people / A dollar and a half to seem ’em

Amazon has done well for itself, though it seems that many people in Seattle have an uneasy relationship with Amazon. They like what Amazon has to offer, but don’t like how the wealth of the company has affected the city. Perhaps the leadership of New York and Crystal City will forge closer working relationships with Amazon from the outset to prevent the congestion, big income disparities, and resentment[1. The resentment that people have for Amazon also comes from its own employees. For a while I worked in a clinic where some of my patients were Amazon employees. They often spoke of the pressures working at Amazon, whether they worked in programming, marketing, supply chain, or warehousing. There’s likely selection bias at play, but their work nonetheless induced anxiety and affected their abilities to cope.] that occurred in Seattle.


Categories
Homelessness Lessons Medicine NYC Observations Reflection Seattle

The Kind of Energy We Send Out to the World.

I have been writing; I just haven’t posted anything here. These days, it seems that we cannot escape increasing types of noise and their loud volumes. It’s not all noise, but the signals are overwhelming.

It was a busy teaching week for me: I had the privilege to speak at two community clinics and a public hospital. In all three presentations I commented on the tension between “the system” and our efforts as individuals. When we’re trying to provide care and services to individuals, sometimes the constraints of “the system” interfere with our efforts: Sometimes fiscal concerns reign supreme; sometimes the bureaucracy is inflexible; sometimes the system does not have noble intentions. We grumble, we get angry, we feel helpless.

When we’re trying to design “the system” to provide care and services, sometimes the constraints of people interfere with our efforts: Sometimes there aren’t enough people; sometimes people make mistakes; sometimes people do not have noble intentions. We grumble, we get angry, we feel helpless.

The two, of course, are related: People design systems. People work within systems. People can change systems.

People also have values. Sometimes we find that our values clash with those of the systems we work and live in. That doesn’t mean that we must defer to the values of the system. It takes courage to resist. To show our values to the world without flinching is an act of bravery.

While speaking, I told a story about my first boss when I finally started working as an attending psychiatrist. Our jobs included working with people who were homeless in New York City.

“I want people who don’t have a place to live to get excellent care,” he said, perhaps talking more to himself than to me. “Good care shouldn’t be limited to people who can afford to pay a psychiatrist who works out of a plush office on Park Avenue. People who don’t have money should have access to and get good care, too.”

“These are choices under our control,” I said to the audience yesterday, perhaps talking more to myself than to them. “Even though system pressures are very real, you can choose to give good care to the people who come here for help. You can treat people with dignity and respect, particularly if they are people of color with very low incomes. They might not get dignity or respect elsewhere.”

Perhaps my exhortations sound naive. Perhaps cynicism will triumph over virtue. However, I refuse to embrace cynicism. Cynicism makes for terrible company. Life is already full of challenges; we do not need negative soundtracks to accompany us as we travel through life. What we do affects others. What we say can inspire others.

We have responsibility for the kind of energy we send out to the world.

Categories
Medicine Observations Systems

Representation Matters.

This post comes directly from a Twitter conversation I was in a few days ago:

Screen Shot 2018-04-22 at 1.28.25 PM

… though this topic has actually been on my mind for nearly a year due to some events that have occurred at work.

Many medications that were originally developed for the treatment of schizophrenia, called antipsychotic medications, are now used for other conditions, such as major depression and bipolar disorder. (The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this post. However, I will comment that this is why the “serotonin theory” of depression should really be called the “serotonin hypothesis“.) Several antipsychotic medications come not only in pill form, but are also available in long-acting injectable forms. Instead of swallowing pills everyday, some people receive an injection of medication once every few weeks or once a month. These medications are injected into shoulder or butt muscle.

Some people prefer to receive injections because that means that they don’t to remember to take pills everyday. Many people who accept long-acting injectable medications do well. No one would guess that they have had experiences hearing voices or believing fixed, false ideas. Some of these individuals report that these medications have saved their lives.

Some people, in varying degrees, are coerced into receiving injections (e.g., payee allowances—money—are handed over only after the individual receives the injectable medication; courts “encourage” individuals to receive injectable medication). Long-acting injectable medications are never used in emergencies, regardless of who is defining the word “emergency”.

Most people prefer not to get shots of medication, even if they know they are in their best interests. Many adults look away and wince when they receive vaccines, even though they know that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Most vaccines, though, are available only in injection form, so people don’t have a choice as to how else they can receive the vaccine.

So, with that, let’s look at the advertisements for long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications and any intersections they have with race. The target population is admittedly small: Only around 1% of the population has a diagnosis of schizophrenia at any given time. (However, if you’re part of that 1%, this stuff matters a lot.)

Here’s the landing page for one long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication:

InvegaSust

We see what look to be white people with sporting equipment. I’ve drawn in a pink arrow to show the link that leads to the page about the use of this medication for the treatment of SCHIZOPHRENIA. If you click on that link, it brings you here:

InvegaSchizophrenia

Anything different about the people in the photo?

There are journal articles that span decades that show that schizophrenia is overdiagnosed in black people. One wonders: Do the ads come from the overdiagnosis? Or does the overdiagnosis come from the ads?

To be fair, if you scroll through the photos in that image, the other photos are of white people, including women. However, the scrolling does not automatically occur. The photo of the three men of color is what you see when you click on “schizophrenia” from the main page.

So what happens if you click on “schizoaffective disorder” from the page for schizophrenia? (Curious that there isn’t a link to schizoaffective disorder on the main page.) This shows up:

InvegaSchizoaffective

Only women for a psychotic disorder that also features mood symptoms, huh? (Side note: There’s ongoing debate within psychiatry whether schizoaffective disorder is even a valid condition. Meaning, psychiatric researchers are still arguing about whether this condition even exists. This is a topic for another post.)

“Oh, Maria,” you might be thinking. “You’re reading too much into this. It’s just one ad for one medication.”

Okay, let’s look at another long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. How about this landing page?

AbilifyMaintena

Note the comment in the bottom right-hand corner: “Model portrayals.” Meaning, the company chose these specific images for these specific diagnoses.

The “schizophrenia” link takes you to a page that has scrollable photos: Two women with less melanin and a man with more melanin. The “bipolar” link has two scrollable photos: One light-skinned woman and a darker-skinned man. Maybe there’s something there; maybe there’s not.

Here’s another one for essentially the same medication, but with a different manufacturer:

Aristada

Okay, so this photo assortment seems to strike a more even racial balance. I won’t nitpick further on this one.

Let’s go to the longest-acting injectable antipsychotic medication on the market right now, an injection that is administered once every three months:

Trinza

Oh goodness.

If you click through the “Go to videos” link, there are three video vignettes. Two of the individuals are black. Again, one wonders: Do the ads come from the clinical diagnosis? Or does the overdiagnosis come from the ads?

The other long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications are now available as generic formulations, so their websites are full of text. My efforts to find past advertisements, commercials, and press kits for them yielded no images. I find that interesting, too.

To be clear, these ads comprise a small sample and are for a specific form of medication. I don’t know what advertisements look like for all other psychiatric medications. Maybe I am reading too much into these websites. However, when (1) local, regional, and national data indicate that people of color, particularly African Americans, are more likely to receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia, (2) medications used to treat schizophrenia often have significant side effects of sedation and lethargy, and (3) these medications are available in long-acting forms, it makes me wonder.

Categories
Medicine Nonfiction Observations Reflection Systems

What Doctors Look Like.

I don’t remember her name, but I do remember her light brown hair, the simple nose ring that looped out of her left nostril, and the calm and centered presence she had with patients. She came across as unassuming, professional, and caring. We were both in medical school, though she was two years behind me. I admired how she treated people.

I don’t remember his name, but I do remember that he worked as a nephrologist (kidney specialist). He had a slight paunch and frequently wore dress shirts with short sleeves. The knots of his neckties were always loose. Students regarded him as an excellent teacher who revealed the mysteries of the kidney with tireless enthusiasm.

The nephrologist and I, among others, taught a course for junior medical students. Someone praised the bedside manner of this calm and centered medical student. The nephrologist interjected, “That might be true, but she doesn’t look professional. It’s the nose ring. Physicians shouldn’t have nose rings.”

I didn’t say anything in response. He was still an attending physician and I was just a medical student. His comment struck me: Did it really matter what doctors look like?

I have thought about that snippet over the years. Did he ever give her that feedback ? If he did, how did she take it? Did anyone else find his remark curious? Did any of the other attending physicians disagree with him? If they did, why didn’t they speak up?


After I became an attending physician and navigated ongoing perceptions of what I “should” look like, more questions have come to mind:

What if the medical student was a white male and had a nose ring? Would the nephrologist have made that comment? (Probably?)

What if the medical student was a stellar student and demonstrated clinical excellence? (My impression is that she did well in her coursework and that the comment about her nose ring was in the vein of, “If only she didn’t have the nose ring….”)

What if the medical student wore the nose ring for cultural reasons? Would that have mattered to the nephrologist?

What if the nephrologist learned that certain populations of patients were more likely to trust her than with him because of the nose ring?

What did the nephrologist think doctors should look like? (Clearly, he did not think they should wear nose rings.) How did he learn what doctors should look like? Who determined the definition of “professional” in the world of medicine?


Did it really matter what doctors look like? To medical students, of course it did. When we started our clinical rotations, we saw the attire of resident and attending physicians: Think Banana Republic or J. Crew, with the requisite long white coat on top. So what did we all do? We started shopping for “professional clothes”, except few of us had the money to buy stuff from Banana Republic or J. Crew. We cobbled together outfits from shops we could afford.

The pressure to conform, however, went beyond what we wore. There was only one female trauma surgeon who worked with medical students and, while students spoke well of her, resident physicians sometimes remarked that she was “too emotional”. During operations, male surgery fellows told female medical students, “You should feel this lung now, since you’re probably going to go into pediatrics or family practice.” Many of the attending physicians were heterosexual white males. Those of us who were not—men of color, women with or without nose rings, those who identified as LGBTQ—navigated how to conform to the values and behaviors of heterosexual white males, such as the nephrologist. Though some of these values and behaviors have no clinical relevance (e.g., wearing a nose ring does not affect how a physician washes her hands, gathers a history, or conducts a physical exam), they do affect how one goes through medical training. If enough attending physicians make comments about the nose ring, you might stop wearing it, even though the nose ring is something you value as a person.

What do you do, though, when the issue isn’t a nose ring, but your skin color? sex? accent? sexual orientation? culture?


When surveying the community, many people comment that they feel more comfortable working with health care professionals who look like and share the same experiences as them. Many women, for example, prefer to work with female gynecologists. People who speak languages other than English often feel more comfortable working with physicians who also speak the same language. Americans who are not white often comment that it is often easier to talk with non-white physicians about health concerns.

People with tattoos and nose rings may find it easier to talk with a physician with a nose ring. If the goal is to help keep people healthy and living the lives they want to lead, is it fair to say that nose rings are unprofessional? If the physician with a nose ring is able to connect with her patients and thus serves her community, should we indoctrinate her with the idea that nose rings are unprofessional?


Out of habit I still wear slacks and dress shirts when I see patients. I was trained that I should dress a certain way to both show respect to my patients and demonstrate that I am a professional.

The only time I did not routinely dress in slacks and dress shirts was during my time doing outreach to people who were sleeping outside. Part of this was due to function—it’s much easier to jump over puddles and slide past chainlink fences in jeans and a sweatshirt—but part of this was also because a doctorly outfit was often a liability in these settings.

How would you react if, while eating lunch outside, someone wearing a white coat and a stethoscope around her neck came up to you and asked, “Hi. How are you doing? Are you okay?”

Feedback I often received throughout my medical training (and continue to receive now) is that I do not speak up enough during rounds and related meetings.[1. Even though this post is over one thousand words, it’s true: I actually don’t talk much when working.] My seeming reticence partly reflects my introversion; it also reflects Chinese Confucian values. Medicine has trained me to talk more. I will never know if my taciturn tendencies have caused more problems for my patients (I hope not), though we all appreciate someone who is willing to listen.

And while I am sure that the nephrologist would have disapproved of unnatural hair colors, I can’t count the number of times vulnerable people with significant psychiatric symptoms were willing to talk to me simply because of my locks of curious color. This holds true even for people without any psychiatric symptoms.


I trust that the medical student who wore the nose ring has become a fantastic physician. I wonder if she still wears a nose ring. I hope she still does.

One way we recognize physicians is by their white coats. The rest of it—sex, skin color, accents, nose rings, tattoos, hair color, age, height, weight, etc.—shouldn’t matter.


Categories
Observations Systems

Devastation and Vulnerability.

We are all devastated that children died. Again.


Even though we know that the causes are complex, we want to reduce the issue down to one factor.

“There’s not enough access to mental health services!”

“Agencies with oversight didn’t do their job when they learned concerning information!”

“We need gun control!”

It’s complicated.


We are all devastated that children died. Again.

When kids of color die in mass shootings, do they get the same front page headlines? prime time coverage? threaded tweets with tens of thousands of likes?


Many people who own guns never shoot people. They never craft plans to kill other people. They don’t have impulses to kill themselves.

Is it fair to blame only guns and take them away from people who own them, when most are responsible citizens?[1. To be clear, I do support more regulation on firearms. It is possible to support responsible gun ownership AND gun reform.]


Many people with psychiatric disorders never kill people. They never craft plans to kill other people. They don’t have impulses to kill themselves.

Is it fair to blame only psychiatric disorders and the people who experience them, when most are responsible citizens?


We are all devastated that children died. Again.

Many have expressed displeasure with the wide and toothy smile in the photo, his thumb extended for all to see.

Is it fair to blame only him and his administration, when nearly 63 million people voted for him? Most of whom are responsible citizens?


We are all devastated that children died. Again.

This devastation is a reaction to learning the news that young people died through no fault of their own.

Was the murderer’s decision to kill young people at a school a reaction to something else? Was it a self-contained reaction, a reaction born solely of the release and reuptake of serotonin and dopamine and epinephrine and acetylcholine?

Or was it a reaction to the trauma that all young people experience as they live through the cruelties and injustices of the world?

Why was this—killing students with a gun—his reaction?

What is the reason behind your reaction to him?

Or is your reaction due to multiple reasons?


Are we all blind to the hubris of blaming one thing, one condition, or one person? How are we so sure?


We are all devastated that children died. Again.

To sit with our devastation, to embrace it and understand how it affects us, to witness how it shapes what we say and do, is hard. To acknowledge that our emotions don’t feel under our control, to realize that feeling pain makes us vulnerable, is hard.

It’s hard for everyone else, too.

We must accept and respect the vulnerability in ourselves and others if we want our reactions to change. Only then will the devastation will stop.