Defining disease

A Slate article on the prevalence of medical overdiagnosis is mostly skippable summary of what we already know. The interesting part comes near the end:

Many critics of modern medical care see overdiagnosis everywhere they look and don't reliably separate the wheat from the chaff. They derisively state that coughing children are too often labeled asthmatic; "twitchy legs" and "impaired sex drive" are inexplicably considered medical problems; those who can't read are for some reason called dyslexic; those who are just sad are instead said to be depressed; and people with joint pain are termed arthritic. The subtext of their comments is, There's nothing wrong with these people. Yet they're still patients who can't sleep, breathe, read, or enjoy sexual relations. They seek help, and it's wrong to ignore them...let's not blame people with dyslexia, erectile dysfunction, or restless leg syndrome for the mess.

Here are the errors. First, the assumption that anything which can be given a fancy name is a disease. Remember that "erectile dysfunction" has only been a disease since Viagra was invented. Before that, men dealt with their psychological problems through psychological means. It's nice that we have drugs now, but they shouldn't be portrayed as the only way to solve a person's problems.

Second, the idea that people who are suffering should be helped does not imply that 'we' (doctors, health insurance companies) should help them. But of course if we were to admit that these conditions are largely within the patients' power to change, we would have to give up our power over them and our ability to define them as 'patients'.

Third, the idea that denying 'disease' status to these conditions amounts to 'blaming' people who suffer from them. Because a person who 'has a disease' deserves our pity and forbearance, while a person who has a simple psychological problem doesn't. This way of thinking is why people like gathering meaningless diagnoses in both the medical and psychological fields. 'Having a disease' allows them to deny their own responsibility for their lives.

Fourth, the error of believing that every problem needs to be solved. It's not okay for people to have flaws and weaknesses; people should be equal, with no personality differences; if some people are bad at reading, they have a disease which needs to be cured. If some people are sad, they need to be argued or drugged out of it.

All common themes in modern medical discourse. All wrong.

Worst Supremes decision ever

The worst Supreme Court decision ever, among those which haven't been overturned, is Coker v. Georgia, decided 7-2, my God. It held that it's unconstitutional under the 8th amendment to apply the death penalty for rape. (Incidentally, the criminal in question was not only a rapist, but a murderer who had escaped the death penalty once already.)

What led to this ridiculous miscarriage of justice? First, the Court at the time was all male, which may have led to their conclusion that rape is not a 'serious injury'. Secondly, acc. to Wikipedia, two justices voted as they did due to their belief that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under all circumstances. Male bias combined with liberal bias, and I doubt it will ever be overturned.

The second worst decision is Trop v Dulles, which held that the 8th amendment prohibits depriving someone of his citizenship (for the crime of desertion, in this case), because, according to Earl Warren, "denationalization as a punishment is barred by the 8th amendment, as it is the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society".

The dissent rightly questioned whether denationalization is a more severe punishment than murder.

I personally think exile or denationalization is an unjustly neglected punishment in our modern world. There are so many people (many murderers and thieves and all rapists) who don't belong in my society. I would be OK with killing most of them, but the trend of public opinion is against me. Why not exile? It's not cruel; it's giving them a new beginning, far from me. Europe will take them. Or they can go to Somalia and be as lawless as they like.

I'm trying to memorize all 27 amendments (at least the gist of them). Still really vague on the difference between the 12th, 20th and 25th (dealing with Presidential succession). Could I look them up right now with the magic of the Internet? Yes. Or I could watch another Michael Jackson video.

Also, weird the ones that stick in my head. Why do I have the 11th amendment memorized verbatim? It's kind of poetic, really.

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

the Cafe Aurora

Today I had an annoying experience which I will not discuss and an exciting experience which I will! I Googled coffee shops in Alexandria, and the closest one I found was called the Cafe Aurora. (Obviously, I was interested not in coffee, but in Internet.) But what Google _didn't_ tell me was that the Cafe Aurora is an Eritrean café!

Yes, this is my first contact with the noble nation of Eritrea, and it made a good impression. Free wireless, first of all. I can only hope the whole country is like that.

Secondly, I ordered the (only) dish with the Arabic name and the tea with the Arabic name. (They speak Arabic in Eritrea, in case you were wondering.) This was a gamble which turned out quite well. The 'fuul' was a dish of fava beans, crushed with olive oil, topped with feta cheese, green peppers, red onions, tomatoes and hot peppers, and served with pita bread. I always appreciate colorful food, and this was delicious too. I will definitely come back for the fuul.

The innocent-looking tea was filled with hidden danger. My first social "faux pas" in Eritrea: I was served delicious spice tea with an extra tea bag on the side, and drank it. BUT what I later found out was that what I thought was the tea was actually some sort of herbal, cardamomy flavored water base, and that the tea bag was supposed to contribute the actual tea! What a tea amateur I must have seemed. In fact, perhaps because of my cartoonishly low tolerance for caffeine, I actually preferred the non-tea.

That is all.

Update: the Cafe Aurora has two mottoes.

Cafe Aurora: We Rise With the Sun.

Makes sense.

Cafe Aurora: The Land of Common Sense.

???