Concern Over "Fierce Fighting"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/world/middleeast/12mideast.html?hp

With the increasing conflict taking place in Gaza, it seems only obvious that increased media converage would be taking place over in the Middle East as the eyes of the world are now upon them. What has come to my surprise though is the "One sided coverage," I continue to see over the conflict. All throughout the television discussions taking place a week and a half ago, no where was any one criticizing Israels military actions in Gaza. The news was all one sided, saying how "Israel sticking up for themselves," and was "No longer going to pushed around." Yet the irony of it all is that Israel has answered violence with violence. Maybe it's just me, but one of the first rules of conflict we all learned was " Two wrongs do not make a right." The analysis of the fighting has been all a see-saw towards Israel. No one has really taken into account why they the fighting is really taking place, accounting for the mistreatment of Palestine people, also with the religion factor that is taking place. Everything has been looked over and just seen as "Hamas is firing missiles into Israel, so Israel is stopping them and invading Gaza." The whole topic is so much more cumbersome than that to throw a label so easily on it. Thankfully, this article done by STEVEN ERLANGER and ETHAN BRONNER, helps let in some light on the conflict. I found it interesting how the civilians there are the highest casualties so far in comparison to the amount of fighters. Also, it opens an eye to what could be Israels secondary plan of going into Egypt territory to stop the smuggling of weapons for Hamas. This quote:
“People are terrified, hungry, thirsty and traumatized,” he said. “The civilian population is caught in the middle of this conflict,” he said, and added: “This is a conflict where the civilian population has nowhere to flee.” Helps paint a better picture of what is going on, showing that this conflict is effecting everyone, not just fighters, but civilians too who are not receiving the same coverage. I admire the article for its seriousness on a serious topic, and for not just leaving it as one side protecting itself. It took the correct stance by not saying who is right and who is wrong because in war, there truly is no right or wrong. To label it so would be foolish, and I admire these gentelmen for truth behind their reporting.

Where to draw the line in Doctor/Patient Confidentiality

 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/health/09klas.html?_r=1&ref=health)
On a majority of people's minds come the question of what your pediatrician considers to fall under doctor patent confidentiality. When you are an adult, your business is of course private when it falls under medical or psychiatric means. Yet when treating children comes a whole new set of challenges doctors face when it comes to confidentiality. In the article above, Dr. Perri Klass talks about times when a decision must be made upon whether to inform the child's parents or not. 
Most of the issues rely upon really how serious the issue is, but then again, how can one classify an issue if what seems not too big of an alarm can later turn into huge problems for this child later in life perhaps due to no one telling the mother of what the child is doing. Lets say for example, a child talks about sharing an alcoholic beverage once with a friend at a young age of lets say 12. What would you do as a doctor if you know this could, even though would seem unlikely, effect the child in a long run if these activities are continued? As a parent, we would all want to know exactly everything our child does, but as a doctor, you have to make the decision upon whether you should tell the child's parents. Where you draw the line really falls into a obscure zone of what’s auk and what’s not. There is no real way to label it or to classify what’s "Ok," and what’s "Not Ok." 
Dr. Perri also draws the idea of, well if we do then report these activities to the parents ,even though the child specifically asked you not to and who has felt comfortable to have you gain their trust, what then happens to that relationship? Most likely the child will no longer want to discuss such things and perhaps hurt them even more in the long run by not wanting to share anything due to trust issues with others and insecurity. When it comes to children, the line is a very thin tight rope doctors must walk in order to make a fair decision on children especially in the age group of most Middle School due to how those years are the most developing ones in their lives. 
In my personal opinion, from this article, it is a doctors duty to protect the privacy of each person, but when you are under 18, to a certain degree, parents do have a right to know if you are engaging in activities that threaten your life, the lives of others, or if others are threatening you "bullying, parental abuse"( in which case the authorities would have to be contacted). I feel personally that the boundaries lay upon personal well being. If the issue does not cross into those boundaries, then it most likely does not require the parents involvement. If anything, the doctor may hint towards the subject with parents by talking about as example by Dr. Perri Klass to say "The child did not want her mother to know, and the pediatrician, who had known her since infancy, negotiated a compromise: the doctor would advise the mother that the girl needed counseling, and as long as she went to counseling, and discussed the drinking and her underlying issues with the counselor, the pediatrician would not tell her mother about the liquor." (Klass Perri.) 

From this idea, I too agree with making a compromise by allowing the child to feel not violated in their trust with you, but also acknowledging the fact that the child needs help and the parents should be taking a bigger interest into what their child is doing. By doing this, The child still feels in control with their life with their privacy intake, while giving the parents a needed heads upon how their child may need help if not from you, then someone else. It is when I feel doctors do nothing is unacceptable when the activity puts he child's life in danger and the doctor tells no one. The whole idea itself is quite interesting, for this not only involves a doctor, but family and friends aswell and their obligations towards other when you hear about dangerous activity that threatens a loved ones life. What to do is the ultimate question that is never a straight answer. When it comes down to it, they are always personal calls based upon each person making it very hard to say what is ok and what in unacceptable for each person. 

Helping Addicts Beat Their Addictions

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/15drugs.html?pagewanted=2&hp
To my surprise, I have come to find that the government is finally taking what I feel to be the correct steps towards helping drug addicts get their live back. For a long time, I have always thought that the "War on Drugs," was a completely ridiculous undertaking by the government for a number of reasons. Mainly the fact that the people who are doing these drugs should not just be thrown into jail for their crimes, but sent to a Drug Diversion Courts to give "Arrested addicts a chance to avoid prison by agreeing to stringent oversight and addiction treatment."(Eckholm). I feel this is a very positive step towards the war on drugs because it helps keep hundreds of addicts, who mostly are caught on small time dealing of drugs or stealing from others to support their drug usage, out of jail and into rehabilitation. For the most part, jail does not help addicts and is some times easier for them due to easy access of drugs for inmates. Also, most addicts do not receive a long jail time for their crimes and return on the streets still a drug addict and possibly containing more connections from being in jail. In rehabilitations these addicts are staying out of jail, which saves us more than 1 billion dollars in reduced law enforcement, and the cost for jailing these addicts, while at the same time, helping these people getting over their addictions. Another factor that I also liked from these drugs courts is that the people are not invincible from jail. If they continue to do drug usage and miss therapy/ urine testing, they are handcuffed and sent to jail until their situation has been decided. It’s refreshing to see that the government is taking positive steps to helping addicts quit doing drugs rather than just arresting them, sending them to jail and not helping them quit their drug usage. The only problem I have is how very few people are being sent to drug courts throughout the country, how there is a waiting list almost to be able to be in the drug court rehabilitation programs. I feel more money should go to help increase these courts budgets to help work with more people and make a big dent in the prison populations.