YouTube and Reproductive Health

The crazy world in which we live never ceases to amaze me.

Today in my reproductive health class we debated whether or not women should be granted asylum in the United States to be able to have abortions. It's a really interesting and nuanced question that involves not only issues of human rights and unsafe abortion, but the U.S. asylum process, historical precedents, and U.S. politics and public opinion. It was really a fascinating thing to be a part of.

Also fascinating was a mini-lecture afterwards from an ob-gyn working to expand abortion access. She spoke of two recent and completely mind-blowing initiatives: Women on Waves and Women on Web. Women on waves is a boat of professionals who bring on board women facing unwanted pregnancies in countries in which abortion is illegal -- and then sail into international waters to perform a medical (Mifepristone/Misoprostol) abortion (or to decide to continue the pregnancy after a counseling session). Women on Web is even crazier: women in countries where abortion is illegal can order, over the web, and from an anonymous source, misoprostol/mifepristone doses sufficient to abort the fetus. How do the women know how to use these medications, or when to seek help? Well, there's an instructional YouTube video.

YouTube, to me, is a time-waster, somewhere to go when I'm not thinking about anything serious. The idea that a woman could be relying on YouTube to ensure her health is, well, crazy. But in a crazy world, where all the official rhetoric touts a woman's individuality and the validity of human rights, and yet we get closer to overturning Roe v. Wade everyday, and women in the U.S. military are not allowed abortions, the solutions must be crazy too. People have an endless supply of ingenuity, and will use every resource at their command to address the problems with which they're faced. YouTube included.

Wouldn't it be nice

Sometimes I wish doctors didn't have to solve problems.

The patients I've had the opportunity to speak with are fascinating people. Really, everyone has interesting things beneath the surface, to be discovered if you ask. In a medical interview, the questions scrape the surface, but only barely. We hear about family and social support, difficult aspects of a life, and daily habits -- but only for a few seconds. Only what's especially relevant, and what there's time for.

Sometimes I would prefer to just sit and chat, without having to worry about getting at the medically relevant information. This is particularly true of the geriatric patients we see: a lifetime of stories, and all we hear is "I eat a balanced diet" and "I had a hard time when my sister died last year." I want to hear about the family, what they did for fun when they were kids in the 1920s and 30s, and which sister he was closest to.

Maybe this means I should consider psychiatry, if what I like about medicine is the sitting and chatting. Or maybe that means I have a naive view of what psychiatry is -- I'm sure the psychiatrists have their own vital data that they need to gather through leading questions. But at least there's more time to sit and talk.