Meera Patel
- Oct 15, 2023
- 2 min read

Digital Healthcare: A Story of Hope–And Caution

Flying cars. Robots that take your order. Buildings that float. The futuristic world of our imaginations has long been a faraway dream—but the technological revolution of the modern era has only just begun. While we may not have flying cars or floating buildings just yet, we are now able to change the human genetic code. We’re developing technologies that have the potential to make robots capable of surgeries, watches capable of detecting heart problems, and virtual reality capable of helping patients manage psychological trauma and overcome their conditions—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The future offers exciting new prospects in the field of healthcare, helping increase the number of lives saved on an unprecedented scale.

That being said, the promises of the future also bear a cautionary note. After all, when new technologies first emerge onto the market, they’re often priced at exorbitant sums, well out of the reach of most middle-class Americans—let alone the poorest and often most medically-vulnerable Americans. Isn’t it ironic that the individuals whom innovations in medical technology seek to benefit the most—the historically medically-underserved—are also the ones for whom these benefits are most out of reach? It’s a tragic story, yet one that we see repeating again and again throughout America’s history. But given the predicted technological boom of the near future, these historical patterns are more important to recognize—and remedy—than ever.

After all, if we are unable to provide healthcare equally, we must revisit our own values as a society. Is one life more important than another? Can you place a numerical value on a life? Are the lives of the wealthy and well-to-do worth more than the lives of those who cannot even afford health insurance, let alone new technology that may save their lives? In light of the digital age of healthcare that is fast approaching, we must not only ask ourselves these vital questions, but also use them to craft an approach to a healthier future that leaves no one behind.

Edited By: Harrison Pham

Graphic Designed By: Allison Yang

Anna Chen
- Oct 15, 2023
- 2 min read

Telemedicine: Enhancing, not replacing

Healthcare visits no longer have to be in person. In fact, with a good camera, reliable internet connection, and some sort of electronic device, patients can easily set up a telemedicine appointment. As the name suggests, telemedicine refers to “the provision of remote clinical services, via real-time two-way communication between the patient and the healthcare provider, using electronic audio and visual means” (1). This transformative healthcare approach, although in use before the COVID-19 pandemic, witnessed an extraordinary surge in adoption during this unprecedented time. One study that looked at five states (Arizona, California, Maine, Mississippi, and Missouri) reported that the number of telehealth services increased from 2.1 million in the year prior to 32.5 million in the period between March 2020 and February 2021 (2). Even after the pandemic, telemedicine continues to be a prominent and essential tool in healthcare: McKinsey & Company's insights indicate that the utilization of telehealth services has stabilized at levels 38 times higher than that seen before the pandemic (3).

Telemedicine offers a plethora of benefits for patients. The most obvious is that patients no longer have to make a physical visit to get medical treatment. This alleviates a huge burden for many, especially those in rural areas where medical professionals are not within a reasonable distance. Additionally, telemedicine reduces the wait times patients experience, providing greater convenience to patients who no longer have to sacrifice a large portion of their day sitting in the waiting room. Essentially, telemedicine offers a chance to break down the barriers many face when it comes to accessing healthcare.

However, there are drawbacks to the use of telemedicine. Namely, the quality of care is lower than that of an in-person visit. When diagnosing a patient, for example, a physician often “depresses the tongue and looks for pus on the tonsils to detect possible strep throat” and a surgeon may suspect appendicitis by “pushing on the belly to see if there’s pain with rapid release” (4). These methods of examination are no longer possible in telemedicine appointments. Additionally, telemedicine relies heavily on the patient’s description of their health concerns, which may be over or under-exaggerated. Physicians have to make their best judgment based on the limited amount of information they’re given. One study even found that telemedicine services were much more likely to prescribe antibiotics for children’s respiratory infections compared to in-person visits, which is contrary to prescribing guidelines used to prevent antibiotic resistance (5). This is in part due to the belief that the safer course for physicians is to overtreat, even though this may harm the patient in the long run.

We must be careful to ensure that telemedicine enhances rather than replaces in-person visits. It is a valuable and powerful tool in healthcare, but it still has its limits. If used appropriately, however, it can reduce the barriers to healthcare in widespread communities, taking our society one step closer to equitable and equal healthcare.

Edited By: Eric Wang

Graphic Designed by: Ting Ting Li

Sources:

Anna Chen
- Apr 23, 2023
- 3 min read

Menstruation in Prisons: A Cruel Form of Punishment

Ironically known as the “Land of the Free,” the United States houses about twenty percent of the world’s incarcerated individuals, despite representing a mere 4.2% of the world’s population (1). Of those incarcerated, about 170,000 are housed in women’s jails (2). A majority of those housed in these jails are below the age of 55, meaning that every month, every time they menstruate, they are subjected to additional dehumanization, humiliation, and punishment.

Simple supplies, such as pads and tampons, are sparingly provided. While the allotted amount differs between jails, some have reported as little as “one pack of pads and five regular-sized tampons monthly” (3). For heavy bleeders, this supply simply isn’t enough, and to access more supplies, one must pay. In contrast to the average price of about eight dollars for a box of tampons at drugstores, some prisons charge a hefty fee of fifteen dollars. Without a steady source of income, this price can’t easily be paid. So what choice are they left with? They must stuff their underwear with toilet paper (which is also rationed) and hope they don’t bleed through.

However, this lack of access to supplies often isn’t an issue of stock but rather one of power. Testimonials have come out of various prisons, including Rose M. Singer Center, stating that the distribution of these supplies is left to individual officers. While some “report no issues”, others “have to beg for it” (4). In other words, these supplies were only given to those who had a good relationship with the officers. One prisoner even recalled witnessing an event where a correction officer threw a box of tampons into the air, watching inmates scramble to grab them.

This problem of supplies isn’t the only way menstruation is used as a form of punishment in prisons. TIME magazine collected testimonials from incarcerated individuals and compiled below:

“A guard can supply a woman with her allotment of pads, but deny her the underwear she needs in order to wear the pad in the first place.

Someone on their period may be given supplies, but denied trash cans to dispose of soiled items.

During strip-searches, women are corralled into one area where a guard will order anyone menstruating to remove their tampons. One woman described routinely stepping onto other women’s menstrual blood on the floor.

A menstrual blood stain on a prison uniform becomes a reason to be singled out, called “lazy” and shamed by guards.

There is no privacy behind bars. Even changing your pads or tampons is an occasion for guards to watch.”

In an attempt to reconcile this horrific treatment, lawmakers have introduced various bills surrounding the issue of menstrual care for the incarcerated. One such successful measure was the First Step Act, which codified that prisons must provide period products free of charge.

However, these changes are often made on the federal level and thus only affect federal-level prisons. This leaves about 90% of women incarcerated, those in state-level prisons, without the benefits of these legislations (5). Currently, over 35 states lack menstrual care protections (3).

The treatment of menstruation in jails is, simply put, a horrific and cruel abuse of power. No matter your beliefs on incarceration, no one should be subjected to this level of dehumanization and humiliation. Menstruation is intrinsically related to human dignity. When people can’t access safe and effective care, we are violating their human rights. We are making these women hate their bodies. Thus, it’s vital that there is more awareness surrounding the issue of menstruation care. Only with an outroar of voices will lawkmakes be propelled to make the necessary changes to improve the situation of the incarcerated and to treat them as humans.

Edited by: Sam Shi

Graphic Designed by: Harris Upchurch

References

DMEJ

Duke Medical Ethics Journal