Transgender Individuals Have Been Neutered
The recent craze of transgender activities in our world represents a massive degree of hubris within our culture. For centuries, humans of both genders have had some gender dysphoria.
The major problem with the modern so-called sex-reassignment surgery is that the procedures are sad failures. And they fail because they do not correct the basic underlying problem. The real problem is of a psychological nature, which is not corrected by transgender surgical procedures.
The only way in which “transgender” concepts work is due to ignorance of human biological science. Gender is identified by the sex chromosomes in our nucleated cells. There are only two types of sex chromosomes, identified by the letters “X” and “Y”. The presence of two X chromosomes (“XX”) indicates that the cell came from a female. The presence of an X and a Y chromosome (“XY”) establishes a male gender.
The presence of “XX” chromosomes in the nucleated cells of a human establishes that individual as a female. As a result of this genetic property, the individual will develop ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a uterus. She will also have tissue in her breasts that will develop further during and after her first pregnancy that will enable her offspring to suckle at her nipples.
If a male undergoes “transgender surgery”, he still has “XY” chromosomes in all of his nucleated cells. While the procedure may create some external changes that may appear to be female attributes, he/she does not have breast tissue that would provide an infant nutrition much less have ovaries and a uterus that could produce an infant in the first place.
Similarly, if a female undergoes “transgender surgery”, she (or it) is not a male. No living testicles are implanted and there is no phallus with erectile tissue present. It is all a fraud.
The actual condition afflicting individuals seeking transgender procedures is of psychological origin. Major surgery is not currently able to correct such psychological conditions. In fact, what such surgery does accomplish is to neuter these individuals. They are completely unable to reproduce. Their family line hits a dead end due to these procedures.
In short, we should stop referring to these individuals as “transgender” because they haven’t actually changed their gender, given that they haven’t exchanged their testicles for ovaries or vice versa. Instead, we should be referring to these individuals as “neutered”.
Breath
Every now and then something happens that haunts you. The episode plays over and over in your head like a television rerun you’ve seen a dozen times. But, while the TV show began to bore you on the second replay, your memory’s rerun still gets to you.
I have no idea of how many motorcycle accident victims I have seen or cared for since becoming a physician. The number is at least in the hundreds. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a few thousand.
I also don’t know how many terminal patients there have been on whom I’ve had to discontinue life support. It’s not the kind of statistic one likes to track.
There are so many of these patients coming through the doors, holding our attention for such a brief time that we usually fail to give them a second thought. That sounds hard, I know. It seems cold. After all, families are attached to each one of these young people. They weep in the background of the intensive care unit, suppressing sobs as they try to catch anything in the air that resembles a hope. . .
Somehow, dispassionately, we must take care of the paperwork. We try to let them down gently, finding the words to tell them the worst has happened. But pressing us forward is the cold realization that we must move the body to the morgue quickly to make room for yet another brain-dead victim of the traffic maze.
But every now and then something happens….
I can’t even remember how many trauma admissions we had that night or when this young man was brought in. I think we were busy, though. I believe he came in while we were in and out of the operating room taking care of the injuries we could do something about.
This young man was in his early 20’s. He had been drinking with his friends and was out riding the motorcycle he loved. Then, as they always seem to do, he lost control. I never learned anythingn more to the story than that. I’m not sure anyone really knew.
It was clear that he had suffered a fatal head injury, even accounting for the alcohol still in his system. A CT scan was performed of his head, and it confirmed our initial impressions. There was no simple clot inside the head which we could remove to release pressure; it wasn’t that easy. No, his brain had been shattered. There was nothing the best neurosurgeon in the country could do on his best day ever. This was far beyond repair.
Sadly, his body was otherwise fine. I don’t mean that it was merely uninjured. I mean, it was perfect–healthy, strong, vigorous, bursting with life. And, because he had no external injuries, he didn’t even have a head bandage. He simply lay there in the intensive care unit, looking as though he were merely napping. The only signs that something wasn’t right were the endotracheal tube coming out of his mouth and the intravenous catheter inserted in his lower neck.
It didn’t take long for him to be processed through our system. By early morning, a nuclear medicine cerebral blood flow study confirmed that there was no blood flow to his brain. The brain was dead.
This simplified our approach, because there aren’t many arguments about what the options are at this point. There are two basic rules that direct us: 1) dead brains don’t grow back, and 2) you only get one brain per life. Once a brain is gone, it’s gone. That’s life.
This seems to happen at least once or twice a week at our hospital. In fact, it happens with a fair frequency throughout the country. Fifty years ago, it wasn’t so routine for several reasons. First, back then it would have been unusual for a patient not to have suffocated at the scene of the accident or during transfer to the hospital. Now, because our ambulance and helicopter personnel are so well-trained, they can provide and protect the airway and keep the simple catastrophes from happening. Second, even if such a patient survived to make it to the hospital twenty years ago, the doctors wouldn’t have been able to see the horrible damage to the brain because they didn’t have computerized tomography. Back then, they would have performed some less precise studies like arteriograms or even have drilled some holes in the skull “blindly” looking for a blood clot to evacuate. After several days of intensive effort, it would have become apparent that nothing was happening upstairs, that the brain wasn’t functional, that it was quiet. They would have done at least a couple of electroencephalograms tosee the electrical silence. And finally, they would have had a huge ethical dilemma. The brain appeared dead, but the body was still working. What were they supposed to do? In the past, this individual would have been hospitalized indefinitely. Nursing care would be provided every day with no goal of recovery in sight. Over the years, the patient would become a familiar sight, a fixture, a mascot for the ward. Family visits, at first frequent, would gradually taper from daily to weekly to monthly. Finally, only a card would arrive on birthdays and Christmases. After a while, the family would only think of the enormous financial debt they had accumulated, wrecking their generation’s hope for a normal existence. The usual mechanism that could bring a merciful end to this continuous heartbreak was an accident: the ventilator’s alarms would fail to announce a disconnection of the patient from the machine; a medication error would stop this patient’s heart even though it was intended to help someone else’s; or the room he occupied would be forgotten during a major power failure, and the breathing would stop. Comically, by then, the people charged with his care would no longer know anything about his case. Just that he was there. His ultimate means of exit would become a ward joke. A sorry, sick, sad joke.
Because of improved emergency care, the scenario our young man’s body was facing became a more frequent problem. Individual human suffering became a social problem, and the issues were debated extensively. They are still argued hotly, but fortunately, many of the ethical concerns are more consistently resolved. In fact, most states have legislation which helps to resolve these situations. The concept of brain death is accepted and used in daily practice. There is no longer a need to continue fruitless agonizing care under these circumstances. When the brain is dead, you’re dead.
I asked for the family to be brought up to the conference room so we could tell them of the situation. I had a lot of other patients I needed to take care of, so I wanted to expedite things. Once they were assembled, the nurse and I walked in and quietly shut the door.
There was the father standing across the table from me. A big man, probably a farmer or a factory worker, with a tough, leathered face that had seen its share of sunbaked Texas days. His grip was strong, but his heart wasn’t in his handshake. He sensed that I was bringing bad news.
The mother turned out to be sitting next to me, most of her face buried in a pile of handkerchiefs. But I could see that her face wore the colors of sorrow: grey hair and red eyes.
There was an older brother by his father and a quiet worried sister at the other end of the table. That was all I could make out of the immediate family. There were even more friends, neighbors, cousins, and grandparents around. The whole room could have had twenty or thirty people in it.
I spoke to only two. Mom and dad.
“Has anyone talked to you yet?” I asked, trying to get my bearings. I never know where or how or what to do to get this talk started properly.
They shook their heads, some yes and some no. The usual response.
“Well, as you know,” I continued, “he had a very bad accident on his motorcycle early this morning. The major–in fact, the only–injury he received was one to his head. We have performed a CT scan–that is, a special X-ray study that shows us what’s happening inside the skull–and that showed us that his brain has been horribly destroyed.”
I paused here because I thought that the words that I had just uttered were strong, and I waited to sense their impact. The mother was trying to catch her sobs in her handkerchief; she wanted to hear every word I said. She was hoping. . .
But I had no hope to give her.
“I’ve had our neurosurgeon, Dr. Wright, look at your son and the X-rays with me. He believes that this is a devastating injury to the brain. In fact, it is so bad that he can’t do anything to fix it.
We have just finished doing a nuclear medicine study which looks at the blood flow to the brain. What that shows us is that there is no blood being pumped to his brain.”
I paused. She was starting to let out one of the sobs she had tried to hold.
“His brain is dead.” I finished tersely. “That means he is dead.”
She was heaving with sobs. Dad had brought up a hand to suffocate his mouth as water welled into his eyes. The rest of the crowd seemed to exhale a collective gasp and collapse into each other’s arms, leaning on shoulders, pounding on walls.
I let this go on for a few moments.
I usually feel awful about this time. It hurts so much to see such an assembly of sorrow and to know that I just now made it happen. It’s so deep and so personal for them, and I’m just some stranger, some guy sitting there watching. It would be such a relief to start crying with them because I’m usually choked up just being there. But they don’t want that. They need me to be strong for them for a while. It would be weird for this stranger, this unknown doctor, to start crying over the death of their youngest son.
They gradually regained composure.
I continued my job.
“Because we are able to artificially breathe air into his lungs, his heart is still beating and the rest of his body is still alive,” I explained. “However, because his brain is dead, he is legally dead, and I will stop the breathing machines. Before I do that, I want to know if you have thought about donating his organs so that they can live on in other people and help them. If so, I can have you talk to our transplant surgeon.”
They looked at each other and shook their heads no. There was no doubt. I wanted to make sure that they understood that there really was an opportunity to help others here, but it seemed they were convinced.
“No,” his mother gulped, “he wanted to keep his body perfect all the time. I don’t think he would have wanted it all cut up.”
“I understand,” I lied, wondering how committed to bodily perfection he could have been while drunk on a motorcycle. “In that case, we’ll be turning off the ventilator in just a few moments. Would you care to see him before we do?”
“Uh, Doc,” the father said, hesitantly. “I’d like to be there when you do that.”
This was an unusual request. Most people don’t even think of asking and would probably refuse if the opportunity were offered. It’s emotionally a very rough time for a relative.
But I didn’t want to stand in the way of whatever they felt they wanted at this point.
“Are you sure?” I asked. “I mean, it’s all right, but it might not be easy to handle.”
“No, I’m sure,” the father said, his eyes wet. “He’da wanted me to be there for him.”
Well, I thought, I really can’t argue with this request, unusual or not. They may have had some kind of pact on this type of thing. People are different.
“Fine,” I consented. “Do you have–“
“–I wanna be there, too!” the mother blurted, cutting off my sentence.
As soon as the words escaped her, she began sobbing heavily again. It wasn’t clear she meant it, or she just said it tobe included with the commitment the father had offered.
The room crowded around her, trying to comfort her.
“Oh, no, Ma,” the father said, “I don’t think you should. It’ll be too rough for you.”
“No, no,” said the sister and some friends. People were holding her, stroking her hair, reassuring her.
She just shook her head back and forth as she sobbed. She wasn’t happy with them. No one was understanding her.
“It’ll be OK,” the father said. “I’ll be there with him. You just stay here and rest with Stacy.”
She was weeping heavily now, shaking her head no, trying to get up.
“I . . . want . . . to . . . be . . . there.” She blurted out the staccato words between sobs.
People looked at each other. Concern and skepticism registered on their faces. They shook their heads at each other. They tried to close in on her some more. She collapsed in her chair as she wept.
She kept sobbing, shaking her head back and forth.
“No, no, no,” the crowd murmured, moving closer.
Suddenly, she erupted.
“Dammit!” she yelled, flinging people away from her.
The room was paralyzed with rapt attention.
In the sudden silence, she cried with desperate conviction: “I was there when he took his first breath! I’ll be there when he breathes his last!”
The room dissolved as tears swelled into my eyes. A choking ball gagged the back of my throat.
That was it. A life. A mother’s love. From first to last, it embraces us.
I don’t know how I kept from crying. I darted a look to the nurse. She was struggling, too.
“Alright, alright,” I soothed. “It’s OK. Why don’t you two come with us?”
The four of us–mother, father, nurse, and I–walked out of the room and shut the door. We tramped stonily toward the intensive care unit and entered.
There was no noise between us. A stunned silence seemed all around me, despite the beeping of electrocardiographic monitors, the sighing of the ventilators, the hubbub of nurses and technicians at the bedsides. I should have heard these, but I didn’t.
Instead, her words were echoing too loudly within my head for anything else to be heard. For some reason, there was a strength in her statement which obsessed me. Its image was so overpowering. That a mother should hear her infant gasp for his first taste of air. She then holds him close to her, nurturing him, watching him grow. She teaches him how to live his life–that strong is good and weak is wrong, that truth is right. She sees him enchanted by a puppy, and she wistfully celebrates the loss of each milk tooth. He starts school and loves baseball and learns that girls are pretty. And then she discovers his dreams–he wants to do something special with his life, he wants to be somebody. And she’s sad that he must go but she’s proud of this because she put him there. He is hers, she made him, he grew inside her and came from her. Then he will have his own children. Her grandchildren. And she will see it happen all over again. . .
But suddenly–now–it’s over. Too soon, sadly. Before the future could follow
Now, she will hear the last breath leave his lungs. She feels she must. It makes it whole, complete.
A beginning. An end. A life.
My eyes were watering as we approached the bed. This isn’t supposed to happen to doctors, I thought, and I gritted my teeth to fight it.
But it was so hard. I kept thinking of my wife’s love for our children, how much they have meant to her, how much they mean to us. I couldn’t imagine what it must be like to be living the tragedy I was witnessing. How could you lose your boy? How do you live through that? I didn’t want to imagine it.
But I was there. I had to see it.
We arrived at the bedside, and suddenly I could hear the rest of the room. The drone of background conversations from other bedsides was overlaid by the beeps and the sighs which identify the machine life of intensive care. I heard his EKG monitor and his ventilator right next to me.
After they assembled around the bed, I wasted little time. I automatically looked at the clock: 2:45. Without looking at his parents, I went to disconnect the ventilator tubing from my patient’s endotracheal tube.
As I pulled the plastic tubing apart, I heard a soft puff leave the endotracheal tube. His last.
I quickly shut off the power switch on the ventilator so the alarm would not sound.
And then there was silence. No breath. Just the beep. . .beep. . .beep of his EKG.
No breath.
We listened. She listened. It was quiet.
No breath.
None.
His mother crumbled, choking on her cries. The nurse caught her in her arms. The mother shook her head no, no, no, and moved to leave. But she couldn’t do it alone.
I looked at the nurse and nodded. She turned to help the mother away from the bed. She was ushered out of the unit without turning back, supported by the nurse’s strong arm. The mother had done what she needed to do.
I looked at the father across the bed from me. His eyes were glued on his son’s face. I guessed that he was wishing his son would awake, finding it impossible to believe that this could be happening, that his son was really gone. I couldn’t imagine what his father was thinking about while gazing on his son, but I didn’t have to wonder for long.
“Breathe, Tommy,” he said, hesitantly at first. Then, more boldly, “C’mon, breathe!”
I froze.
“Tommy!” he yelled, “Wake up! C’mon, Tommy, breathe!”
A few heads turned. I looked quickly around the unit as if to reassure everyone that things were alright. I was mildly chagrinned by this unexpected outburst. What had begun as an unusual request could now become embarrassing.
“Wake up! Wake up! C’mon, Tommy, c’mon!” He reached his hand toward his dead son’s shoulder as if to arouse him.
“Breathe, Tommy, breathe!” he yelled, and started to pull up and down on the shoulder. As he did so, however, the EKG leads became jostled, and the arrhythmia detector on the monitor began pinging its alarm.
With that, the father stopped his shaking and followed my eyes to the EKG monitor.
“What-?” he paused. I reached over his shoulder to turn off the alarms.
“It’s just the alarms going off because the wires got shaken,” I said. “It’s not from his heart, it’s from the shaking. His heart is starting to stop.”
As I watched, the heart rate slowed. Each beat seemed to find it harder and harder to come through. As the rate slowed, the electrical complex widened. Normally a sharp, crisp spike of electricity zipping through the heart, his complexes became shorter and wider as the currents slowed in their course through the nerves and muscles. Agonizing, struggling, his heart kept up its flagging pace for all it was worth. Occasionally, a burst of electricity would emanate from some other region of the heart, identifying an impatient cell with pacemaker-like abilities stepping in to fill the electrical void. But these were futile, wasted efforts. With a gradually dwindling supply of oxygen, his heart was doomed.
The father watched the monitor over this passage of time with me, not understanding the physiology, but grasping its import. As the complexes started to disappear from the screen, he turned toward the bed with grief clutching his face.
“Breathe . . .” his voice cracked; the command was a whispered plea.
But nothing happened.
The rest of the unit had gone back to its business, the temporary disturbance abated. As the quiet at the bedside returned, the hubbub of the surrounding area gradually began to come back to my consciousness. The voices conversed with each other in various corners of the unit, a gentle swelling murmur. Elsewhere, at the nurses station, the telephones were ringing. Someone was stamping out patient labels on the addressograph machine. All around, the monitors beeped in an irregular cadence, and the ventilators sighed.
Except here.
As the oxygen left his system, the boy’s cells became depleted of energy. Muscle cells, losing the ability to keep themselves charged, became discharged as they approached electrical neutrality. They began to twitch. But it was uncoordinated, cell by cell or fiber by fiber. It was not whole muscles acting in a smooth coordinated glide. Rather, it was a subtle but grotesque shudder of death. First, you saw something on his chest, his pectoral muscles. Then the thigh, the neck, his cheek, a finger. Nothing really moved. It just seemed as though things were running under his skin. Little lizards, thousands of them, scurrying under the epidermis.
His father stood transfixed watching the sight. His face was a confusion of fear and hope.
He thought his son had heard him.
I groaned inside. Once again, I had to dash his hopes upon the craggy rocks of dismay as I demystified the process.
“These are only muscle fasciculations,” I explained. “When the muscles run out of energy, they twitch. But it’s not him controlling them. They do this on their own, like a reflex. It doesn’t last long, and he can’t feel it.”
As soon as I finished, the wave of twitching abated. The last physiological gasp. Gone. Silence.
It was over.
I walked over to the chart and wrote the death note, mechanically looking up to note the time of pronouncement for the record. Twelve minutes had elapsed since I disconnected the airway.
As I wrote, I mused on the ludicrousness of pronouncing a time of death with a precision of minutes. It had taken roughly 12 minutes from the time of the last breath until his muscles had completely depolarized. Likely, other less active muscles, like those in his intestinal tract, were still waiting to be discharged. Even then, the cells themselves are potentially alive, potentially revivable if placed in the proper environment. Some would die, sure, but others could live. Some cells, the very slow metabolic ones like fat or bone, would continue to live for several hours, producing carbon dioxide continuously as they metabolized until they could burn no longer. Some, I thought, would continue to metabolize on into the night. The carbon dioxide production was measurable if one took the time and effort to measure it.
That’s how death is. A slow and gradual slipping away. Each cell hanging on as long as possible. Just as it takes three-quarters of a year for an embryo to develop into a complete and physiologically independent human, death can take a long time, too. Some patients seem to do it for months, lingering in bed with no hope of recovery because our technology can take them only so far, but not far enough. Once the breathing stops and the heartbeat fades, the cells can’t hang on for long. They capitulate, organ by organ, tissue by tissue, cell by cell. A vast helpless army of billions, lay to waste.
But that doesn’t end it. For as soon as the cells die, the bacteria living inside the body’s house start to digest and decompose the contents. In a natural world, they would immediately begin the process of transformation, under the ground, feeding the burrowers and the roots. And up from this decomposing dirge of death springs new life, seeking the sun, ready to feed new generations.
No, I mused, the chain of life has never been broken. Rather, it cycles. Up and down. Parts of it grow and mature, while others age and wither. We are merely carried by the current as the stream of life wends its way through time’s soil.
Closing the chart, I went over to the father. The EKG monitor showed a flat trace. He looked at me and nodded. He shook my hand. I don’t know why he had to thank me, but he did.
I walked him back to the waiting room. The mother was slightly more composed at first, but when she saw her husband, the father of her child, she cried and buried her head in his chest. His arms wrapped around her to hold her in their private world.
I closed the door and walked away.
As I heard her sobbing disappear behind me, her words came back to me. Their symmetry held a special beauty amidsorrow.
I heard him breathe his first breath, and I’ll hear him breathe his last.
I couldn’t fight it any longer. I darted down the nearest stairwell and paused on the first landing. I saw no one.
There, like a cleansing rain, the tears poured out of me until the pain abated.
The Cruel Paradox of Scar Formation
The perspective we humans have on the body’s functions works is often at odds with the body’s perspective. In many cases, our social attitudes give us a perspective that is in stark contrast to the operational bodily functions.
Consider scar formation, for example. We humans tend to evaluate scars based upon their appearance. We determine whether they are ugly or whether they are nearly invisible. We praise scars when you can’t even tell there was a wound.
From the standpoint of our physiology, the scar is the final result of a process of wound healing. Any time the body’s tissues are injured by a penetrating device, the injured area undergoes an extremely complex process to clean up any dead cells and tissues and progressively close in the resulting space as best as possible. So there is initially an inflammatory response that consists of various types of white blood cells and antibodies that work to destroy any infectious organisms and dead tissue. As the infectious and necrotic material is being discarded, a number of cellular and molecular processes are stimulated to heal the wound and re-establish an effective barrier to the outside world. Fibroblast cells form collagen fibers. Those fibers, in turn, become attached to myofibroblast cells, which are cells with contractile elements. Those cells work to progressively pull the wound edges together so that the epithelium can resurface the wound with its impermeable barrier.
This contractile process often leaves a residual scar. Wounds that required a great deal of contraction are much more noticeable and disfiguring than wounds that are narrower, thereby requiring less contraction.
We ideally close wounds primarily so that less scar tissue will need to be formed. Doing so will leave a thinner and less noticeable scar, especially if the incision was made in or is parallel to the skin lines.
Why Do We Close Skin?
When I ask a medical student or resident, “Why do we close skin?”, he or she usually states, “Well, it’s to prevent the wound from getting infected.”
I then would follow up with “What do we do with an infected wound?” The trainee would the typically respond with, “Well, we open it so the pus can drain out of it.”
So, I respond with “Then why did we close it in the first place?”
At this point the trainee is genuinely flummoxed. There’s a paradox running around in his or her head. If we close a wound to prevent its infection, then why do we open it to treat a wound infection?
I explain that we close a wound for cosmetic reasons. That is, clean wounds are usually closed at the end of the operation. Such a procedure is called closure by primary intention. Primary intention means to close the wound so that it will end up with a less visible scar.
However, in the case of an infected wound, primary intention is not practiced due to the high likelihood of the infection persisting in the tissues and expanding, ultimately requiring surgical drainage.
Instead such cases, the infected wound is left open to be treated with frequent irrigations and the application of absorbent dressings or a negative pressure wound drainage system known as a “wound vac”.
Understanding the nature of wounds, and wound infection is often a paradigm shift for trainees.
Pressure and Flow
The physical concepts of circulatory pressure and flow are derived from Ohm’s law, although Ohm wasn’t actually concerned with physiology or the circulation. Georg Simon Ohm was a German physicist and mathematician working on electrical circuits and currents in the early 1800s. The law named after him states “V = IR”. In that equation, “I” is the current of electrons moving through the conductor in units of amperes (or “amps”), “V” is the voltage measured across the conductor in units of volts, and “R” is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms.
Similarly, in terms used for circulatory performance, blood flow (represented as a dotted Q) is analogous to current, blood pressure (BP) is analogous to voltage, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) is the term applied for the resistance to circulatory flow.
Thus, in terms appropriate for the circulation, Ohm’s law looks like BP = Q x SVR.
The circulation of blood through the cardiovascular system delivers oxygen and nutrients to maintain cellular viability throughout the body. It is very important to understand that it is circulatory flow that delivers the cellular fuel. That flow, in turn, is produced by cardiac function continuously pumping oxygenated blood through the circulation. We commonly monitor blood pressure and heart rate to assess the circulation’s activity. However, neither of these parameters represent the actual fuel delivery (in the form of oxygen and nutrients) necessary for cell viability and organ function.
In fact, maintaining blood pressure itself is not actually the primary goal in circulatory shock resuscitation. Blood pressure is often managed in clinical practice with the administration of vasoconstrictive medications, also known as vasopressors. However, such treatment does not really improve the delivery of oxygen to cells and tissues. Oxygen is primarily transported by being bound to hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells with a small amount of oxygen being dissolved in the plasma. Rather, it is blood flow that determines how much oxygen the tissues receive.
The paradigm shift for many clinicians is to understand the difference in importance between blood pressure and blood flow.
Less vs. Fewer
I was an English major in college. I had heard somewhere that college students have to read a lot of books during their four years, so I figured it would be best if I read books that were written to be read. While that did serve a good purpose, I also double-majored in Interdepartmental Sciences, which was the pre-med major at my college (Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Va.).
Nevertheless, I truly enjoyed my English major, reading books and poems extending from Chaucer through Joyce. It also helped me during my academic surgical career, as I had learned excellent writing skills and was able to generate a number of publications as a result.
Consequently, I have also developed an innate sense of proper English grammar whenever I hear an individual speaking. I am especially annoyed when I hear poor grammar being used, especially by individuals who are noted to be well-educated.
At the current time, for example, some notable individual will talk about how we must work on having less illegal immigrants coming across the border, confusing the terms “less” and “fewer”. The proper phrase should be “on having fewer illegal immigrants”.
The term”less” refers a relative quantity of something, such as “less food” or “less money”, but not enumerated entities. The term “fewer” applies to entities that can be counted. Thus, in a discussion of reducing the movement of a massive hoard of people, it is more appropriate to speak of allowing fewer people to cross a border illegally.
Pressure and Flow
Medical evaluation and monitoring of the circulation’s performance is most commonly assessed through determination of the heart rate (or pulse) and blood pressure. However, these two parameters do not actually represent the key functions of the circulation, which are delivery of oxygen and nutrients to cells.
The physical concepts of pressure and flow are related through Ohm’s law, although Ohm wasn’t actually concerned with physiology or the circulation. Georg Simon Ohm was a German physicist and mathematician working on electrical circuits and currents in the early 1800s. The law named after him states “V = IR”. In that equation, “I” is the current of electrons moving through the conductor in units of amperes (or “amps”), “V” is the voltage measured across the conductor in units of volts, and “R” is the resistance of the conductor in units of ohms.
Similarly, in terms used for circulatory performance, blood flow (represented as a dotted Q) is analogous to current, blood pressure (BP) is analogous to voltage, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) is the term applied for the resistance to circulatory flow.
However, the body is dependent upon the flow of oxygen and nutrients via the circulation so that tissue cells can survive. It is very important to understand that it is circulatory flow that delivers the cellular fuel. That flow, in turn, is produced by cardiac function continuously pumping oxygenated blood through the circulation. While blood pressure is commonly measured and monitored, it does not represent the degree of fuel delivery necessary for cell viability and organ function.
In fact, maintaining blood pressure is not the primary goal in circulatory shock resuscitation. Blood pressure is often managed in clinical practice with the administration of vasoconstrictive medications, also known as vasopressors. However, such treatment does nothing to improve the delivery of oxygen to cells and tissues. Rather, it is blood flow that determines how much oxygen the tissues receive.
“Pre-renal”: What It Is and What It Isn’t
I often hear residents and attending physicians characterize a patient as “pre-renal”. By that, they usually mean that the patient needs additional fluids because they think the circulation is volume-depleted. And they usually make that conclusion based upon a fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) determination. Unfortunately, this is a situation where oversimplification has distorted critical thinking.
First, the term “pre-renal” is an incomplete term. It is a short-cut for “pre-renal azotemia”, which is a term that was coined several decades ago. Pre-renal azotemia was one of the three types of azotemia originally developed to characterize renal disorders, the others being “renal azotemia” and “post-renal azotemia”.
“Azotemia”, in turn, refers to the presence of higher than normal levels of nitrogenous compounds in the bloodstream as determined by laboratory analyses. While there are numerous nitrogen-containing molecules normally found in the blood, azotemia usually refers to an elevation of the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration. Because urea is excreted by the kidney, its elevation in the bloodstream usually indicates some type of renal dysfunction.
However, this, too, is occasionally an erroneous assumption, as patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage can also elevate their BUN levels due to the increased intestinal absorption and digestion of blood.
The concepts of “pre-renal”, “renal”, and “post-renal” with respect to the cause of the azotemia refer to where the defect lies in the kidney’s excretory process. In a pre-renal problem, the kidney is receiving inadequate blood flow to be able to excrete waste products adequately. In renal azotemia, the problem lies within the tubular epithelium responsible for the molecular exchanges that get urea to stay in the excreted urine instead of reabsorbed like the non-waste materials (i.e., sodium, bicarbonate, glucose, etc.). And post-renal azotemia indicates the presence of an obstruction somewhere in the collecting system responsible for eliminating waste materials through the urethra.
Where I have a real problem with the use of the term “pre-renal” by itself is that the presence of an elevated BUN and/or creatinine level (i.e., the azotemia) is often completely ignored. In fact, both of those laboratory values will be absolutely normal, and yet those physicians will still label the patient as “pre-renal” simply because the FENa is less than 1%. They may even administer a bolus of intravenous fluids to correct what they think is a sign of hypovolemia.
While modern medicine is very advanced with respect to its management of the human body, it would be a real paradigm shift for us to fully understand the full meaning of the terms we use..
Why Blood Pressure Should Not Be the Therapeutic Target in Shock
Blood pressure is a routinely monitored parameter in patient care, whether ambulatory or inpatient. It is continuously monitored in critically ill patients in an intensive care unit. In these units, loud alarms are activated when such a patient’s blood pressure suddenly drops below the predetermined alarm threshold. Critical Care nurses and physicians at once respond to the alarms and start to assess the patient and correct the situation.
In many cases, the patient has had earlier episodes of hypotension and has been successfully resuscitated with the appropriate treatments that were applied on those occasions. But in other cases, the root causality of the patient’s hypotension is not really known. There are several different underlying conditions that can produce hypotension. They have been categorized into 4 different etiologies:
1. Hypovolemia
2. Neurogenic conditions
3. Cardiogenic conditions
4. Overwhelming sepsis
Bottom line: Sudden hypotension by itself does not identify the underlying problem. There are four potential causes for such conditions:
| Condition: | Hypovolemic | Cardiogenic | Neurogenic or Vasogenic | Septic |
| Blood Pressure is: | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Unfortunately, the response is usually flawed, as it seeks to correct the symptom but not the disease. That is, the initial clinical response is to administer vasopressors to increase the blood pressure reading. However, such treatment does not actually fix the problem. To treat any disease, it is necessary to evaluate and decide the nature of the condition responsible for it. In the case of hypotension, there are different conditions in each of the four categories of hypotension. Effective treatment requires specific management of the underlying condition. I addressed this issue in “Understanding circulatory and non-circulatory shock” on this same website.
Human Genetics vs. Mental Health (Gender, Lies, and Money)
A May 8, 2023, article in The Epoch Times reported that the 3 major North Carolina medical schools (Duke, UNC, and ECU) were performing transgender procedures on toddlers. This news is an appalling representation of the nefarious depths some of those in our society have probed. How far down the hole of ignorance have people slid? It is very difficult to understand how our society can accept such practices as legitimate, appropriate, or even needed.
These activities indicate profound ignorance regarding the nature of gender. Humans and all life forms have some form of gender. In fact, some species demonstrate multiple variations with respect to gender. Humans, however, only have two genders, defined as male (with XY chromosomes in all nucleated cells) and female (with XX chromosomes in all nucleated cells).
Individuals claiming to be an alternate gender from the one their biology has provided do have a serious problem. However, the problem is not in their genes or their anatomy. Their mind and its psychological function are the source of their disorder. For some reason, their brain is not functioning in a way that is consistent with their biology.
I vividly recall an experience during my psychiatry rotation in medical school. There was a patient on our service whose psychosis was that he believed his head had been chopped off at the neck. When we rounded on him, he was almost always propped up on the left side of his bed looking over its edge at the floor below where his imagined head lay looking up at him. He would even become extremely agitated if anyone stepped anywhere near its apparent location, which no one else could see because it actually wasn’t there.
If physicians and society addressed his problem as many are currently addressing gender dysphoria, he would have been beheaded so that his body matched his perception of his body. How would that action have been received by society? I suspect it would have led to long term imprisonment if not a life sentence for the perpetrators.
One of the important consequences of those individuals who have undergone transgender surgery is that they can no longer procreate. (Of course, that could be beneficial for our species as it could ultimately eliminate those individuals who possess this psychological aberrancy.)
When an individual claims that he or she is in the wrong body and identifies as the opposite gender, such a condition should be recognized for the psychiatric malady it is. There are a large number of terms that have been used to classify the various types of gender dysphoria that have been identified.
Genital mutilation on extremely young children makes about as much sense as putting them through basic infantry training or teaching them how to apply makeup. They are simply not mature enough to comprehend the issues involved. It can easily be argued that physicians and medical centers are performing these unethical procedures because of the substantial financial reimbursement available. The per-episode payer costs of gender-affirming surgeries have been reported to range from $6,927 for orchiectomy, $45,080 for vaginoplasty, and $63,432 for phalloplasty.1
On April 3, 2024, the New York Post ran a headline stating, “Bearded trans athlete who injured rival was suspended from rowing team for ogling topless girl in changing room”. This incident underscores the key fallacy in the transgender movement. Would a true female (i.e., with “XX” chromosomes in every nucleated cell) be ogling other topless women in a changing room?
Of course not. While I am not a woman, I suspect that true XX women do not ogle each other’s breasts in changing rooms. I know that true XY men do not ogle each other’s external genitalia in changing rooms.
What was not acknowledged in the New York Post article was that the reason the bearded trans athlete was ogling the women’s breasts was due to the influence of his male hormones circulating in his bloodstream. The concept that he still had male hormones in his bloodstream is supported by the fact that he still had a beard. Those male hormones function to stimulate sexual arousal in the male for the purpose of procreation and continuation of the species.
Another important aspect to consider is the fact that after gender transitional surgery has been performed, those individuals can no longer procreate. Males who have transitioned have lost their testicles as well as their penis. Women who have transitioned have lost their ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and breasts.
Of course, all life on earth consists of plants and animals that reproduce in order to continue their respective species. Without reproduction, the species would become extinct. Thus, so-called transgender individuals are no longer part of the continuum of life for the human species. After all, we define women as the gender that incubates fetuses in their womb. And men are defined as the gender that inseminates those wombs. Transgender individuals of both types (he->she and she->he) cannot inseminate a woman or give birth. Thus, their value to our species is nil.
Is it really a paradigm shift for us to accept that we actually are a dioecious species? (And if you do not know what dioecious means, you should check it out in a dictionary.)
- Baker K and Restar A: Utilization and Costs of Gender-Affirming Care in a Commercially Insured Transgender Population. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 50 (2022): 456-470.