There is no marble in the lobby

I was at a hospital in the cities with a friend. This friend of mine was worried that they might have cancer and we were at the hospital to get some tests done. I come from a medical family, one where the doctors do research, publish and compete by looking at isi impact factors of journals. I had looked up the doctor that my friend had seen and was unhappy to see what I had been taught to be a horrible phrase " board eligible" I was also not too happy to see a lack of publications in the area of oncology which I found strange because there should at least have been some dating back to the doctors days as a fellow. I brought all of these concerns to my friend but was told that I had a very elitist, cut and dry, dehumanizing view and that I should recognize that this doctor had been recommended, was qualified that there was no reason to distrust him.

Our whole discusion can seem a bit mean here and a tad off topic but I absolutely love debating and arguing so I enjoyed exploring our own little science war which as the Port disappeared turned to a debate about political views and about the economics of healthcare. Pretty much everything we discussed the night before the test came up in some way in our class.

Now after being seen by a doctor and having a biopsy done my friend was happy to find them self cancer free. Everyone was extremely happy, but I was still paranoid. I convinced my friend to have their biopsy done at another hospital repeated at a hospital of my choice since the insurance would cover it they relented. It turned out that the hospital in the cities had made a mistake, I dont think it was the fault of the oncologist as much as of the pathology lab but my friend was not cancer free. Or I suppose I should say they found that the tumor which had been declared safe was actually not and would require a regiment of chemo and some surgery. 

I dont want this to be some attempt at gloating or some attempt at convincing people to my point of view towards science. I think that this type of situation perfectly showed the many issues that we talk about in class. We had the aspect of authority and where and how it should be placed that Lewontin touched on, there was a good example of reality depending on how tests are done and interpreted that was shown by Latour in his discusion of reality. My own view point and reasons for insisting that we get a second opinion are so rooted in my cultural experiences that had I not been so formed by my surroundings I would not have argued for going to what is by numbers one of the best institutions when it comes to cancer treatment. 

Luckily my friend was able to go through the necessary treatment with minimal problems, but I was struck by my own bias once again when celebrating their return to health. They said that it was a good idea that to get a second opinion and I replied with "well what do you expect XXX does not have marble in their lobby and I can't even tell where they keep their Rodin".  I really hope that my rather a-hole statement though meant as a joke was still only brought on by a copious amount of the celebratory blue label.  This once again brought my thoughts back to my very reductionist cut and dry view of science, but how the view is afforded to me by my slightly more than average understanding of medical culture and the many socioeconomic factors that go in to constructing medical centers that attract staff and researchers from around the world. (including my own family)  I really can not reconcile if it is because of my overall trust in science that I can dismiss so many of the biases that go in to constructing them, or because I can quickly see most of the biases that go in to our scientific work.


* please note that since my friend was a student here at the university I chose to write with as little detail as possible so as not to give away their identity in sharing this story- I know it might make it harder and more awkward to read