Wellness Wednesday: iPad Surgery, ADHD, and Patient Self-Advocacy



On this hour of Wellness Wednesday, we’ll look at a free mobile app that simulates real life surgeries. Then we’ll talk to a concerned grandmother about strategies for coping with a grandchild’s ADHD. Finally, we’ll explore a movement to empower patients using a combination of scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences.


  • Jean Nehme, plastic surgeon, co-founder and CEO of Touch Surgery
  •  Judy Kirzner, author of Help! My Grandchild has ADHD 
  •  Bernadette Melnyk, Dean of the College of Nursing, Associate Vice President for Health Promotion, Chief Wellness Officer at Ohio State


Marburn Academy is hosting  Judy M. Kirzner, author of  Help! My Grandchild Has ADHD, on Tuesday, March 19 at 7:00 pm at the school.
More information on this free event is available at www.marburnacademy.org.

Join The Conversation

  • Hal Pepinsky


    Hal Pepinsky, pepinsky@indiana.edu, pepinsky.blogspot.com

    March 6, 2013

                    I just
    turned off yet another talk-show guest who was preaching that we use “evidence-based”
    “best practices” that reflected what “we know.” 
    Here I go, taking sides again:  I
    cringe every time I hear someone start a pronouncement with “we know that…”

    guest I turned off was castigating doctors and nurses for continuing doing
    things “the way they’ve always been done” instead of following the latest best
    practices.  She did reinforce my
    conviction not to give a doctor permission to do or give me anything I don’t
    understand and want.  I stick my good old
    criminological ways all the time, and I can’t imagine any research finding
    convincing me that there is such a thing as anybody’s best crime prevention practice
    that I am going to recommend be adopted anywhere on the strength of someone
    else’s “best evidence” that purports to explain results elsewhere, using
    someone else’s evaluation protocol.

    know that…” is a problem for me at two levels. 
    First, like US Democrats now calling themselves “blue,” it is an
    Americanization of the royal “we.”  That
    is, some self-referent group of “experts” now claims the authority of God and
    King with respect to where “our” evidence leads.  Worse, the use of the first-person plural
    signifies that “they” speak for me too—for what I’d better accept or do, or
    else demonstrate that I don’t know what I’m doing.

                    I won’t
    claim credit for the thought reform program my parents jointly put me through
    when I came home from college spouting newfound wisdom:  “You don’t KNOW that Harold, you just THINK
    that it is true.”  At the outset, this
    came with mini-lectures on epistemology. 
    And so, by the time I began to write for professional publication, I
    only felt qualified to use the first person as my sole authority for all of my “research”
    pronouncements.  I’m less obsessive about
    it.  I’ll make flat-out declarations without
    no attributions, but I persist in making clear that I am never speaking for
    anyone but myself.  That has among other
    things made co-authorship something I rarely let myself be talked into.  My most recent co-authorships have been
    dialogues.  This is my methodological
    position, another exception to my rule of not taking sides.

    another level, the peacemaking process of social construction I favor entails
    people assuming responsibility for creating their own programs.   One example of the difference:  When I was invited to conduct a workshop on
    mediation in a Trinidadian prison, the usual approach would have been to get a
    group of people to go through one or more role plays that I myself made
    up.  Instead, I proposed first that the
    workshop include parties who were likely to be in dispute (prisoners and
    officers).  This runs counter to the
    normal assumption that mediation between people with unequal power just carries
    oppression one step further.  Like the
    Navajo for instance, I see peacemaking as a way to confront and transform the
    entropy of power differences into the synergy of cooperation.  Second, I asked that the scenario we
    role-played be the creature of the people I was training, involving what they
    knew (I use the term advisedly) to be ongoing serious issues among
    themselves.  If participants do on
    applying what they learned in the workshop, I know of no wrong way for them to
    try, as long as they learn from the process. 
    For all I know, with no formal mechanism, guards and prisoners may
    already be applying ways of talking and listening they experienced in one or
    both of the workshops in individual encounters, on the spot.  Whatever they do, I want them to own it, not
    just follow anyone else’s system including what I might dream up for them.

    contrast, in its pure form, ritualized application of best practices amounts to
    totalitarianism.  As Thomas Kuhn proposed
    in his Structure of Scientific
    Revolutions, “we” go slavishly conforming our rules of “best evidence” to
    paradigms of how to control change until somehow we become fatigued enough by
    persistent failure to give trying to replicate old results.  I’m more than tired enough of “we know that…”
    statements already.  May the growth of
    we-knowingness follow the way of the economic growth paradigm overall.  Meanwhile, I expect I’ll pause now and again to
    indulge in catharses like this blog post. 
    Love and peace–hal