练功中，为什么有时一想到头头就发沉，一想到胸胸就发闷?（赵金香宗师)

想即是意守。意守某一部位，该部位就可产生热感，可以调动真气，开合穴位和疏通经络。如果意守的位置不对或过重，就会产生弊病，给身体带来不适感，产生头沉，胸闷等不良现象。

How Doctors Die - It’s Not Like the Rest of Us, But It Should Be

by Ken Murray

Dr. Murray has spent his career caring for families. His medical interests include End-of-life Care and Quality Outcomes. In his spare in he enjoys being in the outdoors, especially sailing. This piece was originally published in Zocalo Public Square, an online magazine of ideas.

Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient’s five-year-survival odds—from 5 percent to 15 percent—albeit with a poor quality of life. Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.

It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.

Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen—that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right).

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

To administer medical care that makes people suffer is anguishing. Physicians are trained to gather information without revealing any of their own feelings, but in private, among fellow doctors, they’ll vent. “How can anyone do that to their family members?” they’ll ask. I suspect it’s one reason physicians have higher rates of alcohol abuse and depression than professionals in most other fields. I know it’s one reason I stopped participating in hospital care for the last 10 years of my practice.

How has it come to this—that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves? The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.

To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room. As is so often the case, no one has made a plan for this situation, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. They’re overwhelmed. When doctors ask if they want “everything” done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Sometimes, a family really means “do everything,” but often they just mean “do everything that’s reasonable.” The problem is that they may not know what’s reasonable, nor, in their confusion and sorrow, will they ask about it or hear what a physician may be telling them. For their part, doctors told to do “everything” will do it, whether it is reasonable or not.

The above scenario is a common one. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. Many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor. I’ve had hundreds of people brought to me in the emergency room after getting CPR. Exactly one, a healthy man who’d had no heart troubles (for those who want specifics, he had a “tension pneumothorax”), walked out of the hospital. If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age, or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming. Poor knowledge and misguided expectations lead to a lot of bad decisions.

But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving, possibly hysterical, family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.

Some doctors are stronger communicators than others, and some doctors are more adamant, but the pressures they all face are similar. When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable (as I would in any situation) as early in the process as possible. When patients or families brought up unreasonable choices, I would discuss the issue in layman’s terms that portrayed the downsides clearly. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.

Should I have been more forceful at times? I know that some of those transfers still haunt me. One of the patients of whom I was most fond was an attorney from a famous political family. She had severe diabetes and terrible circulation, and, at one point, she developed a painful sore on her foot. Knowing the hazards of hospitals, I did everything I could to keep her from resorting to surgery. Still, she sought out outside experts with whom I had no relationship. Not knowing as much about her as I did, they decided to perform bypass surgery on her chronically clogged blood vessels in both legs. This didn’t restore her circulation, and the surgical wounds wouldn’t heal. Her feet became gangrenous, and she endured bilateral leg amputations. Two weeks later, in the famous medical center in which all this had occurred, she died.

It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litigation and do whatever they’re asked, with little feedback, to avoid getting in trouble.

Even when the right preparations have been made, the system can still swallow people up. One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again. One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.

Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it. But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.

But doctors still don’t over-treat themselves. They see the consequences of this constantly. Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever. Hospice care, which focuses on providing terminally ill patients with comfort and dignity rather than on futile cures, provides most people with much better final days. Amazingly, studies have found that people placed in hospice care often live longer than people with the same disease who are seeking active cures. I was struck to hear on the radio recently that the famous reporter Tom Wicker had “died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family.” Such stories are, thankfully, increasingly common.

Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight—or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months. Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We’d hang out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited. One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity. As for me, my physician has my choices. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like my fellow doctors.

Ken Murray, MD, is Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at USC.

Source.

健康無法重來＊吃冰的下場！

衛生署日前公佈了去年國人的十大死因統計，惡性腫瘤（癌症）又第二十度蟬聯冠軍，而且是每四名死亡人口中，就有一人「因癌而」，顯示這二十年來，癌症和國人真的是如影隨形。 ＊聞之色變＊ 十大癌症死因中，又以肺癌居首，其次是肝癌、結腸直腸癌、女性乳癌、胃癌、子宮頸癌、口腔癌、攝護腺癌、淋巴癌與食道癌。除了眾人聞之色變的肺癌、肝癌外，值得注意的是結腸直腸癌、胃癌、食道癌的排名居高不下，而且往前衝。 個中原因在飲食內容之外，應該也和國人飲食習慣有密不可分的關係。

這些習慣最顯而易見的如： 暴飲暴食、重宵夜、三餐不定時、忽冷忽熱、倉促進食、早餐不吃，或者一大早就喝 冰咖啡、冰飲料等… ＊致癌凶手＊ 如果仔細探究，都稱得上是標準的致癌凶手。 早餐不吃絕對會影響一天的精力來源，最直接的受害當然是----- 胃部機能。 可是都不及一早就喝冰飲料的傷害來得大。 在整個胃部特別是胃壁在經歷一個晚上的空窗期後，正需要有個溫暖的安慰時，卻給予冰冷冷的飲料，其所造成的胃黏膜、胃壁組織之僵化、硬化結果，縱使是不懂得基本醫學常識的人，經此一說，應該也可瞭解到十之八九，因為任何一個人 , 如果一大早 , 就將他往冷凍庫裡一推 （ 更不要說關個幾分鐘 ），整身毛細孔不馬上打哆嗦 ，恐怕很難，嚴重的還可能因此----- 受寒感冒。 如再加上咖啡對神經系統、腸胃道的傷害，就更加不言可喻了。

眾所皆知，喝了太燙的飲料會傷到食道，相對的喝了太冰的飲料也會對食道有害，這個道理非常淺顯。至於統計數字中，去年得胃癌的男性足足比女性多了一倍多，也不足為奇。
＊早上請不要再喝冰咖啡＊ 因為綜觀各個應酬場合 、夜市攤上，酒酣耳熱、大吃大喝（吃宵夜）的，十之八九都是男性。男人為此付出比女性多一倍以上的代價，也一點都怪不了別人！倒是得胃癌的女性中，有多少人是日常喜歡喝咖啡；而且是早上喝冰咖啡的，就相當值得探討了。 無論如何，早上請不要再喝冰咖啡，要喝咖啡，請喝熱的！

◆ 早餐別再喝冰的飲料 體內環保最近流行生機飲食，很多人一早就喝蔬果汁，雖說可以提供蔬果中直接的營養及清理體內廢物，但大家忽略了一個最重要的關鍵，那就是人的體內永遠喜歡溫暖的環境，身體溫暖，微循環才會正常，氧氣、營養及廢物等的運送才會順暢。 所以吃早餐時，千萬不要先喝蔬果汁、冰咖啡、冰果汁、冰紅茶、綠豆沙、冰牛奶等等，短時間內也許您不覺得身體有什麼不舒服，事實上會讓你的身體日漸衰弱的，這是為什麼呢？ 「熱食」保護「胃氣」 吃早餐應該吃「熱食」，才能保護「胃氣」。中醫學說的胃氣，其實是廣義的，並不單純指「胃」這個器官而已，其中包含了脾胃的消化吸收能力、後天的免疫力、肌肉的功能等。 因為早晨的時候，夜間的陰氣未除，大地溫度尚未回升。

體內的肌肉、神經及血管都還呈現收縮的狀態， 假如這時候你再吃喝冰冷的食物，必定使體內各個系統更加攣縮、血流更加不順。 也許剛開始吃喝冰冷的食物的時候，你不覺得胃腸有什麼不舒服，但日子一久或年齡漸長，你會發現怎麼吸收不到食物精華，好像老是吃不結實，或是大便老是稀稀的，或是皮膚越來越差，或是喉嚨老是隱隱有痰不清爽，時常感冒，小毛病不斷，這就是傷了胃氣，傷了身體的抵抗力。 因此早上第一個食物，應該是享用 熱稀飯、熱燕麥片、熱羊乳、熱豆花、熱豆漿、芝麻糊、山藥粥 或廣東粥等等，然後再配著吃蔬菜、麵包、三明治、水果、點心等。 在這裡我不建議喝牛奶，因為牛奶容易生痰、產生過敏，較不適合氣管、腸胃、皮膚差的人及潮濕氣候地區的人飲用。 ＊以後不敢吃冰了＊ 提醒你一件可怕之事，據老中醫的臨床所見：現在很多小女生從小以冰品、可樂、泡沫紅茶... 等冰冷之物維生，終日冰不離手，結果很多導致月經不來、子宮急速老化、18歲更年期就到了，這不是嚇人而是事實！

另外還有人因吃冰而致癌，我的老師手下就有一位骨癌的小女生，喜吃冰品而全身虛寒，經中醫治療且嚴格禁冰冷之物，癌症痊癒，西醫都不敢相信； 還有因吃冰而癱瘓在床 20 幾年的老翁， 西醫完全查不出病因，後來經我們老師診治，老翁才回憶起當年：天氣很熱，他在田裡工作 ，一有賣冰的經過，他一定會吃 ，隔一些日子之後，從此沒下過床了。

＊冰就是一種毒品＊ 總之，我要告訴你冰實在害人無數，現今這一代孩子整天吃冰，覺得很過癮，卻不知吃冰帶來的嚴重後果，你可以說冰就是一種毒品，所以現今的怪病、癌症才會這麼多。 另外因為常吃冰，使子宮受寒，如此會不容易受孕，甚至是 不孕 唷！

＊健康無法重來，請愛惜自已＊