Why Vulnerability Is a Strength in Medicine
Let's talk about vulnerability as a doctor. Somewhere in training, we're taught to be strong, composed, and always in control. The truth is that medicine is deeply human, and so are we.
I found that admitting when I don't know something, when a case affects me emotionally, or just saying it was hard doesn't make me weak. It makes me real.
Patients don't need perfect robots. They need people who can connect, listen, and help, fully and vulnerably.
Vulnerability does not take away from your credibility. It helps you build trust, and it's one of the most powerful, underrated tools we have as physicians.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion/Guest column: Health care cuts bode ill for Central Mass. economy
Consistent with the old maxim that all politics is local, it is also true that all policy is local. Whether on Capitol Hill or Beacon Hill, policies that lawmakers enact inevitably have repercussions — for good or bad — on communities such as Worcester. Sadly, the local impacts of Congress' enactment of President Trump's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' and of the White House's pending proposal to slash National Institutes of Health funding by 40%, will be onerous. A great deal has been reported on the patient impact of these policies. Appropriately so, considering that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $1 trillion cuts to health care programs in the 'Beautiful Bill' will cause over 10 million people to lose health insurance coverage by 2034 and the near certainty that the administration's proposed NIH cuts will impede development of new treatments for patients with critical health conditions. Less obvious, but also important, are the potentially devastating impacts these policies will inflict on the Central Massachusetts economy. By targeting health care and scientific research, they will not only harm the largest employers and biggest drivers of the regional economy but will also have a ripple effect on sectors outside of health care or research. The leaders of this region's two largest employers, UMass Memorial Health and UMass Chan Medical School, have been outspoken about the dire consequences of massive federal cuts to their institutions. UMass Memorial expects to lose at least $100 million in Medicaid funding annually, and UMass Chan cites an expected $94 million shortfall in NIH grants in the upcoming fiscal year, on top of $42 million in grant disbursements already withheld by the Trump administration. Cuts of this magnitude will have a devastating impact on patients, employees and the public service missions of both institutions. These cuts will also affect workers and businesses in sectors that work regularly with medical, research and education institutions. The construction industry is a case in point. Hospitals and research institutions rely upon highly skilled electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians and other tradespeople to build, renovate and maintain complex facilities that adhere to the most stringent safety and health regulations. But as federal cuts cause some health services to be reduced and laboratories to close, construction and renovation projects will inevitably decline, impacting the livelihoods of tradespeople and construction firms. The same dynamic will replicate across other industries that provide supportive services to medical and research institutions, whether it be finance, legal, suppliers or countless others whose businesses rely, at least in part, on such work. Hard data back up this dynamic. In its 2025 annual analysis on the economic impact of NIH research, United for Medical Research reports that each $1 of NIH funding results in $2.56 of economic activity. So, when the federal government cuts research grants to Worcester research universities by an aggregate of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the secondary impact will hit businesses and workers well beyond the campuses of UMass Chan or WPI. Similar ripple effects will reverberate across the local economy when hospitals' finances are torpedoed by massive cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and rising volumes of uninsured patients. It is impossible to find a silver lining in policies that wreak such havoc on the engines of our local economy, and that feeling is exacerbated by the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the 'Beautiful Bill' will also drive up the national deficit by $3.4 trillion. Nonetheless, it is imperative not to give up. Everyone impacted — patients, workers, businesses and institutional leaders — must speak up and remain engaged so future Congresses prioritize reversing these irrational policies. Jim Leary is an attorney and former state legislator from Worcester. This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Opinion/Guest column: Health care cuts bode ill for regional economy
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Committee: More than 98,000 New Mexicans could lose Medicaid coverage
NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The Medicaid Advisory Committee said recent federal cuts could have a negative impact on New Mexicans. They claim more than 98,000 New Mexicans could lose Medicaid coverage. Rail Yards Market exploring adding a permanent daily market space The state could also see a loss of $8.5 billion in federal provider payments. It would take 18 months and $35 million to update Medicaid, SNAP, and call center systems to match requirements in President Donald Trump's budget bill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Healthcare Costs in 9 Wealthy Countries Compare To the US in 2025
Healthcare spending in the U.S. remains the highest among wealthy countries, with $13,432 spent per person each year, according to the latest data from Peterson-KFF. That's almost twice as much as countries such as the United Kingdom, France or Australia. Despite that, the U.S. ranks last overall among 10 high-income nations for access, efficiency and health outcomes, according to an analysis by The Commonwealth Fund. Read Now: Find Out: Other countries have figured out how to spend less on healthcare and get more. Here's how the numbers break down. Australia Performance rank: 1 Per-person spend: $6,931 Australia tops the list overall, but still has problems. About half of patients without private insurance face long waits for care, and affordability is an ongoing issue despite some billing fixes. Still, the country scores high for fairness, runs an efficient system and gets good health results. Discover Next: Netherlands Performance rank: 2 Per-person spend: $7,737 The Netherlands uses private health insurance, but it's tightly regulated and covers everyone, keeping costs low for patients and making care easy to get. The Netherlands ranks near the top for fairness and quality of care, but doesn't lead on health outcomes. United Kingdom Performance rank: 3 Per-person spend: $6,023 The United Kingdom spends less than half of what Americans spend per person, offering mostly free care through the National Health Service. It's one of the most affordable and efficient systems, with low paperwork for doctors. New Zealand Performance rank: 4 Per-person spend: $6,368 New Zealand spends less than half of the U.S. costs but ranks highest for how well care is delivered. It's strong on prevention and patient safety, with a system that rewards doctors for keeping people healthy. Still, New Zealand struggles with fairness; people with less money and those living outside cities find it harder to get care. France Performance rank: 5 Per-person spend: $7,136 France spends just over half of what Americans do per person. It's public insurance covers most care, and people pay only a small part of the costs out of pocket. The government keeps drug prices low, and health outcomes are good, especially for chronic diseases and maternal health. Sweden Performance rank: 6 Per-person spend: $7,522 Sweden focuses on fairness and preventing illness, but scores lower than other countries for quality of care. Some data on fairness by income weren't available, but overall, access and outcomes are solid. Canada Performance rank: 7 Per-person spend: $7,013 Canada spends just over half as much as the U.S. per person. Most care is publicly funded, and primary care access is good. But income affects how easily people get care, and wait times remain an issue despite spending less. Switzerland Performance rank: 8 Per-person spend: $9,688 Switzerland spends more than most countries here, but still less than the U.S. Insurance is private but required and regulated. The system faces challenges with fairness and paperwork, but does well on some health outcomes, especially around childbirth and postpartum care. Germany Performance rank: 9 Per-person spend: $8,441 Germany has universal coverage through nonprofit insurers with regulated prices, and copayments are capped by income to keep care affordable. Equity is strong and outcomes are solid, though not top of the class. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 10 Unreliable SUVs To Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on How Healthcare Costs in 9 Wealthy Countries Compare To the US in 2025
