Curated Paper 2

As an individual currently working within the medical community, and as one who has aspirations to further establish a career in medicine, I have been exposed to a range of concerns regarding the health of individuals and the overall population. These concerns, while appearing seemingly straightforward from an external perspective, are oftentimes complex and multifaceted upon closer examination. It is through my personal experiences, academic endeavors, and independent research that I have begun to develop the tools necessary to view and address these complex matters with a broadened viewpoint. This course in particular highlights the importance of broadening one’s perspective by using an “ayurvedic lens”. In doing so, the less apparent components of complicated issues are made visible. The focus of my recent journaling has been to investigate proposed topics through an ayurvedic lens. The topics include cancer and therapeutic drugs. These fields of study introduce distinct considerations for various related disciplines, professionals, and involved individuals. The following paragraphs will discuss them in greater detail.

Unfortunately, cancer is not an unfamiliar word to most. Many of us personally know individuals who are battling – or have battled – the disease. The prevalence of cancer diagnoses within the population are rapidly increasing. What I find exceptionally alarming is that the average age of the individual receiving a cancer diagnosis is decreasing (American Cancer Society, 2024). This poses some serious concerns for our society. Some policies and procedures have recently been altered in an attempt to combat these statistics. Previously, the recommended age for receiving a preventative colonoscopy screening was 50 years old for the average risk individual. However, in May of 2021, this recommendation was decreased to 45 years old. The change was initiated by an accredited panel of medical professionals due to the increased prevalence of colon cancers in younger adults. This could be viewed as one step in the right direction. Increased screening allows for medical providers to catch abnormalities sooner and potentially treat before significant damage occurs. The question is, is this enough? Are we looking at the issue at hand through the right perspective?

While it is advantageous to implement heightened screening measures, the benefits are limited. In order to develop a more effective approach to addressing the larger concern, we might take a step back and examine the problem as a whole. In a prior course on cell and molecular biology, we explored the chemical and metabolic structures associated with cancer in great detail. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these details. However, a concise summary provides insight to the reader. Cancer is most oftentimes caused by complex interactions between genes and the environment. It is a disease that occurs due to a mutation that causes a dysfunctional regulatory mechanism of sorts. In understanding this, we might be able to intervene sooner in a more preventative manner. It would be beneficial to more deeply investigate the environments in which certain cancers are most prevalent. Ayurvedic medicine emphasizes the importance of considering the individuality and uniqueness of each individual when treating. A better understanding of an individual's environment, culture, and history might provide insight as to what is causing ailment. This approach encourages a treatment of disease that stems from the root cause.

Western medicine and modern technological advances have truly revolutionized the level of care we are able to provide within our societies. Particularly, significant advancements within the realm of pharmaceuticals have permanently altered the way treatment is provided. There is a vast market of therapeutic agents available, and these biomolecules improve the quality of life for millions. The vast majority of drugs are designed to mimic a highly specific structure that might interact with highly specific biological targets. Depending on the desired outcome of the drug, there are different downstream effects. As I have learned in every biochemistry related course structure confers function and reactivity! Ultimately, there is absolutely no question that the increased research in drug development has provided immense benefits to society. However, this is not to undermine the implicated ethical, financial, and safety concerns that have also arisen as a result. There are a slew of considerations that must be taken into account by those designing, prescribing, taking, and administering pharmaceuticals. As part of my journaling, it was my intention to pick a commonly prescribed drug and dive deeper into some of these considerations.

Clinical depression affects over 250 million people worldwide, making it one of the most common mental illnesses (James et al, 2017). In correspondence with this statistic, one might imagine that antidepressants are a frequently prescribed medication. There are few different types of antidepressants that are available within the market, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) being some of the most common. These antidepressants work by inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin (5-HT) after serotonergic neurons release the neurotransmitter. Serotonergic neurons function to regulate mood, improve cognitive function, proper motor functioning, and mediate the sleep wake cycle. The desired outcome of prescribing SSRIs is to increase the concentration of free serotonin within the synaptic cleft and throughout the body. In doing this, there should be serotonin available to bind and stimulate 5-HT receptors. In 2024, the CDC estimated that approximately 13% of adults living in the U.S. are taking prescribed SSRIs. This percentage equates to a significant number of individuals who take these medications.

With the sheer amount of individuals that use SSRIs, it is important for our society to have a concrete understanding of the potential implications of these drugs. This includes potential implications for the individual, and for the greater population. Fortunately, there is a wide body of research and evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SSRIs. SSRIs have been approved for the use of treating major depressive disorders since 1987. With that math, the general population has been prescribed SSRIs for a little less than 40 years. Is this time sufficient to adequately understand absolutely all potential risks associated with SSRIs? Some might contend that it is not, and they are not unreasonable in their thinking. It takes YEARS to thoroughly comprehend associated risks with drug usage. As a society, we have failed numerous times in the past to properly research therapeutic agents before prescribing them to the general population. A historical incident that is commonly taught in organic chemistry courses illustrates the severe consequences that result from procedural and policy failure is the thalidomide enantiomer incident. Insufficient research and testing of a new nausea medication led to detrimental birth defects occurring in somewhere between 10,000-100,000 babies of mothers who took the drug. When incidents such as these occur, it is devastating. We must use them to continue developing meticulous screening measures and updated regulations. Nevertheless, I do believe that our research database regarding SSRIs is extensive. That being said, as society and technology continue to advance, new research and findings will continue to surface and provide us with additional insights.