Well, the NBC Today Show's "Inside the O.R." series this week has certainly generated blogger criticism. Earlier we posted Larry Husten's scathing review of the segment on atrial fib ablation. Now Amy Romano on the
Science & Sensibility blog has written about her concerns about the live cesarean section delivery that was part of the series.

NBC execs will probably write off this criticism as coming from a bunch of nobodys - myself included in that bunch of nobodys - but perhaps the suits should pay some attention to the wisdom of the crowds on such matters.

Patient advocate Trisha Torrey writes and talks a lot about "participatory medicine." Today she writes:

"While many of us patients truly want to participate in our own care, we're not finding a great deal of cooperation from the others who must participate - our providers.

Some providers get it! In fact, some are very cooperative, offering knowledge, learning materials, assistance, discussion. They are the enlightened ones who realize that two heads -- theirs and their patients (us!) will always be more effective than one."

She has now posted an online poll asking readers:

Think of the specialist you see most frequently. Do you consider him/her to be participatory?

• Yes. My specialist and I decide every aspect of my care together.

• Partially. Sometimes we decide together, other times I just bow to his/her expertise.

• Barely. Once in awhile we discuss options.

• No. I can't get this specialist to discuss options with me at all. It's his/her way or the highway.

A news story - it's not labeled as an editorial or as an advertisement - on a New Jersey news website bemoaned how "doctors will soon be forced to scale back or discontinue medical imaging services, due to the major reimbursement cuts recently released in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) 2010 Physician Fee Schedule."

The story went on to quote four sources who promoted the need for imaging support - but it quoted no one who talked about questions of overuse of, and overspending on, medical imaging.

So a reader weighed in on the online comment section, writing:

"Is this a press release or a news story? Are you paid by the imaging lobby?

The part about "stifling innovation" and "delivering better outcomes with less radiation" is downright disturbing, particularly in light of a a recent National Cancer Institute report that said 29,000 cancers - and 14,500 deaths - related to radiation exposure from CT tests will occur in people who were scanned just in the year 2007.

You should know your reporting could be hurting people. How about an article detailing the risks of CT scans to provide some balance to your readers? Imaging can help but medical researchers are quickly discovering it's vastly overused, particularly for heart disease and musculoskeletal disorders. Not only can the radiation harm you, it can lead people to get unnecessary surgeries that carry the risk of harming them for life."

Thank goodness the "news website" posts comments. In this case, it made the page look smarter and more balanced.

Thank God for hospital chaplains - and special thanks for those who are also smart bloggers.

See this chaplain's blog (here and here) for how he evaluated a CNN/Health.com story, "Cholesterol jumps with menopause."

The story included this line:

"A new study shows beyond a doubt that menopause, not the natural aging process, is responsible for a sharp increase in cholesterol levels."

The chaplain wrote:

"So, just when, we asked one another, did menopause cease to be part of the natural aging process for all women? ... In fact they determined that for several measures of cholesterol, menopause was more predictive than age, while for other risk factors age was more predictive. However, in neither case was there any implication that menopause wasn't "natural;" only that in the natural course of things different women experienced it at different ages."

Chaplain, pray for us that we can all learn to scrutinize health care news as well as you do.