Writing about Rhetoric of Health and Medicine (RHM)
Health information isn’t set up to be communicated with the public, which decreases access to personal and public health literacy. Health and medical communication is difficult in the first place, with the sociopolitical undertones riddled swiss cheese gaps in communication. When complex concepts with long, nuanced histories are communicated with an audience who doesn’t have any prior knowledge on the subject (other than preconceived notions shaped by society and media) without making it accessible or relevant to them, the result is often confusion or defensiveness. The door to potential learning and understanding gets effectively slammed shut, and your audience tends to shut down with it. Where someone once might have been open to learning about the information being communicated, they might now feel talked down, causing them to form negative associations that inspire them to disregard any further or future clarifications on the matter.
​
My relationship with health and medicine is constantly evolving and always subject to where I’m standing- whether as a patient, consumer, caregiver, or advocate. I learned early on that even accessing the bare necessities of medical care requires significant emotional labor. Patients are often expected to become researchers, presenting a PowerPoint on potential diagnoses, requested tests, treatment options, and an annotated bibliography of symptoms just to persuade a provider that their condition is real, valid, and worthy of care. Healthcare might have once been a hopeful little compound word, but those two terms have long since divorced. Health has become a business, and care no longer seems intrinsic to the model.​

Through personal experiences and critical, ongoing observations, I have been led to believe that the foundation for more equitable, humane health policy begins with public health literacy. Making health information accessible to the public empowers patient autonomy by improving access and quality of care, reducing stigma, and emphasizing prevention, early intervention, and patient education. If we want better health outcomes, we have to start with better communication.
​​
As such, the pieces in this section reflect my effort to respond to the necessary call to approach health and medicine rhetorically. I want to bridge gaps in understanding by effectively and ethically communicating health information in an accessible manner by writing with the kind of care that health communication demands. I see this as both a personal and professional responsibility, not just as a writer, but as someone committed to making health and scientific information more equitable, accessible and responsive to real people’s embodied experiences.
01
Review Article: Lobbying for ADHD awareness and driving performance: A review of risk factors and possible interventions to reduce adverse driving outcomes in ADHD drivers
Review articles are focused on taking existing research from multiple studies and stitching their findings together to effectively contextualize the whole shebang. Without perspective, you can’t see the big picture, and that risks the research not being taken seriously or the dots between studies being left unconnected. Instead of the creation and advancement of knowledge, the only thing contributed is communication gaps the size of NYC potholes. Assimilating health information can help further research and it can help turn research into informed policies and practice (which we love).
​​
This review explores the connection between ADHD and increased risk of traffic accidents, by synthesizing current research that examines how ADHD symptoms influence driving behavior across various traffic environments. The article also considers the role of medication and other potential strategies for reducing accident risk, along with increased awareness and continued investigation into how to better support drivers with ADHD.
02
A Selection from: The Persistence of Eugenics and Disability Discrimination in Public Health Policy
This excerpt critically examines how contemporary public health legislation, often framed as promoting "medical freedom," can reinforce ableist logics and traceable legacies of eugenics. Through rhetorical and policy analysis of a 2024 Florida bill lauded as the “most comprehensive medical freedom bill in the nation,” this piece explores how disability discrimination persists in the language, assumptions, and consequences of public health policy.
This selection is part of a larger research project that highlights the intersection of rhetorical studies, disability justice, and public health ethics.
03
This forum article was the grand finale to Writing about Science and Technology. Influenced by the format of NPR's late 13.7: Cosmos and Culture, I wrote an opinion-based piece titled "Scientific Communications Need More Sex Appeal" in which I discuss my theory that “things would have gone a lot differently if Dr. Ross Geller had been the face of the COVID-19 pandemic instead of Dr. Anthony Fauci” due to cognitive bias.
This article inspired the beginnings of a scaled-up, in progress version that further analyzes how language and other social phenomena affected the pandemic response.