Voluntary assisted dying is different to suicide. But federal laws conflate them and restrict access to telehealth
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Voluntary assisted dying is now lawful in every Australian state and will soon begin in the Australian Capital Territory.
However, it’s illegal to discuss it via telehealth. That means people who live in rural and remote areas, or those who can’t physically go to see a doctor, may not be able to access the scheme.
A federal private members bill, introduced to parliament last week, aims to change this. So what’s proposed and why is it needed?
What’s wrong with the current laws?
Voluntary assisted dying doesn’t meet the definition of suicide under state laws.
But the Commonwealth Criminal Code prohibits the discussion or dissemination of suicide-related material electronically.
This opens doctors to the risk of criminal prosecution if they discuss voluntary assisted dying via telehealth.
Successive Commonwealth attorneys-general have failed to address the conflict between federal and state laws, despite persistent calls from state attorneys-general for necessary clarity.
This eventually led to voluntary assistant dying doctor Nicholas Carr calling on the Federal Court of Australia to resolve this conflict. Carr sought a declaration to exclude voluntary assisted dying from the definition of suicide under the Criminal Code.
In November, the court declared voluntary assisted dying was considered suicide for the purpose of the Criminal Code. This meant doctors across Australia were prohibited from using telehealth services for voluntary assisted dying consultations.
Last week, independent federal MP Kate Chaney introduced a private members bill to create an exemption for voluntary assisted dying by excluding it as suicide for the purpose of the Criminal Code. Here’s why it’s needed.
Not all patients can physically see a doctor
Defining voluntary assisted dying as suicide in the Criminal Code disproportionately impacts people living in regional and remote areas. People in the country rely on the use of “carriage services”, such as phone and video consultations, to avoid travelling long distances to consult their doctor.
Other people with terminal illnesses, whether in regional or urban areas, may be suffering intolerably and unable to physically attend appointments with doctors.
The prohibition against telehealth goes against the principles of voluntary assisted dying, which are to minimise suffering, maximise quality of life and promote autonomy.
Jeffrey M Levine/Shutterstock
Doctors don’t want to be involved in ‘suicide’
Equating voluntary assisted dying with suicide has a direct impact on doctors, who fear criminal prosecution due to the prohibition against using telehealth.
Some doctors may decide not to help patients who choose voluntary assisted dying, leaving patients in a state of limbo.
The number of doctors actively participating in voluntary assisted dying is already low. The majority of doctors are located in metropolitan areas or major regional centres, leaving some locations with very few doctors participating in voluntary assisted dying.
It misclassifies deaths
In state law, people dying under voluntary assisted dying have the cause of their death registered as “the disease, illness or medical condition that was the grounds for a person to access voluntary assisted dying”, while the manner of dying is recorded as voluntary assisted dying.
In contrast, only coroners in each state and territory can make a finding of suicide as a cause of death.
In 2017, voluntary assisted dying was defined in the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) as not a reportable death, and thus not suicide.
The language of suicide is inappropriate for explaining how people make a decision to die with dignity under the lawful practice of voluntary assisted dying.
There is ongoing taboo and stigma attached to suicide. People who opt for and are lawfully eligible to access voluntary assisted dying should not be tainted with the taboo that currently surrounds suicide.
So what is the solution?
The only way to remedy this problem is for the federal government to create an exemption in the Criminal Code to allow telehealth appointments to discuss voluntary assisted dying.
Chaney’s private member’s bill is yet to be debated in federal parliament.
If it’s unsuccessful, the Commonwealth attorney-general should pass regulations to exempt voluntary assisted dying as suicide.
A cooperative approach to resolve this conflict of laws is necessary to ensure doctors don’t risk prosecution for assisting eligible people to access voluntary assisted dying, regional and remote patients have access to voluntary assisted dying, families don’t suffer consequences for the erroneous classification of voluntary assisted dying as suicide, and people accessing voluntary assisted dying are not shrouded with the taboo of suicide when accessing a lawful practice to die with dignity.
Failure to change this will cause unnecessary suffering for patients and doctors alike.
Michaela Estelle Okninski, Lecturer of Law, University of Adelaide; Marc Trabsky, Associate professor, La Trobe University, and Neera Bhatia, Associate Professor in Law, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Humor Habit – by Paul Osincup
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls… It could be tolling for anyone. Don’t worry about it.It’s probably fine.
More seriously (heh), laughter is good for healthy lifespan, also called healthspan. It eases stress and anxiety, gives our brains neurochemicals they need to function well, and is very pro-social too, which in turn has knock-on positive effects for our own mental health as well as those around us.
This book is a guide to cultivating that humor, finding the funny side in difficult times, and bringing a light-hearted silliness to moments where it helps.
The title suggests it’s about habit-building (and it is!) but it’s also about knowing where to look in your daily life for humorous potential and how to find it, and how to bring that into being in the moment.
The style is that of an instruction manual with a healthy dose of pop-science; first and foremost this is a practical guide, not a several-hundred page exhortation on “find things funny!”, but rather a “hey, psst, here are many sneaky insider tricks for finding the funny“.
Bottom line: this book is not only a very enjoyable read, but also very much the gift that keeps on giving, so treat yourself!
Click here to check out The Humor Habit, and strength your funny-bones!
Share This Post
-
I can’t afford olive oil. What else can I use?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
If you buy your olive oil in bulk, you’ve likely been in for a shock in recent weeks. Major supermarkets have been selling olive oil for up to A$65 for a four-litre tin, and up to $26 for a 750 millilitre bottle.
We’ve been hearing about the health benefits of olive oil for years. And many of us are adding it to salads, or baking and frying with it.
But during a cost-of-living crisis, these high prices can put olive oil out of reach.
Let’s take a look at why olive oil is in demand, why it’s so expensive right now, and what to do until prices come down.
Joyisjoyful/Shutterstock Remind me, why is olive oil so good for you?
Including olive oil in your diet can reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and improve heart health through more favourable blood pressure, inflammation and cholesterol levels.
This is largely because olive oil is high in monounsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols (antioxidants).
Some researchers have suggested you can get these benefits from consuming up to 20 grams a day. That’s equivalent to about five teaspoons of olive oil.
Why is olive oil so expensive right now?
A European heatwave and drought have limited Spanish and Italian producers’ ability to supply olive oil to international markets, including Australia.
This has been coupled with an unusually cold and short growing season for Australian olive oil suppliers.
The lower-than-usual production and supply of olive oil, together with heightened demand from shoppers, means prices have gone up.
We’ve seen unfavourable growing conditions in Europe and Australia. KaMay/Shutterstock How can I make my olive oil go further?
Many households buy olive oil in large quantities because it is cheaper per litre. So, if you have some still in stock, you can make it go further by:
- storing it correctly – make sure the lid is on tightly and it’s kept in a cool, dark place, such as a pantry or cabinet. If stored this way, olive oil can typically last 12–18 months
- using a spray – sprays distribute oil more evenly than pourers, using less olive oil overall. You could buy a spray bottle to fill from a large tin, as needed
- straining or freezing it – if you have leftover olive oil after frying, strain it and reuse it for other fried dishes. You could also freeze this used oil in an airtight container, then thaw and fry with it later, without affecting the oil’s taste and other characteristics. But for dressings, only use fresh oil.
I’ve run out of olive oil. What else can I use?
Here are some healthy and cheaper alternatives to olive oil:
- canola oil is a good alternative for frying. It’s relatively low in saturated fat so is generally considered healthy. Like olive oil, it is high in healthy monounsaturated fats. Cost? Up to $6 for a 750mL bottle (home brand is about half the price)
- sunflower oil is a great alternative to use on salads or for frying. It has a mild flavour that does not overwhelm other ingredients. Some studies suggest using sunflower oil may help reduce your risk of heart disease by lowering LDL (bad) cholesterol and raising HDL (good) cholesterol. Cost? Up to $6.50 for a 750mL bottle (again, home brand is about half the price)
- sesame oil has a nutty flavour. It’s good for Asian dressings, and frying. Light sesame oil is typically used as a neutral cooking oil, while the toasted type is used to flavour sauces. Sesame oil is high in antioxidants and has some anti-inflammatory properties. Sesame oil is generally sold in smaller bottles than canola or sunflower oil. Cost? Up to $5 for a 150mL bottle.
There are plenty of alternative oils you can use in salads or for frying. narai chal/Shutterstock How can I use less oil, generally?
Using less oil in your cooking could keep your meals healthy. Here are some alternatives and cooking techniques:
- use alternatives for baking – unless you are making an olive oil cake, if your recipe calls for a large quantity of oil, try using an alternative such as apple sauce, Greek yoghurt or mashed banana
- use non-stick cookware – using high-quality, non-stick pots and pans reduces the need for oil when cooking, or means you don’t need oil at all
- steam instead – steam vegetables, fish and poultry to retain nutrients and moisture without adding oil
- bake or roast – potatoes, vegetables or chicken can be baked or roasted rather than fried. You can still achieve crispy textures without needing excessive oil
- grill – the natural fats in meat and vegetables can help keep ingredients moist, without using oil
- use stock – instead of sautéing vegetables in oil, try using vegetable broth or stock to add flavour
- try vinegar or citrus – use vinegar or citrus juice (such as lemon or lime) to add flavour to salads, marinades and sauces without relying on oil
- use natural moisture – use the natural moisture in ingredients such as tomatoes, onions and mushrooms to cook dishes without adding extra oil. They release moisture as they cook, helping to prevent sticking.
Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Eggcellent News Against Dementia?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s that time of the week again… We hope all our readers have had a great and healthy week! Here are some selections from health news from around the world:
Moderation remains key
Eggs have come under the spotlight for their protective potential against dementia, largely due to their content of omega-3 fatty acids, choline, and other nutrients.
Nevertheless, the study had some limitations (including not measuring the quantity of eggs consumed, just the frequency), and while eating eggs daily showed the lowest rates of dementia, not eating them at all did not significantly alter the risk.
Eating more than 2 eggs per day is still not recommended, however, for reasons of increasing the risk of other health issues, such as heart disease.
Read in full: Could eating eggs prevent dementia?
Related: Eggs: Nutritional Powerhouse or Heart-Health Timebomb?
More than suitable
It’s common for a lot of things to come with the warning “not suitable for those who are pregnant or nursing”, with such frequency that it can be hard to know what one can safely do/take while pregnant or nursing.
In the case of COVID vaccines, though, nearly 90% of babies who had to be hospitalized with COVID-19 had mothers who didn’t get the vaccine while they were pregnant.
And as for how common that is: babies too young to be vaccinated (so, under 6 months) had the highest covid hospitalization rate of any age group except people over 75.
Read in full: Here’s why getting a covid shot during pregnancy is important
Related: The Truth About Vaccines
Positive dieting
Adding things into one’s diet is a lot more fun than taking things out, is generally easier to sustain, and (as a general rule of thumb; there are exceptions of course) give the greatest differences in health outcomes.
This is perhaps most true of beans and pulses, which add many valuable vitamins, minerals, protein, and perhaps most importantly of all (single biggest factor in reducing heart disease risk), fiber.
Read in full: Adding beans and pulses can lead to improved shortfall nutrient intakes and a higher diet quality in American adults
Related: Intuitive Eating Might Not Be What You Think
Clearing out disordered thinking
Hoarding is largely driven by fear of loss, and this radical therapy tackles that at the root, by such means as rehearsing alternative outcomes of discarding through imagery rescripting, and examining the barriers to throwing things away—to break down those barriers one at a time.
Read in full: Hoarding disorder: sensory CBT treatment strategy shows promise
Related: When You Know What You “Should” Do (But Knowing Isn’t The Problem)
Superfluous
Fluoridated water may not be as helpful for the teeth as it used to be prior to about 1975. Not because it became any less effective per se, but because of the modern prevalence of fluoride-containing toothpastes, mouthwashes, etc rendering it redundant in more recent decades.
Read in full: Dental health benefits of fluoride in water may have declined, study finds
Related: Water Fluoridation, Atheroma, & More
Off-label?
With rising costs of living including rising healthcare costs, and increasing barriers to accessing in-person healthcare, it’s little wonder that many are turning to the gray market online to get their medications.
These websites typically use legal loopholes to sell prescription drugs to the public, by employing morally flexible doctors who are content to expediently rubber-stamp prescriptions upon request, on the basis of the patient having filled out a web form and checked boxes for their symptoms (and of course also having waived all rights of complaint or legal recourse).
However, some less scrupulous sorts are exploiting this market, to sell outright fake medications, using a setup that looks like a “legitimate” gray market website. Caveat emptor indeed.
Read in full: CDC warns of fake drug dangers from online pharmacies
Related: Are You Taking PIMs? Getting Off The Overmedication Train
A rising threat
In 2021 (we promise the paper was published only a few days ago!), the leading causes of death were:
- COVID-19
- Heart disease
- Stroke
…which latter represented a rising threat, likely in part due to the increase in the aging population.
Read in full: Stroke remains a leading cause of death globally, with increased risk linked to lifestyle factors
Related: 6 Signs Of Stroke (One Month In Advance)
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Dates vs Grapes – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing dates to grapes, we picked the dates.
Why?
It’s not close:
In terms of macros, dates have 4x the carbs and/but 8x the fiber, making for the lower glycemic index. Also, for what it’s worth, they have nearly 4x the protein, but probably nobody is eating either of these fruits for the protein. In any case, it’s an easy and clear win for dates in the category of macros.
In the category of vitamins, dates have more of vitamins B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, and choline, while grapes have more of vitamins B1, C, E, and K, making for a 6:4 win for dates.
When it comes to minerals, it’s more one-sided: dates have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while grapes have more manganese. An easy win for dates here.
Of course, enjoy either or both (diversity is good), but if you’re looking for nutrient density, dates are where it’s at.
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Can We Drink To Good Health? ← while there are polyphenols such as resveratrol in red wine that per se would boost heart health, there’s so little per glass that you may need 100–1000 glasses per day to get the dosage that provides benefits in mouse studies.
If you’re not a mouse, you might even need more than that!
To this end, many people prefer resveratrol supplementation ← link is to an example product on Amazon, but there are plenty more so feel free to shop around 😎
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Ouch. That ‘Free’ Annual Checkup Might Cost You. Here’s Why.
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
When Kristy Uddin, 49, went in for her annual mammogram in Washington state last year, she assumed she would not incur a bill because the test is one of the many preventive measures guaranteed to be free to patients under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The ACA’s provision made medical and economic sense, encouraging Americans to use screening tools that could nip medical problems in the bud and keep patients healthy.
So when a bill for $236 arrived, Uddin — an occupational therapist familiar with the health care industry’s workings — complained to her insurer and the hospital. She even requested an independent review.
“I’m like, ‘Tell me why am I getting this bill?’” Uddin recalled in an interview. The unsatisfying explanation: The mammogram itself was covered, per the ACA’s rules, but the fee for the equipment and the facility was not.
That answer was particularly galling, she said, because, a year earlier, her “free” mammogram at the same health system had generated a bill of about $1,000 for the radiologist’s reading. Though she fought that charge (and won), this time she threw in the towel and wrote the $236 check. But then she dashed off a submission to the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” project:
“I was really mad — it’s ridiculous,” she later recalled. “This is not how the law is supposed to work.”
The ACA’s designers might have assumed that they had spelled out with sufficient clarity that millions of Americans would no longer have to pay for certain types of preventive care, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and recommended vaccines, in addition to doctor visits to screen for disease. But the law’s authors didn’t reckon with America’s ever-creative medical billing juggernaut.
Over the past several years, the medical industry has eroded the ACA’s guarantees, finding ways to bill patients in gray zones of the law. Patients going in for preventive care, expecting that it will be fully covered by insurance, are being blindsided by bills, big and small.
The problem comes down to deciding exactly what components of a medical encounter are covered by the ACA guarantee. For example, when do conversations between doctor and patient during an annual visit for preventive services veer into the treatment sphere? What screenings are needed for a patient’s annual visit?
A healthy 30-year-old visiting a primary care provider might get a few basic blood tests, while a 50-year-old who is overweight would merit additional screening for Type 2 diabetes.
Making matters more confusing, the annual checkup itself is guaranteed to be “no cost” for women and people age 65 and older, but the guarantee doesn’t apply for men in the 18-64 age range — though many preventive services that require a medical visit (such as checks of blood pressure or cholesterol and screens for substance abuse) are covered.
No wonder what’s covered under the umbrella of prevention can look very different to medical providers (trying to be thorough) and billers (intent on squeezing more dollars out of every medical encounter) than it does to insurers (who profit from narrower definitions).
For patients, the gray zone has become a billing minefield. Here are a few more examples, gleaned from the Bill of the Month project in just the past six months:
Peter Opaskar, 46, of Texas, went to his primary care doctor last year for his preventive care visit — as he’d done before, at no cost. This time, his insurer paid $130.81 for the visit, but he also received a perplexing bill for $111.81. Opaskar learned that he had incurred the additional charge because when his doctor asked if he had any health concerns, he mentioned that he was having digestive problems but had already made an appointment with his gastroenterologist. So, the office explained, his visit was billed as both a preventive physical and a consultation. “Next year,” Opasker said in an interview, if he’s asked about health concerns, “I’ll say ‘no,’ even if I have a gunshot wound.”
Kevin Lin, a technology specialist in Virginia in his 30s, went to a new primary care provider to take advantage of the preventive care benefit when he got insurance; he had no physical complaints. He said he was assured at check-in that he wouldn’t be charged. His insurer paid $174 for the checkup, but he was billed an additional $132.29 for a “new patient visit.” He said he has made many calls to fight the bill, so far with no luck.
Finally, there’s Yoori Lee, 46, of Minnesota, herself a colorectal surgeon, who was shocked when her first screening colonoscopy yielded a bill for $450 for a biopsy of a polyp — a bill she knew was illegal. Federal regulations issued in 2022 to clarify the matter are very clear that biopsies during screening colonoscopies are included in the no-cost promise. “I mean, the whole point of screening is to find things,” she said, stating, perhaps, the obvious.
Though these patient bills defy common sense, room for creative exploitation has been provided by the complex regulatory language surrounding the ACA. Consider this from Ellen Montz, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed response to queries and an interview request on this subject: “If a preventive service is not billed separately or is not tracked as individual encounter data separately from an office visit and the primary purpose of the office visit is not the delivery of the preventive item or service, then the plan issuer may impose cost sharing for the office visit.”
So, if the doctor decides that a patient’s mention of stomach pain does not fall under the umbrella of preventive care, then that aspect of the visit can be billed separately, and the patient must pay?
And then there’s this, also from Montz: “Whether a facility fee is permitted to be charged to a consumer would depend on whether the facility usage is an integral part of performing the mammogram or an integral part of any other preventive service that is required to be covered without cost sharing under federal law.”
But wait, how can you do a mammogram or colonoscopy without a facility?
Unfortunately, there is no federal enforcement mechanism to catch individual billing abuses. And agencies’ remedies are weak — simply directing insurers to reprocess claims or notifying patients they can resubmit them.
In the absence of stronger enforcement or remedies, CMS could likely curtail these practices and give patients the tools to fight back by offering the sort of clarity the agency provided a few years ago regarding polyp biopsies — spelling out more clearly what comes under the rubric of preventive care, what can be billed, and what cannot.
The stories KFF Health News and NPR receive are likely just the tip of an iceberg. And while each bill might be relatively small compared with the stunning $10,000 hospital bills that have become all too familiar in the United States, the sorry consequences are manifold. Patients pay bills they do not owe, depriving them of cash they could use elsewhere. If they can’t pay, those bills might end up with debt-collection agencies and, ultimately, harm their credit score.
Perhaps most disturbing: These unexpected bills might discourage people from seeking preventive screenings that could be lifesaving, which is why the ACA deemed them “essential health benefits” that should be free.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Should We Skip Shampoo?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝What’s the science on “no poo”? Is it really better for hair? There are so many mixed reports out there.❞
First, for any unfamiliar: this is not about constipation; rather, it is about skipping shampoo, and either:
- Using an alternative cleaning agent, such as vinegar and/or sodium bicarbonate
- Using nothing at all, just conditioner when wet and brushing when dry
Let’s examine why the trend became a thing: the thinking went “shampoo does not exist in nature, and most of our body is more or less self-cleaning; shampoos remove oils from hair, and the body has to produce more sebum to compensate, resulting in a rapid cycle of dry and greasy hair”.
Now let’s fact-check each of those:
- shampoo does not exist in nature: true (except in the sense that everything that exists can be argued to exist in nature, since nature encompasses everything—but the point is that shampoo is a purely artificial human invention)
- most of our body is more or less self-cleaning: true, but our hair is not, for the same reason our nails are not: they’re not really a living part of the overall organism that is our body, so much as a keratinous protrusion of neatly stacked and hardened dead cells from our body. Dead things are not self-cleaning.
- shampoos remove oils from hair: true; that is what they were invented for and they do it well
- the body has to produce more sebum to compensate, resulting in a rapid cycle of dry and greasy hair: false; or at least, there is no evidence for this.
Our hair’s natural oils are great at protecting it, and also great at getting dirt stuck in it. For the former reason we want the oil there; for the latter reason, we don’t.
So the trick becomes: how to remove the oil (and thus the dirt stuck in it) and then put clean oil back (but not too much, because we don’t want it greasy, just, shiny and not dry)?
The popular answer is: shampoo to clean the hair, conditioner to put an appropriate amount of oil* back.
*these days, mostly not actually oil, but rather silicon-based substitutes, that do the same job of protecting hair and keeping it shiny and not brittle, without attracting so much dirt. Remember also that silicon is inert and very body safe; its molecules are simply too large to be absorbed, which is why it gets used in hair products, some skin products, and lube.
See also: Water-based Lubricant vs Silicon-based Lubricant – Which is Healthier?
If you go “no poo”, then what will happen is either you dry your hair out much worse by using vinegar or (even worse) bicarbonate of soda, or you just have oil (and any dirt stuck in it) in your hair for the life of the hair. As in, each individual strand of hair has a lifespan, and when it falls out, the dirt will go with it. But until that day, it’s staying with you, oil and dirt and all.
If you use a conditioner after using those “more natural” harsh cleaners* that aren’t shampoo, then you’ll undo a lot of the damage done, and you’ll probably be fine.
*in fact, if you’re going to skip shampoo, then instead of vinegar or bicarbonate of soda, dish soap from your kitchen may actually do less damage, because at least it’s pH-balanced. However, please don’t use that either.
If you’re going to err one way or the other with regard to pH though, erring on the side of slightly acidic is much better than slightly alkaline.
More on pH: Journal of Trichology | The Shampoo pH can Affect the Hair: Myth or Reality?
If you use nothing, then brushing a lot will mitigate some of the accumulation of dirt, but honestly, it’s never going to be clean until you clean it.
Our recommendation
When your hair seems dirty, and not before, wash it with a simple shampoo (most have far too many unnecessary ingredients; it just needs a simple detergent, and the rest is basically for marketing; to make it foam completely unnecessarily but people like foam, to make it thicker so it feels more substantial, to make it smell nice, to make it a color that gives us confidence it has ingredients in it, etc).
Then, after rinsing, enjoy a nice conditioner. Again there are usually a lot of unnecessary ingredients, but an argument can be made this time for some being more relevant as unlike with the shampoo, many ingredients are going to remain on your hair after rinsing.
Between washes, if you have long hair, consider putting some hair-friendly oil (such as argan oil or coconut oil) on the tips daily, to avoid split ends.
And if you have tight curly hair, then this advice goes double for you, because it takes a lot longer for natural oils to get from your scalp to the ends of your hair. For those of us with straight hair, it pretty much zips straight on down there within a day or two; not so if you have beautiful 4C curls to take care of!
For more on taking care of hair gently, check out:
Gentler Hair Care Options, According To Science
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: