OVARIAN CANCER and US: science

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Friday, August 06, 2010

Quality of life and meaning of life: measuring the unmeasurable



Note: see Einstein's quote at the top of this blog

Abstract
Quality of life (QoL) in medicine and in oncology is an accepted parameter for the evaluation of the benefit of treatments. Scientific methods exist to assess QoL measures in clinical trials. However, many components of the person that are properly humane and determine the patient’s attitude towards the disease are not measured by current criteria. Based on clinical experience, the author considers that a shift in knowledge and in doctors’ attitudes is required to also include non-measurable parameters in the doctor-patient relationship.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Canadian Medicine: Little sympathy for lung cancer patients "Can't we do better?"



blogger's Note: really the question is not can we do better, but why we have not (aside from stigmatization aka: judging others)  given:
1) science's apparent apolitical stance;
2) decision-makers' rationale (evidence based??);
3) politicization of science/results 

"...Heather McQuaid, an oncology social worker maintains that lung cancer patients feel stigmatized. The superficial attitude that gives way to this stigma may very well be the reason why $25 million was invested in breast cancer research in 2007, compared with a paltry $8 million towards lung cancer, directly “impacting on the support these cancer victims receive, particularly from the healthcare system,” according to CEO and President of the Canadian Lung Association, Heather Borquez. Can’t we do better?"

Friday, April 16, 2010

Monday, February 15, 2010

Confusing association with causation - common journalistic pitfall - Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog



"We've just posted a new guide on the importance of the language used to describe the results of observational studies. Day after day we see stories that use active powerful verbs like "prevent...boost...lower your risk...may cut death rate" to describe the results of these studies. That's misleading and inaccurate because such studies can't prove cause-and-effect. Read more about why in this detailed, thoughtful piece by Mark Zweig, MD, and Emily DeVoto, PhD. (It's actually a revision of a piece these two wrote for us two years ago. The new one fits nicely in our "Tips for Understanding Studies" section.)"