Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Molecules to Medicine: “Conscience” Clauses versus Refusal: An Historical Perspective | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
Molecules to Medicine: “Conscience” Clauses versus Refusal: An Historical Perspective | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
"Refusal clauses deny our patients the care that they need. They are not benign clauses, euphemistically referred to as “conscience” clauses. They are, instead, unconscionable clauses, shirking the professional responsibility to put our patients first."
add your opinions
conscience clauses
,
duty of care
,
marales
,
morality
,
refusals
,
religion
,
responsibilites
,
science
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.
add your opinions
life
,
meaning of life
,
measuring
,
QOL
,
science
,
unmeasurable
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?"
add your opinions
lung cancer
,
politics
,
science
,
stigmatism
,
stimatization
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
A collapse in integrity of scientific advice in the UK : The Lancet
"Politics has been allowed to contaminate scientific processes and the advice that underpins policy."
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.)"
add your opinions
comprehension
,
journalism
,
science
,
understand
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
full free access: Is no news good news? Inconclusive genetic test results in BRCA1 and BRCA2 from patients and professionals' perspectives
Small study but included view of patients and physician views.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)