Where do we draw the line between protection and paternalism? What constitutes a bad financial decision? Who needs additional protections? Continue reading
Video of the panel discussion “Reproductive Rights around the Globe,” held at Harvard Law School on November 7, is now available via the Petrie-Flom Center’s website. The panel — cosponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center; the Human Rights Program; and the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School; and the Harvard Global Health Institute – included legal experts on a variety of topics:
- International trends in gamete donor identifiability v. anonymity – I. Glenn Cohen, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Faculty co-Director, Petrie-Flom Center
- The politics of evidence and expertise in domestic and international abortion litigation – Aziza Ahmed, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law; Visiting Scholar, Petrie-Flom Center (Spring 2014)
- Use of international fora, including courts and treaty bodies, to advance reproductive rights – Mindy Jane Roseman, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; Academic Director, Human Rights Program
By Michael J. Young
A prospective cohort study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine adds to a growing body of research illuminating the neurocognitive sequelae of critical illness requiring intensive care. Researchers reported that “one out of four patients [treated in the ICU] had cognitive impairment 12 months after critical illness that was similar in severity to that of patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease, and one out of three had impairment typically associated with moderate traumatic brain injury.” They underscore the possible role of delirium – a syndrome of disturbed consciousness commonly seen in critically ill patients treated in the ICU – in contributing to downstream cognitive impairments. More broadly, these findings prompt intensivists to rethink the relative priority assigned to the mental health needs of patients during ICU stays.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and related statutes and regulations creates a cause of action that allows children and young adults with disabilities to be able to participate equally in public schools and universities. “Disability” can include behavioral and other mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, phobias, or conduct disorder, to the extent that it interferes with the child’s ability to thrive at school. Over the period of any individual’s school-going career, quite a few people might be considered disabled under the law.
Actual prevalence of behavioral disorders is of course very difficult to measure, but the prevalence in young children for serious emotional disturbances, behavioral disorders that substantially impair a child’s ability to participate in school, has been most frequently estimated at between 10% and 20% as of 2006, and the prevalence for behavioral disorders that do not rise to the level of serious emotional disturbances is likely somewhat higher. For college students in 2012, one study found that about 30% of students reported feeling so depressed within the past 12 months that it was difficult to function and about 20% of the students reported being diagnosed or receiving treatment for some type of mental health disorder within the past 12 months. Even given these limited statistics, it is evident that a significant percentage of the population is currently affected by, or will be affected at some point in their lifetime by, a behavioral disorder and that a sizable proportion of these individuals would likely benefit from some form of services or accommodation in their schooling.
The prevalence of behavioral disorders begs the question: what if the majority of the population experiences some form of behavioral disorder?
Less than an hour ago, Indianapolis prosecutor, Mr. Terry Curry agreed to drop first degree murder charges against Bei Bei Shuai in an agreement that required her to plead to a misdemeanor. The case was a month away from trial in what would have been the first prosecution of a pregnant woman in Indiana for attempting suicide. Ms. Shaui ate several packets of rat poison in a desperate attempt to end her life after being abandoned by her boyfriend. After being saved by friends and doctors, prosecutors filed first degree murder charges against Shuai, because her baby died.
Bei Bei Shuai’s case highlights the turn to criminal prosecution in fetal protection cases as a terrible national phenomenon. Shuai was spared the horrible fate experienced by poor women, many of color, across the U.S., including Regina McKnight, Paula Hale, Melissa Rowland, and others. In a forthcoming article to be published in the California Law Review, I argue that these prosecutions represent the new constitutional battlefronts as they burden pregnant women’s due process interests while also imposing the type of cruel and unusual punishment disallowed by the Eighth Amendment. I have argued in prior works found here and here that such prosecutions often involve racial profiling and create hierarchies among women’s pregnancies. Indeed, most often the pregnant women targeted for threatening harm to their fetuses are so poor that they lack adequate legal representation, relying on overworked public defenders who make valiant efforts, but lack the economic wherewithal to properly aid in these cases. Shuai’s case was different in that she had Linda Pence, a valiant, private attorney, who spent over two years providing excellent pro-bono legal aid.
Bei Bei Shuai’s release from murder charges also represents another victory for Advocates for Pregnant Women, the leading organization advocating on behalf of indigent pregnant women.
By Alex Stein
Almonte v. Kurl, 46 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2012), is a must-read malpractice decision. This decision is about a patient who was brought to a psychiatrist for involuntary committal evaluation after undergoing an acute episode. The psychiatrist examined the patient, but opened no committal process. As a result, the patient was released to commit suicide, apparently with the same gun that he threatened to use in the episode that triggered the evaluation.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge’s determination that the psychiatrist’s failure to open the committal process amounted to malpractice. The psychiatrist was nonetheless able to summarily defeat the wrongful death action filed by the patient’s family.
How could that happen? Continue reading
Art Caplan has a new column out in Time that takes a different stance on the DSM-V, compared to all the criticism the revisions have recently received:
The critics are going way too far. The DSM is often described as “the bible of the mental health field”—an unfortunate misnomer that leaves it open to attack. It should really be called “The best we know so far about mental disorders” or perhaps “Our best effort to properly classify complicated human behavior.”
But a bigger problem is that the editors don’t know how to defend against the attacks.
The Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Langone medical Center seeks to recruit two persons either as post-docs or instructors.
Applicants must demonstrate an excellent record of quality scholarship and teaching, and must have a PhD, JD, or MD. Successful applicants will be expected to demonstrate a strong scholarly career track in a sub-field of medical ethics/bioethics. The Division is especially interested in persons with research interests in neuroethics, reproductive technologies and ethics, public health ethics, transplantation ethics and mental health ethics. Continue reading
Art Caplan and his co-authors have a new piece out in the Lancet on the possibility of using civil commitment and compulsory treatment for those with grave alcohol use disorders. Take a look here.
Let me begin by saying how much I absolutely adore This American Life. I listen to it religiously. I particularly had been looking forward to the most recent pocast episode of TAL: Dr. Gilmer and Mr. Hyde. As the episode’s blurb teases, “Dr. Gilmer and Mr. Hyde” concerns a doctor — Benjamin Gilmer — who takes over the rural South Carolina practice of Vince Gilmer (no relation). Vince is no longer available to see patients because he is serving a prison sentence for killing his father. As Benjamin gets to know Vince’s — and now his — patients, he forms a picture of Vince that’s at odds with his status as a convicted father murderer. How could this doctor who was so devoted to his patients have so brutally murdered his own father?
This episode is right up my alley. True crime? Check. Forensic psychology? Check. The intersection of law and medicine? Yes, please. So when I awoke yesterday morning at 5 am and couldn’t go back to sleep, I eagerly cued up the podcast. The episode recounts, in TAL’s typically-riveting fashion, the story of Benjamin’s search for the truth behind Vince’s murder of his father. I enjoyed every minute of the episode until the last five minutes or so, when I became troubled by one critical omission.
Spoilers follow after the jump; listen to the episode first. Continue reading
New York State’s SAFE Act:
“What Does It Mean for Mental Health Providers and Their Patients?”
Wednesday, May 1, 2013; 5:00pm-8:00 pm
ALUMNI HALL B, NYU School of Medicine
Sponsored by the NYU Division of Medical Ethics and the Department of Psychiatry
Co-Chairs: Arthur L. Caplan, PhD and Elizabeth Ford, MD
Please RSVP to jessica.oyola at nyumc.org
Click through to see the working agenda.
By Marizen Ramirez, PhD, MPH
Bullying is the most frequent form of peer victimization in schools, impacting about 10-25% of all children across the United States. The effects of bullying on children have been well-documented, from psychological and physical harm, poor academic performance, alcohol and drug use, and violent behaviors. In its most extreme form, relentless bullying has even driven some young people to suicide. The 2011 documentary, Bully, depicts the tragic stories of Tyler Long and Ty Smalley, who, because of the chronic ridicule and physical harassment they faced, took their own lives.
Stories like Tyler’s and Ty’s have pushed bullying into the public eye, making it a public health issue of national importance. Across the country, efforts abound to prevent bullying and to help provide safe, welcoming environments for our children when they are at school.
Bullying prevention is being approached in a few different ways. National campaigns like Stop Bullying Now! work to increase awareness about bullying and strategies for prevention. Since its inception, the Stop Bullying Now! campaign has provided resources, including an online toolkit of educational materials, to schools and youth clubs throughout the country. Schools have also implemented a variety of anti-bullying curricula to improve school climate and prevent bullying behaviors in schools. Among these programs are the famous Olweus program developed in Norway in the 1980s, and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a program targeting the reduction in school-wide behavioral problems including bullying. The effectiveness of curricula, such as Olweus and PBIS, in reducing rates of bullying in American schools has yet to proven, however.
“There is no drug that is going to shed trustworthy light on Holmes’ state of mind last year when, police say, he donned a gas mask as well as full body armor and grabbed a rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol to launch a heinous attack. No drug can tell us what he was really thinking.
In giving permission to use drugs, the judge has opened the door to a line of defense in which Holmes’ lawyers can argue that if drugged, he is being forced to testify against himself against his will.”
Take a look.
In a new article (free registration required), Art Caplan discusses recent gun control legislation passed in New York state. Take a look at the full piece, but here’s an excerpt:
The NY SAFE Act requires individuals who own a handgun or an assault rifle to recertify their permits every 5 years; limits the capacity of ammo clips to 7 shots; clarifies and broadens the definition of assault weapons to restrict their sale; and requires nearly all gun transfers between private parties to be conducted through a federal firearms licensee, subject to a federal National instant Criminal Background Check. These are predictable, if tough to enact, actions when it comes to guns. What is somewhat surprising is that the law imposes new duties on mental health care professionals that will also be very difficult to implement.
Under the New York legislation, mental health professionals are required to report to local mental health officials when there is reason to believe a patient is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to himself or herself or to others. This information will then be cross-checked against a new gun registration database. If the patient possesses a gun, his license will be suspended and law enforcement will be authorized to remove the person’s firearm.
Kendra’s law, enacted in 1999, is extended for 2 years—through 2017. This law gives judges the authority to require people to regularly under-go outpatient psychiatric treatment. Under the NY SAFE Act, the period of mandatory outpatient treatment is extended from 6 months to 1 year.
There has long been a legal obligation in most states, generated by the famous 1976 Tarasoff case in California, that mental health care professionals disclose a threat of violence to an identifiable third party if they think the threat is credible and the act imminent. Both before and after Tarasoff, there have been ethi-cal and clinical obligations. The new NY SAFE Act would transcend New York State’s mental hygiene statute granting an “authority to warn” into a legal duty if the clinician believes that firearms may be involved. The problem is that there is not much evidence that mental health workers are particular adept at predicting violence. It remains to be seen if this reporting duty will produce greater public safety in New York.
Join us for an important meeting:
Roundtable: Family, Privacy, Secrets & the Law March 7-8, 2013
March 7-8, 2013
University of Maryland
Francis King Carey School of Law
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
March 7, 5 p.m. - Book Reading and signing by Jonathan Odell, author of The Healing
March 8, 9 a.m. – 4 p.m. – Roundtable discussions
Family, Privacy, Secrets & the Law roundtable engages the intersections of medicine, criminal law, family law, and constitutional law. The conference faculty will chart contemporary issues that span genetic privacy, disclosure of parental identity in assisted reproduction cases and DNA conscription to domestic violence and child sexual abuse.
There are times in which the law protects secrets, such as between a lawyer and client, doctor and patient, or clergy and congregant. Yet, there are times when the law demands that secret-keepers reveal their confidences such as the increasing demand on doctors to disclose confidential medical information on pregnant women to law enforcement. How should we understand the contours and boundaries of these dynamics within the law? On one hand, law tends to address secrets through the lens of legal duties to protect the vulnerable via its regulations governing abuse and neglect. On the other hand, this set of laws captures only a small percentage of secrets held by family members and other trusted “secret keepers” (doctors, clergy, extended family, neighbors) who, for a variety of reasons elect not to inform the state.
This roundtable interrogates states’ obligations to protect the vulnerable and at what cost. It considers the ways in which the law promises/owes protection and the success, failure or harms it brings about when endeavoring to intervene and offer protection. Against that backdrop, the law also has the obligation to honor individual and family autonomy and privacy.
By: Katie Booth
The looming sequester will have a significant impact on health care, including cuts to Medicare, FDA, CDC, NIH, and Affordable Care Act programs. Budget cuts could slow down the drug approval process, impede the tracking of infectious diseases, and lead to layoffs for hundreds of thousands of workers in the health care sector. Read on for sequestration by the numbers…
- Medicare cut by 2% ($11 billion) (not set to begin until April 1st, 2013, unlike other sequestration cuts, which are set to begin on March 1, 2013)
- Physicians’ payments cut by 2%
- Hospital Medicare reimbursement cut by $5.8 billion
- Hospitals could end up with especially large cuts under the sequester because other parts of healthcare system run on longer term contracts
- Loss of almost 500,000 health care sector jobs in the first year of the sequester according to an American Medical Association and American Hospital Association study, including job losses for 40,000 practitioners such as physicians and dentists
- FDA cut by 8% ($318 million)
- FDA public funding cut by $206 million
- FDA industry user fees cut by $112 million (for an interesting discussion of user fee cuts and the sequester, see Patrick O’Leary’s Bill of Health blog post)
- Cuts by department (assuming 8% across-the-board cuts): $71 million to Foods, $39 million to Human Drugs, $17 million to Biologics, $11.3 million to Animal Drugs, and $26.5 million to Devices
- Longer drug approval process is likely
- Layoffs and furloughs likely
- 2,100 fewer food safety inspections
By Casey Thomson
Even the surprisingly resurrected Richard III (on the Twitter-sphere, anyway) appreciates bioethics concerns. Read on to find out more about Richard III’s eagerness for patient confidentiality and other updates in this week’s (extended) Twitter round-up:
- Stephen Latham (@StephenLatham) included a link to his blog post challenging Andrew Francis’ recent claim that penicillin was the central drug spawning the sexual revolution of the 1960s. While penicillin may have facilitated the widespread acceptance of pre-marital relations, it was The Pill that “translat[ed] that newfound sexual freedom into sexual equality.” (1/28)
- Dan Vorhaus (@genomicslawyer) posted a summary video regarding the Neanderthal baby story that rocked the internet in the past few weeks, as reported by Taiwan’s Next Media animation. (1/28)
- Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) shared a news report on Israel’s recent admittance to giving birth control to Ethiopian Jewish immigrants, frequently without either consent or knowledge. Concerns first arose after an investigative journalist began to explore why birth rates in the community had fallen so drastically and seemingly inexplicably. (1/28)
- Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) linked to a piece explaining the future implications and consequences of the guidance requiring schools to make “reasonable modifications” in order to include students with disabilities in either general athletic programs or provide them with parallel opportunities. The guidance, while a potential huge move forward for individuals with disabilities, nonetheless will be nothing without “tough and honest conversation about financing and revenue – and soon.” (1/28)
- Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted an article showing the return of the “invisible gorilla” from the 2010 book, but this time in the fake CT scans shown to both expert radiologists and volunteers alike. The gorilla was large in size compared to the typically indicative nodules, and was unmistakably a gorilla, but yet 20 out of the 24 radiologists failed to see the gorilla. It’s a frightening real-life example of what the original study’s jargon terms as “inattentional blindness.” (1/29)
- Kevin Outterson (@koutterson) live tweeted the Pew meeting concerning new antibiotic development pathways for limited populations. See the string of tweets on his Twitter page for further details of how the meeting proceeded. (1/31)
- Daniel Goldberg (@prof_goldberg) shared a link describing the first scientific evidence suggesting that doctors can “truly feel” their patients’ pain. The study, done by Harvard researchers, used brain scans to indicate activated regions of physicians’ brains during a simulated interaction with patients. (2/1)
- Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) linked to a story on the problems associated with over-prescribing amphetamine-based medications, particularly to teenagers and young adults. While focusing on the individual story of an aspiring medical student named Richard Fee, the author delves into the underexposed side effects of often overzealous prescribing and the surprisingly casual attitude that most Americans hold towards this medication. (2/3)
- Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) also posted a piece inspired by the talk surrounding World Cancer Day on the problems related to cancer treatment in developing countries. Contrary to being solely a problem of so-called developed nations, cancer remains an issue globally – including such cancers that are caused by an infectious agent. Fighting the false notions – that cancer in developing nations is minimal, that it is always not “catchable,” and that enough care (particularly vaccines) is being delivered – is essential to reducing the global inequity in cancer treatment. (2/4)
- Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted the (supposedly resurrected and technologically adept) Richard III’s tweet regarding publication of details surrounding his newly-identified bones: “Hmmm not so happy about my physical attributes being discussed in public. What happened to patient confidentiality ???” (2/4)
- Daniel Goldberg (@prof_goldberg) shared a report on a new study that found a correlation between low self-esteem and female body representation and obsession in “chick lit.” The report noted that the results suggested a possible “intervention tool” by having characters seek support from friends and family for such body concerns. (2/5)
- Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted a graphic eloquently summarizing one of the simplest and most potent arguments in favor of vaccination, and arguably the greater biopharmaceutical industry. (2/6)
Note: As mentioned in previous posts, retweeting should not be considered as an endorsement of or agreement with the content of the original tweet.
Typically, we would avoid such a shameless plug for our researchers — we’d be a little more subtle. But, we can’t help it this time. This book is the best $10 you’ll spend all year.
A little less than a month ago, Johns Hopkins University convened more than 20 of the world’s leading experts on gun violence and policy to summarize their research and recommend policy changes. This 282-page book features empirical research from the leading experts in the field covering the topics of mental health and gun violence, gun law enforcement, high-risk guns, international case studies of responses to gun violence, the Second Amendment, public opinion on gun policy, and concludes with a summary of the recommendations for reforms to Federal policies.
Chapter 3, “Preventing Gun Violence Involving People with Serious Mental Illness,” features research conducted by Jeffrey Swanson, PhD, and his team of researchers based at Duke University. The research presented was funded by PHLR and the National Science Foundation.
Seriously. Check it out.
As most readers are probably aware, the past few years have seen considerable media and clinical interest in chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive, neurodegenerative condition linked to, and thought to result from, concussions, blasts, and other forms of brain injury (including, importantly, repeated but milder sub-concussion-level injuries) that can lead to a variety of mood and cognitive disorders, including depression, suicidality, memory loss, dementia, confusion, and aggression. Once thought mostly to afflict only boxers, CTE has more recently been acknowledged to affect a potentially much larger population, including professional and amateur contact sports players and military personnel.
CTE is diagnosed by the deterioration of brain tissue and tell-tale patterns of accumulation of the protein tau inside the brain. Currently, CTE can be diagnosed only posthumously, by staining the brain tissue to reveal its concentrations and distributions of tau. According to Wikipedia, as of December of 2012, some thirty-three former NFL players have been found, posthumously, to have suffered from CTE. Non-professional football players are also at risk; in 2010, 17-year-old high school football player Nathan Styles became the youngest person to be posthumously diagnosed with CTE, followed closely by 21-year-old University of Pennsylvania junior lineman Owen Thomas. Hundreds of active and retired professional athletes have directed that their brains be donated to CTE research upon their deaths. More than one of these players died by their own hands, including Thomas, Atlanta Falcons safety Ray Easterling, Chicago Bears defensive back Dave Duerson, and, most recently, retired NFL linebacker Junior Seau. In February 2011, Duerson shot himself in the chest, shortly after he texted loved ones that he wanted his brain donated to CTE research. In May 2012, Seau, too, shot himself in the chest, but left no note. His family decided to donate his brain to CTE research in order “to help other individuals down the road.” Earlier this month, the pathology report revealed that Seau had indeed suffered from CTE. Many other athletes, both retired and active, have prospectively directed that their brains be donated to CTE research upon their death. Some 4,000 former NFL players have reportedly joined numerous lawsuits against the NFL for failure to protect players from concussions. Seau’s family, following similar action by Duerson’s estate, recently filed a wrongful death suit against both the NFL and the maker of Seau’s helmet.
The fact that CTE cannot currently be diagnosed until after death makes predicting and managing symptoms and, hence, studying treatments for and preventions of CTE, extremely difficult. Earlier this month, retired NFL quarterback Bernie Kosar, who sustained numerous concussions during his twelve-year professional career — and was friends with both Duerson and Seau — revealed both that he, too, has suffered from various debilitating symptoms consistent with CTE (but also, importantly, with any number of other conditions) and also that he believes that many of these symptoms have been alleviated by experimental (and proprietary) treatment provided by a Florida physician involving IV therapies and supplements designed to improve blood flow to the brain. If we could diagnose CTE in living individuals, then they could use that information to make decisions about how to live their lives going forward (e.g., early retirement from contact sports to prevent further damage), and researchers could learn more about who is most at risk for CTE and whether there are treatments, such as the one Kosar attests to, that might (or might not) prevent or ameliorate it.
Last week, UCLA researchers reported that they may have discovered just such a method of in vivo diagnosis of CTE. In their very small study, five research participants — all retired NFL players — were recruited “through organizational contacts” “because of a history of cognitive or mood symptoms” consistent with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were injected with a novel positron emission tomography (PET) imaging agent that, the investigators believe, uniquely binds to tau. All five participants revealed “significantly higher” concentrations of the agent compared to controls in several brain regions. If the agent really does bind to tau, and if the distributions of tau observed in these participants’ PET scans really are consistent with the distributions of tau seen in the brains of those who have been posthumously-diagnosed CTE, then these participants may also have CTE.
That is, of course, a lot of “ifs.” The well-known pseudomymous neuroscience blogger Neurocritic recently asked me about the ethics of this study. He then followed up with his own posts laying out his concerns about both the ethics and the science of the study. Neurocritic has two primary concerns about the ethics. First, what are the ethics of telling a research participant that they may be showing signs of CTE based on preliminary findings that have not been replicated by other researchers, much less endorsed by any regulatory or professional bodies? Second, what are the ethics of publishing research results that very likely make participants identifiable? I’ll take these questions in order. Continue reading
- Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) retweeted a link to the FDA’s current legal trouble concerning their failure to disclose antibiotic resistance data. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is accusing the FDA of violating the freedom of information law, failing to release data on antibiotic drug usage within the meat industry in order to, as they claim, protect industry secrets. This failure takes special significance when considering that, according to GAP, “80% of all antibiotics sold in the US are utilized by the meat industry.” (1/14)
- Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted an article in the Health Affairs Blog concerning how to improve the Learning Healthcare System (LHS), which adapts data into knowledge that directs evidence-based practice and health system change. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is developing two approaches, namely Point-of-Care Research (“a method of performing clinical trials within the daily practicalities of the [health-care system] (with the intent of advancing these systems to LHS)”), and the Collaborative Research to Enhance and Advance Transformation and Excellence (strengthening health services research, which analyzes the factors regarding the obtainment of care). (1/14)
- Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) reported on the American College of Physicians’ new recommendation that all healthcare providers receive the influenza vaccine for this particularly harsh flu season, in addition to other listed immunizations. (1/15)
- Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) additionally added a post on the inequality of the 2012-2013 flu outbreak – namely, the disproportionate number of lower-income individuals who are contracting the illness. The article noted the results of a study which found that while the majority of efforts for vaccinations occur in more wealthy neighborhoods, covering poorer neighborhoods with vaccine care early benefits the wealthier neighborhoods more so than if such vaccinations were delayed. (1/16)
- Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) also shared a link to an examination into New York’s newly passed major gun control law, which addressed gun control ownership of those with mental illness. Caplan dissolved claims that the new measures were “draconian,” noting that such practices of reporting individuals that may pose concern for the safety of others have already been in practice but that these new policies make the process of reporting a legal imperative, and simpler.
- Daniel Goldberg (@prof_goldberg) shared an article on SAGE Journals about the experience of gender within the healthcare science environment, specifically looking at the subtle practices of masculinist actions taking place that may remain unnoticed or unchallenged. The report is based on the discussed experiences of healthcare scientists with men in healthcare science laboratories. (1/16)
- Alex Smith (@AlexSmithMD) linked to an article on an intervention for “post-hospital syndrome”, commonly known as the Acute Care for Elders (ACE) Unit. The intervention, while evidence-based and already in place in many hospital locations, may be overlooked by practitioners or healthcare authors. This unit works to reduce the effects that often derive largely from the “allostatic and psychological stress” accumulated during a hospital stay. (1/18)
- Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) posted a report on bias in reporting on breast cancer clinical trials. The study found that “nearly one-third of reports on large, randomized studies over-emphasize some benefits of therapy,” in addition to providing “insufficient attention or discussion of treatment side effects.” Considering that such reports factor prominently in how doctors decide to pursue treatment and therapy for patients, this misreporting leaves many doctors unaware of the true consequences of tested treatments – and may cause them to decide plans for treatment that they would not otherwise pursue. (1/19)
Note: As mentioned in previous posts, retweeting should not be considered as an endorsement of or agreement with the content of the original tweet.