Genes, race, and population: avoiding a collision of categories. (65/146)

A wide array of federal mandates have a profound impact on the use of racial and ethnic categories in biomedical research, clinical practice, product development, and health policy. Current discussions over the appropriate use of racial and ethnic categories in biomedical contexts have largely focused on the practices of individual researchers. By contrast, our discussion focuses on relations between the daily practices of biomedical professionals and federal regulatory mandates. It draws upon the legal doctrine of equal protection to move beyond such debates and to propose guidelines to address the structural forces imposed by federal regulations that mandate how data about race and ethnicity are used in biomedical research. It offers a framework to manage the tension involved in using existing federally mandated categories of race and ethnicity alongside new scientific findings about human genetic variation.  (+info)

Responding to employment concerns of cancer survivors. (66/146)

The report on cancer survivorship recently released by the Institute of Medicine called on providers to become familiar with the employment rights of survivors, to offer them information about employment rights and programs, and to help minimize the adverse effects of cancer on employment. This review is designed to help providers respond to the Institute of Medicine's recommendations by describing relevant employment and health insurance protections, nationally accessible services and information sources for survivors, functional limitations that may affect survivors' work, and a variety of rehabilitation services that may be helpful for survivors with disabling residual effects of cancer and its treatment. It also suggests directions for further efforts on the part of public and private cancer organizations, researchers, and clinicians to address the employment concerns of survivors.  (+info)

Paternalism and its discontents: motorcycle helmet laws, libertarian values, and public health. (67/146)

The history of motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States reflects the extent to which concerns about individual liberties have shaped the public health debate. Despite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that motorcycle helmet laws reduce fatalities and serious injuries, only 20 states currently require all riders to wear helmets. During the past 3 decades, federal government efforts to push states toward enactment of universal helmet laws have faltered, and motorcyclists' advocacy groups have been successful at repealing state helmet laws. This history raises questions about the possibilities for articulating an ethics of public health that would call upon government to protect citizens from their own choices that result in needless morbidity and suffering.  (+info)

Civil commitment--the American experience. (68/146)

The evolution of U.S. civil commitment law needs to be understood within the context of changes in psychiatry and medicine, as well as larger social policy and economic changes. American civil commitment law has reflected the swinging pendulum of social attitudes towards civil commitment, oscillating between more and less restriction for both procedural and substantive standards. These standards have evolved from a "need for treatment" approach to a "dangerousness" rationale, and now may be moving to a position in which these justifications are combined, particularly in the context of involuntary outpatient commitment. Civil commitment in the United States has been shaped by multiple factors, including sensitivity to civil rights, public perception of psychiatry, availability of resources, and larger economic pressures. We suggest that current American commitment practice is influenced more by economic factors and social perceptions of mental illness than by changing legal standards.  (+info)

The leadership principles of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and their relevance to surgery. (69/146)

In order to face the challenges in healthcare this century, it is essential that surgeons understand modern leadership principles. One of the greatest leaders in history was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who provides a shining example of level-5 leadership for us to study. The study of leadership principles of great leaders can provide us with practical methods of conflict resolution as well as inspiration to keep us engaged and focused. As leaders of the medical community, we face numerous challenges, including discovering and implementing new treatments for disease, providing care for the indigent, overcoming educational challenges such as incorporating the ACGME Core Competencies into our surgical training and promoting diversity in education. Achieving these goals is often hindered by the environment in which we labor-nearly 50 million are uninsured, the rising cost of medical care is currently at 16% of the GNP, and reimbursement rates are falling-which makes the practice of surgery a significant challenge. Effective leadership will be paramount in achieving these goals. In this editorial, which summarizes a presentation given to the Surgical Section of the annual National Medical Association meeting, five important leadership principles that are important for surgeons have been selected and related to the outstanding leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  (+info)

Mum's the word: the Supreme Court and family planning. (70/146)

On May 23, 1991, the US Supreme Court upheld federal regulations that prohibit federally funded family planning programs from counseling about or referring for abortion. As a result, government benefits may now entail substantial costs. The regulations changed the nature of government-assisted family planning from comprehensive care and counseling to limited services and government-prescribed information. The reasoning in Rust v Sullivan allows government to limit freedom of speech in federally funded programs. The decision may have been influenced by antiabortion sentiment, but it does not affect the legality of abortion. Instead, it sets a precedent for government control of whether and how health care can be discussed wherever government pays some of the bills.  (+info)

A service-learning elective to promote enhanced understanding of civic, cultural, and social issues and health disparities in pharmacy. (71/146)

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and impact of an elective service-learning course offered in cooperation with a charitable pharmacy providing services to the surrounding community. METHODS: The 33 students enrolled in the service-learning elective were given a 23-question preservice survey instrument and a 32-question postservice survey instrument. The survey instruments were designed to measure change in the students' perceived knowledge and understanding regarding civic, cultural, and social issues and health disparities. RESULTS: Significant differences in responses on the presurvey and postsurvey instruments suggested changes in students' attitudes and perceptions about the patients and the community in which they serve. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the survey indicated that by exposing students to issues affecting individuals and the community during this elective, a positive change in the student's perception of their knowledge and understanding of broader issues facing the community was observed. Service-Learning courses provide additional opportunities for students to develop as competent, engaged, and caring health care professionals.  (+info)

Damages caps in medical malpractice cases. (72/146)

This article reviews the empirical literature on the effects of damages caps and concludes that the better-designed studies show that damages caps reduce liability insurance premiums. The effects of damages caps on defensive medicine, physicians' location decisions, and the cost of health care to consumers are less clear. The only study of whether consumers benefit from lower health insurance premiums as a result of damages caps found no impact. Some state courts have based decisions declaring damages caps legislation unconstitutional on the lack of evidence of their effectiveness, thereby ignoring the findings of conflicting research studies or discounting their relevance. Although courts should be cautious in rejecting empirical evidence that caps are effective, legislators should consider whether they benefit consumers enough to justify limiting tort recoveries for those most seriously injured by malpractice.  (+info)