Our Sneaky Genuine Truth Around S3I-201

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Версія від 04:22, 6 лютого 2017, створена Animal13neck (обговореннявнесок) (Створена сторінка: Methods: Men who underwent open radical prostatectomy (RP) in Victoria from 1995 to 2000 were recorded in a population register co-ordinated by the Victorian Ca...)

(різн.) ← Попередня версія • Поточна версія (різн.) • Новіша версія → (різн.)
Перейти до: навігація, пошук

Methods: Men who underwent open radical prostatectomy (RP) in Victoria from 1995 to 2000 were recorded in a population register co-ordinated by the Victorian Cancer Registry and Cancer Council Victoria. Baseline clinical, pathological and demographic information such as location were recorded and linked to mortality and recurrence data. Men who had neoadjuvant therapy diglyceride or missing data for socioeconomic status (SES), tumour grade and stage were excluded leaving 1984 patients in the analyses (92.1% of total register). Results: Follow-up concluded in 2009 with 238 deaths observed, of which 77 were prostate cancer (PCa) specific. Cox and competing risk regressions were used for analysis. Living in a rural area was associated with higher odds of PCa specific mortality after RP (trend pfind more tumour characteristics. Implication: Rural men are faring worse than their urban counterparts following the same cancer treatment. ""Edited by ChristophRehmann-Sutter and HansjakobM��ller . Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd , UK , 2009 . ISBN: 9780754674511 . 267 pages plus index RRP $145.20 Reviewed by Charlotte Paul Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand What are the dilemmas of disclosure of genetic information beyond a debate about the right to know and the right not to know? Barbara Katz Rothman uses a fresh metaphor to give an answer in her essay, ��Genetic counselling: placing the room in context��. If the door you enter into the new genetics room is marked ��access to information��, the entire debate appears to be about the right to know. Katz Rothman directs our attention to both the disciplinary door that one observes from, but also AZD8055 in vivo the political and social context in which the room where genes get discussed is located. She notes that in the US, by 2005, legally mandated newborn screening for an average of 20 genetic disorders was being undertaken. How did this come about? Does it say something about the society hoping to affect the future reproductive plans of women with potentially disabled infants? Is it part of a lack of political commitment to children who may be damaged and expensive to raise? The metaphor of the room, the doors, and the context serve to illuminate the myriad ways of thinking about the ethics of genetic prognosis. The main focus of these essays is on genetic counselling and the ethical and legal issues raised by the option of disclosure. Some are informed by a careful empirical approach to understanding the ethical issues involved.