Categories
Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Endocrinology
Health Insurance
Medical Devices
Mental Health
Nutrition
Oncology
Public Health
Sexual Health
Cheap Cigarettes
Popular Articles

Prostate Cancer Screening Has Yet To Prove Its Worth
The recent release of two large randomized trials suggests that if there is a benefit of screening, it is, at best, small, says a new report in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Authored by Otis W. Brawley, M.D. of the American Cancer Society and Donna Ankerst, Ph.D. and Ian M. Thompson, M.D. of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the review says because prostate cancer is virtually ubiquitous in men as they age, it is clear that a goal of "finding more cancers" is not acceptable. Instead, public health principles demand that screening must reduce the risk of death from prostate cancer, reduce the suffering from prostate cancer, or reduce health care costs when compared with a non-screening scenario. The authors suggest prostate cancer screening has yet to reach one of these standards to date.

Red Wine Ingredient Demonstrates Significant Health Benefits: Research Review
The benefits of alcohol are all about moderation. Low to moderate drinking - especially of red wine - appears to reduce causes of mortality, while too much drinking causes multiple organ damage.
News of the day
Opinion Piece Examines If Abortion Access Should Ever Be Restricted
"Just because something is legal -- and should be legal -- does not mean it is always ethical," Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, writes in a Salon opinion piece, adding that "sometimes the right thing to say to a woman [seeking abortion] is "I am so sorry, I cannot do what you ask."" According to Kissling, there has "always been a fear in the choice movement that if we deal with "morality," we are going to lose." However, "tough issues come up more frequently than they did in the first years after" Roe v. Wade, and such issues "should make us pause and think hard," Kissling writes, adding, "The thought of putting every woman through the indignity of meeting with an ethics committee, or getting a doctor to sign off on her reasons for abortion, has forced most of us to stick with the principle that women must be allowed to make their own private ethical decisions, without the state getting involved." However, Kissling comments that "we express moral views about every other issue under the sun." She continues, "Expressing our views about controversial issues is how society develops norms and shared values."Kissling adds that if abortion-rights supporters "follow the example of those opposed to abortion and present only one value -- a woman"s right to make this decision -- as the only ethical consideration worth discussing in difficult cases, do we not become as extremist as we say they are?" She continues, "Is there not, in an ethical sense, an important weighing of women"s rights and needs against a respect for life, even the life of nonpersons? Is there a point in pregnancy when our respect for life might outweigh a woman"s right to make this choice?" Kissling asks, "[I]s the fact that we have avoided it part of the reason that polls show that more people are willing to call themselves pro-life than ever before?"According to Kissling she has "come to believe that women"s autonomy does not require that all efforts be made to protect women from pain or from hearing the word "no."" Kissling writes, "I still have a twinge of doubt when I write these words," adding, "For most of my years as an advocate of a woman"s right to decide, I stepped back from this conclusion" and "could not bring myself to say that there are circumstances in which I would force a woman to continue a pregnancy." The piece continues, "What changed for me? ... Mostly, I feared that single value ethics about abortion, on either side of the debate, would result in a coarsening of our respect for both women and for life" (Kissling, Salon, 6/21).
Diagnostics

Leading Scientists Warn Over Lack Of Dementia Investment

The UK needs a national plan for dementia research or the country will pay the price, the UK"s top scientists are warning today. In a letter to the government 31 leading dementia researchers united to call for a national plan for dementia research and a tripling of current investment. The letter coincides with the first ever ministerial research summit on dementia. The summit, hosted by Care Services Minister, Phil Hope, will bring together leading researchers and people with dementia to tackle low levels of investment and set priorities for dementia research. The letter reads: "Today (21 July) the government will hold a ministerial dementia research summit at the Royal Society. After years of underfunding, it is encouraging that dementia research is receiving serious attention. Within a generation, 1.4 million people in the UK will live with dementia, costing our economy ÷£50 billion per year. Yet for every pound spent on dementia care, a fraction of a penny is spent on research into defeating the condition. Our key weakness is lack of funding, not lack of talent. The government must use this summit to initiate a national dementia research strategy. Most importantly, it must commit to tripling its annual support for dementia research to ÷£96 million within five years. If the government squanders this opportunity, we will all pay the price." Prof Julie Williams, Alzheimer"s Research Trust Prof Clive Ballard, Alzheimer"s Society Dr Kieran Breen, Parkinson"s Disease Society Prof John Hardy FRS, Institute of Neurology Prof Peter St George-Hyslop FRS, University of Cambridge Prof Simon Lovestone, Institute of Psychiatry Prof Robin Jacoby, University of Oxford Prof Alistair Burns, University of Manchester Prof David Brooks, Imperial College London Prof Seth Love, University of Bristol and 21 others (listed below) Professor Clive Ballard, Director of Research, Alzheimer"s Society says, "Dementia costs the UK more than heart disease stroke and cancer combined, but the government invests eight times less in dementia research than cancer research. Significant breakthroughs are within our grasp but without further investment millions more people will die." There are 700, 000 people with dementia in the UK and this will rise to more than a million people in less than 20 years. The cost of dementia will increase from ÷£17 billion today to over ÷£27 billion by 2026. The 21 further signatories not mentioned above are: Prof Steve Iliffe, University College London; Prof Rajesh Kalaria, Newcastle University; Prof Lawrence Whalley, University of Aberdeen; Prof Anne Rosser, University of Cardiff; Prof Roy Jones, Research Institute for the Care of Older People (RICE) Bath; Dr Richard Wade-Martins, University of Oxford; Dr Karen Horsburgh, University of Edinburgh; Dr Stephen Gentleman, Imperial College London; Dr Diane Hanger, Kings College London; Prof Kevin Morgan, University of Nottingham; Prof Nigel Hooper, University of Leeds; Prof Nick Fox, University College London; Prof James Fawcett, University of Cambridge; Prof David Smith, Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Ageing (OPTIMA); Dr Maria Grazia Spillantini, University of Cambridge; Prof Esme Moniz-Cook, University of Hull; Prof James Nicoll, University of Southampton; Prof John Young, Bradford Institute of Health Research; Dr Michel Goedert FRS, University of Cambridge; Dr David Dawbarn, University of Bristol; Prof John O"Brien, Newcastle University. Alzheimer"s Society


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):

© Copyright 2009