Like a good, smart doctor, morally grounded and, perhaps, influenced by compassion (hard to tell), the Chief Justice figured out a legally acceptable way for his court to do the right thing. Bravo!
She writes: “I believe that every educated person must at the very least understand how these interpreters of medical knowledge examine, or should examine, it to arrive at the conclusions.”
This kind of paternalism, when a doctor assesses the risks and benefits, and spares the patient’s “knowing” seems anachronistic. But it may, still, be what many people are looking for when and if they get a serious illness. Not everyone wants a “tell me everything” kind of physician.
This news reminds us an aspect of cancer treatment some of us would rather put out of our heads….all cancer patients should take careful notes on their planned treatments and ask their doctors about the long-term consequences of therapy.
My opinion is not quite formed on this new antibody. The FDA’s decision was based on results of one trial of 808 patients, half of whom didn’t get the experimental drug…
Fortunately the LATimes and People magazine got the story right. Their headlines, and text, emphasize the benign nature of Crow’s newly-diagnosed condition, a meningioma.
Last October, I met Suzanne at a conference. She seemed familiar; that was because I’d read about her life with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) a few months back…
The new agent is a hybrid of an old monoclonal antibody, Herceptin, that’s chemically attached to DM1, a traditional kind of chemotherapy. The preliminary results of this randomized trial are encouraging. …It’s hard to know how this promising, likely expensive, intravenous drug will fit in with others for patients with Her2+ breast cancer.