AIDS issues and support

sexually transmitted infections which cause grievous bodily harm

Consultation

CPS launch document for public consultation on sexually
transmitted infections which cause grievous bodily harm
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/consultations/index.html

This draft policy statement on prosecuting cases involving the
sexual transmission of infections which cause grievous bodily
harm will be available for public consultation from 1st September
until November 3rd 2006.

Sexual health agencies, doctors and prosecutors have contributed
to the document which explains the way in which the CPS deals
with cases involving the intentional or reckless sexual
transmission of infections which cause grievous bodily harm.

The statement, which is the first of its kind, has come about
since the landmark case of Dica, where the defendant was
convicted of grievous bodily harm for recklessly infecting his
partner with HIV.

Responses should be forwarded to by e-mail to
STI.CPSConsultat…@cps.gsi.gov.uk
STI.CPSConsultation at cps.gsi.gov.uk
or hard copies sent to

CPS Consultation
Policy Directorate
CPS HQ
50 Ludgate Hill
London
EC4M 7EX

The closing date for responses is November 3rd.

Enquiries
If you require any further information, please email
STI.CPSConsultat…@cps.gsi.gov.uk
STI.CPSConsultation at cps.gsi.gov.uk
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/consultations/index.html

Prosecuting cases involving the sexual transmission of
infections which cause grievous bodily harm

. A consultation paper
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/consultations/sti_process.html

. DRAFT policy for prosecuting cases involving sexual
  transmission of infections which cause grievous bodily harm
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/consultations/sti_policy.html

. Consultation questions response sheet
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/consultations/sti_policy_response.doc

Wedding centerpieces from eFavormart are a decorative addition. .
No Comments

have they found a cure for AIDS

have they found a cure for AIDS i read it in on the news a few weeks
back. is it true

Comments (13)

Onlinesexeducation.info site made live— Hurry

we are working with one non profitable orgnization which is working
thru out the world for sex education. we built one website for this
also to provide information abt sex education, we need your help for
this. whenever u open our website you will find lots of links just
click on any 2-3 links which u like.

and please forward this mail to all of ur friends so that more and more
ppl get information abt our org.

its very social concern whenever u click on 2-3 links so we make some
money from google which make up strong and we’ll use this money for
other public welfare programs.

so give me 5 min from ur busy time daily it will also help others.

www.onlinesexeducation.info

No Comments

Candida and iron

Unexpected link between iron and drug resistance of Candida: iron
depletion enhances membrane fluidity and drug diffusion leading to drug

susceptible cells.
Prasad T, Chandra A, Mukhopadhyay CK, Prasad R
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006 Sep 5;

In this study, we show that the iron depletion in C. albicans using
bathophenanthrolene disulphonic acid (BPS) and ferrozine as chelators
enhanced its sensitivity to several drugs including the most common
antifungal, fluconazole (FLC). Several other species of Candida also
displayed increased sensitivity to FLC due to iron restriction. The
iron uptake mutants namely Deltaftr1 and Deltaftr2, as well as the
copper transporter mutant Deltaccc2, that affects the high affinity
iron uptake in Candida, showed an increased sensitivity to FLC as
compared to the wild type. The effect of iron depletion on drug
sensitivity appeared to be independent of efflux pump proteins, Cdr1p
and Cdr2p. We found that iron deprivation lead to lowering of membrane
ergosterol by 15-30 %. Subsequently, fluorescence polarization
measurements also revealed that iron-restricted Candida cells displayed

29-40 % increase in membrane fluidity resulting in enhanced passive
diffusion of the drugs. Northern blots revealed that ERG11 gene was
considerably down-regulated in iron-deprived cells which might account
for the lowered ergosterol content. Our results show a close
relationship between cellular iron and drug susceptibilities of C.
albicans. Considering that MDR is a manifestation of multifactorial
phenomenon, the influence of cellular iron on drug susceptibilities of
Candida suggests iron as yet another novel determinant of multi-drug
resistance.

Who loves ya.
Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com

Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3

DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

Comments (2)

ARV: Death Rate Declinces

The review below underscores that the death rate from AIDS-related
causes has dropped dramatically. ARV, however, confer risks due to
their toxicities.

Clearly, these risks are MUCH less than dying of AIDS. But they’re
quite real. I believe, and some evidence supports the belief, that
there are many ways to mitigate the risks related to ARV therapy.

                George M. Carter

****
Changing Causes of Death and Disease among HIV Positive People in the
HAART Era

As a consequence of HAART, there has been a significant and sustained
decrease in HIV-associated deaths in the U.S. and Europe since 1996.
However, between 1966 and the present, new morbidities have emerged in
individuals treated with effective antiretroviral therapy.

Although the rate of HIV-related death remains low in developed
countries, there is increasing concern about osteopenia (bone loss),
coinfection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV),
cardiovascular disease, and other conditions among people with HIV.

As described in the September 2006 Journal of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndromes, researchers conducted a prospective,
multicenter, observational analysis to evaluate the most significant
trends in morbidity and mortality among HAART-treated patients
enrolled in the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS). The researchers analyzed
rates of death, opportunistic disease, and non-AIDS-defining illnesses
determined to be primary or secondary causes of death among HOPS
patients treated since 1996.

Results

- Among 6945 HIV positive patients followed for a median of 39.2
months, the death rate fell from 7.0 deaths per 100 person-years (PY)
in 1996 to 1.3 deaths per 100 PY in 2004 (P = 0.008 for trend).

- Deaths that included AIDS-related causes decreased from 3.79 per 100
PY in 1996 to 0.32 per 100 PY in 2004 (P = 0.008).

- Proportional increases also occurred in deaths involving liver
disease, bacteremia/sepsis, gastrointestinal disease, non-AIDS
malignancies, and renal disease (P = <0.001, 0.017, 0.006, <0.001, and
0.037, respectively.)

- Liver disease was the only reported cause of death for which
absolute rates increased over time — albeit not significantly — from
0.09 per 100 PY in 1996 to 0.16 per 100 PY in 2004 (P = 0.10).

- The percentage of deaths due exclusively to non-AIDS-defining
illnesses rose from 13.1% in 1996 to 42.5% in 2004 (P < 0.001 for
trend).

- In 2004, the most frequent non-AIDS-defining causes of death were
cardiovascular, hepatic, and pulmonary disease, and non-AIDS-defining
malignancies.

- Mean CD4 cell counts closest to death (n = 486 deaths) increased
from 59 cells/mm3 in 1996 to 287 cells/mm3 in 2004 (P < 0.001 for
trend).

- Patients dying due to non-AIDS-defining causes were more likely to
be HAART experienced and initiated HAART at higher CD4 cell counts
than those who died with AIDS-defining conditions.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the authors wrote, "Although overall death rates
remained low through 2004, the proportion of deaths attributable to
non-AIDS diseases increased and prominently included hepatic,
cardiovascular, and pulmonary diseases, as well as non-AIDS
malignancies."

"Longer time spent receiving HAART and higher CD4 cell counts at HAART
initiation were associated with death from non-AIDS causes," they
added, noting that the CD4 cell count at the time of death increased
over time.

Discussion

In their discussion, the authors noted that their study revealed
several major findings. While overall death rates remained stable
through the ninth year of widespread HAART use in the HOPS cohort, the
proportion of deaths with at least one non-AIDS-defining cause
increased progressively over time, accounting for more than half of
all deaths by the end of 2004.

As a group, compared with persons dying from AIDS-related conditions,
persons with exclusively non-AIDS-defining causes of death tended to
start antiretroviral therapy at higher CD4 cell counts, were more
HAART experienced, and were more likely to have received HAART near
the time of death. In addition, mean CD4 cell counts near the time of
death, as well as the age at death, both increased significantly over
time.

The researchers said that long-term HIV suppression, CD4 cell count
stability or improvement, and clinical benefits due to antiretroviral
therapy increasingly allowed HOPS participants to avoid AIDS-defining
illnesses and delay death, even if they had a history of prior
AIDS-defining illness. As a result, they explained, "more prolonged
survival allowed chronic underlying comorbid conditions or risks for
such conditions to become more clinically relevant," particularly
liver disease (especially chronic coinfection with HBV or HCV),
hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and
non-AIDS-defining malignancies.

Further, they suggested, "HIV treatments themselves may have resulted
in conditions that contributed to an increased likelihood of certain
deaths." In particular, the wrote, "The study data can be interpreted
to imply that the increased proportion of non-AIDS-related causes of
death can be attributed to longer antiretroviral therapy (e.g., PI use
and myocardial infarctions as seen in this cohort)."

Recent reports from this and other cohorts, they continued,
"demonstrate mortality benefits of initiating antiretroviral therapy
earlier in the course of HIV infection (i.e., at higher CD4 cell
counts) and the survival benefits of maintaining continuous HAART even
when higher CD4 cell counts have been achieved" – although recent
studies have provided conflicting data about structured treatment
interruptions.

"[W]hile appreciating the shift in the spectrum of illnesses
contributing to death among those living longer in the HAART era," the
authors concluded, "it is important to emphasize that any
contributions of antiretroviral therapy to the risk for
non-AIDS-defining illnesses are clearly outweighed by the benefits
consequent to HAART’s use in reducing overall mortality and
AIDS-related morbidity. These benefits are dramatic, durable, and
unequivocal."

The authors also emphasized the importance of clinicians being aware
that "other underlying, nontraditionally HIV-related conditions are
ever more likely to figure prominently in the risk for death and
disease," and that such conditions should therefore be aggressively
screened, monitored, and treated.

Furthermore, they noted, "Although HIV-infected persons are clearly
living longer as a consequence of effective HAART, they may be dying
earlier than those in the general population, albeit not from
traditionally HIV-associated conditions. These observations underscore
the need for improved vigilance on the part of clinicians in
maintaining proactive and preventive medical care and routine
screening for all HIV-infected persons receiving HAART."

09/08/06

Reference
F J Palella, R Baker, A C Moorman, and others. Mortality in the Highly
Active Antiretroviral Therapy Era: Changing Causes of Death and
Disease in the HIV Outpatient Study. Journal of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndromes 43(1): 27-34. September 2006.

No Comments

http://donwarnersaklad.gather.com

http://donwarnersaklad.gather.com

Comment (1)

Re: Big Bertha Thing blogs

Big Bertha Thing Positive
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/positive.html
Access page JPG 53K Image
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews including se.vetenskap.astronomi

Round photographic plates.

Caption;-
A photograph of great historical interest.
The track is one left by a positron. This positron possessed,
an energy of 63 MeV, before entering the lead plate from below;
after penetrating the 6 mm. lead plate, it proceeded with an
energy of 23 MeV. This change of energy, shows definitely,
the direction of motion of the particle and, therefore, allows
one to conclude, that it is positively charged.

From a book by
J.D.Stranathan Ph.D.,
Professor of Physics and Chairman of
Department, University of Kansas.
The "Particles" of Modern Physics.
(C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942

Big Bertha Thing jeremiah

A film Jeremiah Johnson, not necessarily true.

A mountain man asked him, whether he was any good at skinning bears.
He said that he could skin them, faster than the mountain man could
catch them.

So running down the mountain, with a bear in hot pursuit.
His friend runs in the front door of the cabin and jumps out
the back window.

Quote
"You skin that one … and I’ll go catch me another one!"
Unquote.

(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997.
To comply with my copyright,
please distribute complete copies, free of charge.

Tony Lance
peterp…@bigberthathing.co.uk

Big Bertha Thing chronicles

Did you hear the one about the chinese historian, Wan Thing the Just,
also called Just Wan Thing?
1. He does not exist.
2. He is a contradiction in terms.
3. He is a student of mythology.
4. You cannot write history by enforcing it.
5. Unofficial history is not an executable offense.
6. The errors and omissions page is bigger than the book.
7. He is a storyteller of the chinese diaspora.
8. Politics makes poor history.
9. He is a bigger liar than I am.
10.The father of lies, wishes he had written it.
11.The ancient greeks had the decency to call it myths and legends.
12.It is a 6000 year long political diatribe.
13.He invented ’1984 newspeak.’
14.His name is mandarin, princeling and warlord.

No Comments

IRAN CLAIMS AIDS RESEARCH BREAKTHROUGH

IRAN CLAIMS AIDS RESEARCH BREAKTHROUGH
Iran’s Ministry of Health claimed to have made a medical breakthrough
with a formula to control symptoms of AIDS.
http://bitterplace.homeip.net:8080/modules.php?name=News&file=article…

No Comments

Is it true that no papers after `95 have been cited? Can you back that up? Interestng and troubling if true.

http://liam.gnn.tv/blogs/15131/NY_Times_For_Science_s_Gatekeepers_a_C…
http://tinyurl.com/pzxdf

http://liam.gnn.tv/?page=2

http://liamscheff.com/blog/
http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/28/aids-drugs-for-hiv-negatives-th…
http://tinyurl.com/qjlra

http://liamscheff.com/daily/
http://liamscheff.com/
– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
   > Fascinating questions Donny Sack.

   There’s that diminutive form again.

   Here’s my new diminutive name for you:
   The small amount of stuff left over even after you have
   wiped three times.

   That can be shortened to THREE.
   > Though incredibly off-topic,

   Fascinating catch, THREE. But remind me again how the
   questions are off topic.
   > and indicative of your state of mind (stalker-alert).

   Ever consider working for a circus as a mind reader?
   > I have some of my own:

   This is just another ploy to avoid the original
   issue of building a theory on one case history
   and using old research to claim your theory is right.

   Ask all the questions you want–its still a ploy
   to avoid real science.
   > Why do we give tests that come up postive for
   pregnancy to pregnant women in poor > countries, then
   tell them that the test means that they’re going to die
   of a sex >disease unless they take very poisonous, more
   than occasionally fatality-inducing >chemicals, and
   meanwhile, monitor and direct their reproductive
   practices, and those > of the women in their nations?

   And your evidence that all the above is true?
   > Are we interested in rebooting a world-wide Eugenics
   program? Seems so…

   Are "we"? No, but that seems to be your fantasy.
   > Is it okay with you if I call you a "Eugenicist" from
   now on,

   Sure. You can call me anything you want–as long as you
   don’t call me late for dinner.

   Name calling is not science.
   > as you’ve refered to anyone who asks any question of
   the current single-cause AIDS >paradigm, a "denialist?"

   Let’s use another name, then. How about FOUR?

   Have I called you a denialist or a bad scientist?

   More case histories and cites of later research,
   please.
   > I think I’ll go with it.

   If cheap rhetorical tricks work for you, why not.
   > Eugenicist Donald Saklad. That seems fair, doesn’t
   it?

   Sure, THREE.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
   Is it true that no papers after `95 have been cited?
   Can you back that up? Interestng and troubling if true.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
   To those it may concern:

   Donny Sack is a rhyming reference to Johnny Sack, who
   is a character on the Sopranos. I’m not sure that’s
   clear to the offended (and offending) party, or if he
   just couldn’t veil his hatred-in-waiting for more than
   a few posts.

   I’ve written at length about all of the issues asked
   about here. So have a lot of other people.

   I’ve posted links to debates and research, feel free to
   peruse them all.

   If anyone has a specific question, related to the blog
   topic that orginated this, (or the one D.Saklad
   originally posted on), I suppose I might be inclined to
   have a look, or think about that question, provided
   it’s not personally abusive.

   But I am being asked (demanded by D.S.) to provide a
   totality of all evidence and research linked to HIV and
   AIDS that supports the multi-factiorialist view, in a
   single internet exchange.

   Is that reasonable? Would it even be readable?

   What would it be, besides a laundry list?

   For the record, I am building a database of papers that
   I am reading and have read and which I think are
   valuable in pursuit of the greater truths surrounding
   (and buried beneath) the issue.

   But the problem with any paper (data-set) is
   interpretation: I am not a reductionist – and I think
   most who argue the standard meme are. That is, they
   believe (imagine, feel, think) in a single-cause theory
   of AIDS (though some are willing to dress it and
   stretch it a bit to fit better with what I view as
   observable reality).

   And I have read, have experienced and observed, have
   slowly been convinced and have grown to understand,
   feel, believe and imagine that this thing we call AIDS
   is indeed Not a single-cause ailment, but is a complex,
   variable, wildly multi-factorial illness (but not even
   illness, rather, set-of-illnesses, determined in too
   large a part through politics) that has little to
   nothing to do with the rabidly-enforced mainstream
   view.

   So, in reading the many papers, in reviewing the piles
   of evidence, we will each interpret them through our
   lens, our world view, and our experience.

   There’s nothing I can do about that, and nothing to
   `debate’ across the chasm of meme or world-view.

   I offer that two world-views can exist in the same
   world, and that two (at least two) disease models can
   and should be pursued, with the best results from each
   valued and utilized.

   That is something scorned and repudiated by the
   mainstream, who abhor the thought of multiple paradigms
   in this field, and who vilify the opposition, with
   terms like "holocaust denialist."

   What can be done about this? I don’t know. I consider
   the current paradigm an off-shoot of the human, tribal
   tendency toward Eugenics, though I’m sure that is a
   shocking statement to the uninitiated.

   I hope to further pursue that in thought and writing,
   if and when I do, you can see how you feel about it
   that view.

   I am also being asked to do something I have never
   claimed, and which is not true:

   To defend against the idea that I, or anyone who does
   not follow the standard deviation, only refers to
   papers written since 1995.

   If you think this is true, you haven’t been paying
   attention.

   Regards,

   Liam

   and please keep the nonsense off my blog – the really
   trash-talking kind of stuff. I really don’t enjoy it,
   it limits discussion, it drives people away, it’s a
   great problem with GNN (and probably a lot of the web)
   at present, constant inflammation, little conversation.

   As though the term "agree to disagree" never crossed
   anybody’s mind as a good idea, when all that’s left are
   brutal insults.
http://liam.gnn.tv/blogs/15131/NY_Times_For_Science_s_Gatekeepers_a_C…
http://tinyurl.com/pzxdf

http://liam.gnn.tv/?page=2

http://liamscheff.com/blog/
http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/28/aids-drugs-for-hiv-negatives-th…
http://tinyurl.com/qjlra

http://liamscheff.com/daily/
http://liamscheff.com/

Comment (1)

by Deborah Franklin. Patient Power: Making Sure Your Doctor Really Hears You.

by Deborah Franklin
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/health/15cons.html

    * Health

New York Times
Health

    * Fitness & Nutrition
    * Health Care Policy
    * Mental Health & Behavior

The Consumer
Patient Power: Making Sure Your Doctor Really Hears You

[ illustration ] Christopher Silas Neal

By DEBORAH FRANKLIN
Published: August 15, 2006

It’s one thing to feel like a master of the universe when wearing
a buttoned-down power suit. But how can you negotiate anything —
how can you even contemplate "Getting to Yes," as one
motivational best seller puts it — when standing barefoot in a
paper gown under the fluorescent lights at a hospital or a
medical clinic?

Research shows that although most people claim to want as much
information about their medical conditions and treatments as they
can get, even the most confident are struck dumb — or at least
awkward, anxious and often ineffective — when talking to
doctors.

The power gap often shuts patients down.

"My doctor’s great in most ways," said Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl,
a Harvard-trained lawyer turned playwright who has stood up to
more than her share of glowering judges and corporate stiffs.

"If we need to talk about something important, he waits until
after the exam, after I have my clothes on, and has me come into
his office," she said. "But even that doesn’t help much.

"He’s still the guy with the white lab coat behind the giant
desk. He’s moved on to being David Letterman, and I still feel
like the schlub in the paper dress."

In the last few years, medical schools have started trying to
bridge this gap by teaching students clinical communication
skills — Bedside Manner 101.

As part of earning a medical license, for example, third- or
fourth-year students are now required to face actors playing the
roles of patients with myriad diseases and dispositions.

The students are then tested on how well they interview the
patient, conduct the physical exam and convey the findings to the
patient and to colleagues.  Empathetic skills are considered a
big plus.

The training doesn’t stop after graduation. In March 2005, the
Communication Skills Laboratory at Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center began offering a series of three-hour interactive
workshops intended to give hospital oncology residents practice
in "Breaking Bad News," "Discussing Prognosis" and
"Responding to Patient Anger," among other touchy topics.

Still, with all the emphasis on doctor-patient communication,
the patient side has largely been neglected.

Sure, there are plenty of patient "empowerment" Web sites and
books, like "You: The Smart Patient: An Insider’s Handbook for
Getting the Best Treatment," published this year. Written by two
physicians — Michael F. Roizen and Mehmet C. Oz — the book is a
well-written guide, packed with pep talks and tips to help
patients cut through medical jargon, find a good surgeon or
hospital, get a second opinion and
navigate health insurance problems.

But like others in its genre, the book tends to skimp on the
rules of etiquette and body language that can transform a hostile
or misunderstood exchange into a smooth connection. It offers a
checklist of 34 questions you should ask your doctor before
surgery, but it doesn’t provide guidance on how or when to raise
those questions — or even how to get through the list — without
alienating the guy who’s about to carve you up.

Under the time pressure that is part of any medical visit, how
exactly do you respectfully disagree with your doctor and still
get the help you need?

Virginia Teas Gill, a medical sociologist at Illinois State
University, said the number of encounters that require a
negotiation between the doctor and the patient seemed to be on
the rise.

This is not just because of the time and financial squeezes
imposed on every visit by health insurance companies but also
because new therapies and sensitive scans and tests are
permitting diagnosis and treatment for many diseases much earlier
than ever before.  Lumpectomy or mastectomy? Injectable insulin
or a pump? Statins or simply more exercise and less food?

In many cases, Dr. Gill said, when and whether to treat has
become as legitimately debatable as what treatment to use.

Some patients show up to a scheduled appointment with a fistful
of questions, "and that’s fine, that’s very good," Dr. Gill said.

"But," she continued, "to get them answered, write the questions
down beforehand, and say at the outset of the office visit: ‘I’ve
got some questions. When would be the best time for me to ask
them?’ "

That alerts the doctor — who has to keep an eye on the time —
to what the patient’s agenda is, so that the two can prioritize
what to cover and decide whether they’ll need a follow-up
meeting, Dr. Gill said.

Richard Frankel, a medical sociologist at Indiana University who
helped develop a training program that Kaiser Permanente is now
using to teach its doctors to be better listeners, suggests that
medical encounters often go wrong because doctors assume that the
first symptom or concern a patient raises is the only one — or
at least that it’s the most important.

Instead, Dr. Frankel said, studies show that the most important
symptom or worry — a suspicious mole or lump, for example, or
the feeling that life isn’t worth living — is often the third or
fourth item on a patient’s list, blurted out at the very end of
an appointment. This may be because the patient is afraid, the
problem is hard to admit or the patient didn’t understand how
medical exams were typically structured.

Dr. Frankel advises patients to put all the items on the table at
the start of a visit. If the doctor interrupts to focus on the
first problem, say something like: "You know that’s one concern,
but maybe not my most important. Could I give the full list
before we go on so we can prioritize?"

Rather than be offended, most doctors are likely to listen more
attentively, he said.

"Patients always have the right to question or refuse treatment
or tests," Dr. Frankel added. "Anyone worried about offending the
doctor might find it easier to begin such a discussion with
something like: ‘Could you please review the benefits of this
treatment for me again so that I can write them down?  Good. Now,
could we talk about risks, too? O.K, so tell me again why you
think the benefits outweigh the risks in my case?’ "

Patients can improve the quality of their care — and their lives
— by also being straightforward with a doctor, but as specific
as possible.

"Instead of asking, ‘Is it important that I start the
chemotherapy next week?’ don’t be afraid to tell the doctor: ‘My
cousin’s wedding is next week, and I’d like to go. Would it be
O.K. to start the chemo after that?’ " suggested Carma Bylund, a
behavioral scientist in the psychiatry department at
Sloan-Kettering who helped create the hospital’s communication
skills program for students.

Bringing a trusted friend or family member to the exam can also
help make sure that delicate questions are asked and answered.

Preliminary research suggests that the Internet is already
transforming many medical encounters, Dr.  Bylund said. Some
patients now come armed with sheaves of journal articles and
printouts, and demands for specific treatment.

However, she cautioned, just because patients now have access to
much of the same information that doctors do doesn’t mean they
have the expertise or experience to weigh that information.

Doctors don’t like confrontation any more than patients do; they
may give in to a patient’s request if it is made in an assertive
manner. In a study under review for publication, Dr. Bylund found
that patients who persistently asked for a specific treatment or
test, based on Internet research, were more likely to get it than
patients who came in with a vague list of symptoms, or who were
more deferential to the doctor.

But be careful, she warned. Anyone who treats a doctor as a
dispensary instead of a trusted medical guide loses the
advantages of the physician’s experience.

Negotiating to win, in this case, may get you what you want, but
not what you need.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/health/15cons.html
by Deborah Franklin

      E-Mail
    * Print
    * Single Page
    * Reprints
    * Save

No Comments