When will you ever hear the words "Knocked Up" in the hallowed chambers of the United States Senate? When Seth Rogan testifies, of course! On the question of funding for Alzheimer's research, he actually gives a compelling testimony:
It seems that virgin births happen all the time, according to this story. Yup, 1/200 women claim to have given birth without having sex. The story goes on to explain why (obviously) this just cannot be true. The short answer: people aren't being truthful when they respond to surveys (ya think!)
But what this story really points out is that any survey data for that matter, including all the claims in the rest of the story's survey, are probably also made up. Hence, what can we really do with any of these surveys? Especially, when the health law field tries to make policy recommendations based, many times, on survey data.
In a strange "darn if you do - darn if you don't" twist on family law meets health law, this story about a father who was deemed an unfit parent by a court-appointed psychiatrist, because he refused to treat his kid to McDonalds. This is rich especially since it is coming in the New York where the mayor has made a career of fighting fast food.
A Manitoba mother was surprised last year when her kids came home from daycare with note informing her she’d be fined because the lunch she’d packed for them—complete with homemade roast beef, potatoes, carrots, an orange and milk—was unbalanced.
And the kicker for Kristen Bartkiw came when she read how the daycare had balanced the lunches: her five-year-old son and three-year-old daughter were each given Ritz crackers to make up for the missing grain required under the province’s school lunch policy.
With no zeros for missed homework, everyone is a winner attitude, no honor rolls, etc., and now this - teachers are doing their best to join the ranks of lawyers in terms of societal respect.
Greenpeace is committing “crimes against humanity” by attempting to block the distribution of genetically-modified Golden Rice which could prevent the deaths of millions of children, said a founder of the environmental organization.
“I left Greenpeace in 1986 when they abandoned logical science,” Moore said at a downtown Toronto protest outside Greenpeace’s headquarters. “Greenpeace is back in the dark ages (opposing modified food). They are targeting Golden Rice even though it targets a human need.”
Britain's highest court has ruled in favor of a hospital that gained court approval to withhold treatment from a terminally ill man despite the family's opposition.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool to withhold treatment from David James, 68, who suffered colon cancer, organ failure and a stroke, among other problems.
Our dormant, these days, co-blogger Ubaka Ogbogu recently presented a paper in a poster session on stem cell research. The poster has been described as the coolest poster, and I suggest that you click here to download the poster and see for yourself the very innovative method of presenting complex legal ideas.
No - never - Oreos are an amazing food item that give me great happiness. It turns out they are as addictive as cocaine. How long before the Bloombergs of the world or the health nanny state types decide to ban Oreos? Oh wait - never mind.
Sarah Palin was and still is mocked for suggesting that Obamacare will lead to death panels, because the Affordable Care Act does not explicitly mention it. The problem with that analysis is that it misses the point of socialized medicine, which is rationing of care. Once the state decides that rationing must take place, the tension between the right to life and helathcare resources emerges. And Canada is no different!
And that is where our Supreme Court comes in - denying the doctors' bid to overrule consent. And that is a good thing. It may be true that consent to pull the plug would unnecessarily prolongs the stay of the patient in the hospital, but once we open up the door to the state-mandated health system overriding our consent, we do end up down the slippery slope of Sarah Palin's death panels.
On another note, conservatives should be a bit disappointed with Justice Karakatsanis's dissent. While her focus on whether withdrawing treatment can be the subject of consent, looking at the common law and the statute itself, is admirable, she completely misses the point that in Canada (and soon in the US?) there are no choices other than the state-mandated treatement. So while it may be true that a doctor can withdraw treatment and not engage consent as a legal matter in the abstract, given we are at the mercy of the state by law, it seems that her focus is misplaced.
As an aside, one silver lining for the case both majority and dissent is the short length of the case.
Would Walter White have had to resort to his life of crime if Obamacare were already in place when he faced his predicament? For that matter, would he have had the same issues here in Canada? The prevailing wisdom on the social media seems to be a resounding 'no', i.e. had there been affordable healthcare, he would not have had to give us 5 years of amazing drama.
But as Josh Barro points out, that is just revisionism, because he could have accessed regular treatment, but he (urged by his family) wanted the best treatment. Indeed, in Canada, the question of the best would not have even come up, as here he would have had to settle for whatever was offered by the medicare system (which in fairness is decent, but certainly not the best there is).
We live in the age of the beancounters and risk-management. So much so that they don't even understand what crazy universe they have created. Watch this clip from a university in the United States where the university's health insurance company executive is defending a policy that requires female staff to disclose whether they plan on getting pregnant in the next year with the threat of fine if they refuse - indeed, his lack of any understanding of where this concern comes from is very telling:
Remember all the moves by the public health types to force fast food calorie disclosure? It turns out that it makes no difference. There is a real shocker. So we pay more for our food to pay for calorie disclosure, but we still eat the same amount. Hmm - no word on whether the calorie laws will be repealed.
The current worldwide decline in smoking means that growing tobaco is not as profitable as it once was. It turns out, however, that hummus or at least the chick-peas that make hummus are gaining popularity as an alternative crop.
I have no personal stake in the question of whether kids should be vaccinated against HPV. I was, however, a bit troubled when news of fatalities from testing were emerging many years ago, and tales of lobbying emerged. My colleague was also troubled. But as time went on, many assured me that the vaccine was effective and that that I should not be too concerned.
But now, one of the leading researchers on the subject, Dr. Diane Harper, says the vaccine is actually useless and may be harmful. To be clear, I have no idea if what she is saying is true, but I find it interesting that we are still discussing whether this vaccine is worth it or not.
At the very least, there should be some caution by policy-makers when deciding on quasi-mandatory vaccine requirements (and I know there are no 100% vaccine requirements despite the best efforts of some judges, but the moral opprobrium against non-vaccinators can be very persuasive). Indeed, cynicism about vaccines can actually lead to less vaccinations for those truly useful vaccines.
Many years ago, Elaine on Seinfeld tested positive for opium when she ate some poppy seed muffins:
It turns out two years ago, fiction became real life when a mother lost her newborn baby to child protective services, because she ate a poppy-seed bagel and was tested for drugs without her knowledge:
What happens when a study comes out that says that overweight people live longer than normal weighing people? Why the public health crowd go crazy! After all, that is just blasphemy and heresy.
So at least one reputable scientific journal took them to task, even if they are at Harvard, for his intolerance of the scientific method. Sadly, this orthodoxy of what is acceptable and what is not permeates so much of the sciences.
One of the big criticisms of law school is that they do not prepare law students for the practice of law. Critics will often point to medical schools and their large clinical components of the educational experience. My problem with the critics is that they usually have no idea what medical school is like or what medical students go through.
there is a darker side of this transition to clinical medicine. Many of the qualities that s there is a darker side of this transition to clinical medicine. Many of the qualities that students entered medical school with—altruism, empathy, generosity of spirit, love of learning, high ethical standards—are eroded by the end of medical training. Newly minted doctors can begin their careers jaded, self-doubting, even embittered ....
The article points out the biggest casualty from that third year is empathy, which, the article also points out, is a critical quality for the doctors' patients paths to recovery.
Indeed, if we want to be producing lawyers who are ready for the practice of law (never mind that sometimes no two lawyers can even agree on what the proper practice is for even in the drafting of a simple will), it would wise to see if our medical counterparts are actually producing quality results.