Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Who exactly said that Green's bedside manner was uncommonly good? How many women he treated said that, was the data anonymised, and what was the statistical validity?
-
That Wikipedia article seems pretty factual and non-controversial. The piece referenced from the NZ Medical Journal (NZMA) shows controversy has never gone away over the issue. There have been several articles in the NZ MJ over the years confirming the findings and they have passed rigorous peer review.
The Women's Health Action site has lots of reports and articles from the last 20 years.
-
Some links
www.community.net.nz
Government-run site with all sorts of info about the community and voluntary sectorwww.angoa.org.nz
A recent report on the govt-community sector relationship by ANGOA (the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa) is called Good Intentions, and is available on their site
www.ocvs.govt.nz (Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector). They were involved in the Johns Hopkins research on gathering data about the economic contribution of volunteering that someone mentioned upthread.
-
But it does seem likely to me that patient practices were considerably improved in the wake of the Cartwright report
.
Yes, like no more routine vaginal swabs of babies, or anaesthetised women being used as training dummies for IUD insertion.
-
And what about the Gisborne inquiry a few years ago about botched diagnoses? Does that fit into the story too?
Here is a good summary of the Cartwright report - it's a lot more than just the two groups discussion - and there was a conference run by the Auckland University law faculty last year to mark 20 years .
If any sees or hears Sandra Coney replying to these new accusations please can you let us know.
-
Craig, I don't want to get into another argument with you so early in the morning but I'm sorry even medical research is not a black and white, fact v opinion process.
There are questions about what level of clinical trial it is, resourcing issues, who pays, research design, statistical validity, supervision, and other issues about how the hypothesis will be tested, before you even get into informed consent.
There was no clear and transparent ethical approval process then as there is today where all these things get ticked off and reported on with a clear paper trail.
There was a distinct lack of communication, particularly with the women concerned, inadequate paper work, and other problems. Having no clear groups illustrates the sloppy process, rather than vindicating it.
-
Beneficence, respect and justice are the three ethical principles to come out of a landmark US case in the 1970s. There was clearly not much of that shown to the women attending National Women's during this era.
This case is also about power - gynaecologists, with all that symbolic power over women's fertility that represents versus women patients with all that loaded stuff around being patient and powerless. It's quite hard for us now to realise just what it was like being a woman patient in a teaching hospital in that era, not being given accurate information, with consultants and their teams of students examining your without asking your consent, or even talking to you.
What Sanda and Phillida did was put a big 'Hey, what are you doing here' spotlight on it, and nothing can take that away from them.
The thing about whether there were or not two clear experimental groups is merely a sideline.
I'm sure those shouting out wrong, actually appreciate a bit a beneficence, respect and justice in their health care.
-
Thanks, Rachel. That indicates that not much from each phone vote actually goes to the charity.
-
Rick, how much did KidsCan get from Dancing with the Stars, and how did it get spent?
-
Wellington Harbour Oops