Some months ago, the receptionist in my clinic handed me a registered letter. The name of the sender seemed familiar. “Dear Sir,” the letter read. “Please be advised that this letter serves as official notice that I am considering a potential claim against you in a medical Malpractice claim in regard to my husband. . . .” I stood, stunned. My white coat, which held the daily tools of my profession — my list of patients, the Sanford antibiotic manual, a black stethoscope — felt extraordinarily heavy. (Washington Post)

Over the past few years, pharmaceutical research has become more commercialized and market-driven. For two bioethicists, that raises questions about the quality of the data in drug trials, and the safety of the participants in those trials. (Minnesota Public Radio)

A federal decision not to fund clinical trials for an experimental multiple sclerosis treatment cannot stop Saskatchewan from going ahead, but the province would have other scientific and ethical hoops to jump through first. (Healthzone.ca)

Brazilians endlessly repeat the old saw that the world thinks of only three things when it thinks of Brazil: samba, carnivale and football. But its healthcare industry would like to add a fourth–surgery. As part of Brazil’s efforts to leverage both the tourists and the infrastructure investments expected in the wake of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio, the country hosted its first medical tourism conference last week in São Paulo. (Fast Company)

Illegal organ harvesting has become worse under reforms put in place by the Chinese leadership to stop it, says a Canadian human rights lawyer. (Epoch Times)

The New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 363, August 2010) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:

• “Suicide-Related Events in Patients Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs” by A. Arana, C. E. Wentworth, J. L. Ayuso-Mateos, and F. M. Arellano, 542-551.

The American Journal of Bioethics (Volume 10, Issue 8, 2010) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:

• “Patient Willingness to be Seen by Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, and Residents in the Emergency Department: Does the Presumption of Assent Have an Empirical Basis?” by Gregory L. Larkin and Roderick S. Hooker, 1-10.
• “Striking the Right Balance in Research Ethics and Regulation” by Franklin G. Miller, 65.

For a while there, things didn’t look too good for British writer Simon Singh. The best-selling author of the science histories Big Bang and Fermat’s Enigma knew he was heading into controversial territory when he switched tracks to cowrite a book investigating alternative medicine, Trick or Treatment? What Singh didn’t count on, however, was that writing a seemingly innocuous article for London’s The Guardian newspaper about especially outrageous chiropractic claims—one of the subjects he researched for the book—would end up threatening his career. The British Chiropractic Association sued Singh, hoping to use Britain’s draconian libel laws to force him to withdraw his statements and issue an apology. Losing the case would have cost Singh both his reputation and a substantial amount of his personal wealth. Such is the state of science, where sometimes even stating simple truths (like the fact that there’s no reliable evidence chiropractic can alleviate asthma in children) can bring the wrath of the antiscience crowd. What the British chiropractors didn’t count on, however, was Singh himself. Having earned a PhD from Cambridge for his work at the Swiss particle physics lab CERN, he wasn’t about to back down from a scientific gunfight. Singh spent more than two years and well over $200,000 of his own money battling the case in court, and this past April he finally prevailed. In the process, he became a hero to those challenging the pseudoscience surrounding everything from global warming to vaccines to evolution. It’s not necessarily a role he sought for himself, but it’s one he has embraced—he’s currently touring the world, talking about his case, libel reform, and how important it is to make sure scientists can speak truthfully and openly. Wired spoke with Singh about his case and the struggle against the forces of irrationality. (Wired Magazine)

During the Nuremberg trials, convened at the end of World War II, lawyers for the German defendants, politicians accused of crimes against humanity, and physicians accused of euthanasia and barbaric medical experimentation offered the rationale of “kriegsraison” to exculpate their clients. The defence argument was that in conditions of all out war, those prosecuting the war can and must do whatever it takes to win. The Nuremberg tribunals summarily rejected kriegsraison as a defence. (The Lancet)

The Obama administration is rewriting new rules on medical privacy after an outpouring of criticism from consumer groups and members of Congress who say the rules do not adequately protect the rights of patients. (New York Times)

Now that the FDA has approved ella (ulipristal acetate), a prescription-only emergency contraceptive, the debate about whether to prescribe such drugs is moving back to the doctor’s office. With it comes ethical and legal questions for physicians, particularly those who object to emergency contraception for various reasons. (American Medical News)

Scientists are poised to inject cells created from embryonic stem cells into some patients with a progressive form of blindness and others with devastating spinal cord injuries. That’s a welcome step for researchers eager to move from the laboratory to the clinic and for patients hoping for cures. But beyond being loathsome to those with moral objections to any research using cells from human embryos, the tests are worrying many proponents: Some argue that the experiments are premature, others question whether they are ethical, and many fear that the trials risk disaster for the field if anything goes awry. (Washington Post)

A law intended to speed up development of new drugs for US kids has ended up financing clinical trials in poor countries, where the medicines might never become available. (The Times of India)

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (Volume 19, Issue 4, October 2010) is now available by subscription only.

Articles include:

• “Should Empathic Development Be a Priority in Biomedical Ethics Teaching?  A Critical Perspective” by Bruce Maxwell and Eric Racine, 433-445.
• “Teaching Military Medical Ethics: Another Look at Dual Loyalty and Triage” by Michael L. Gross, 458-464.
• “The Unique Nature of Clinical Ethics in Allied Health Pediatrics: Implications for Ethics Education” by Clare Delany and Merle Spriggs and Craig L. Fry and Lynn Gillam, 471-480.
• “What Health Science Student Learn from Playing a Standardized Patient in an Ethics Course” by Amy Haddad, 481-487.
• “Medical Student Attitudes about Bioethics” by Cheryl C. MacPherson and Robert M. Veatch, 488-496.
• “Rual Heathcare Ethics: No Longer the Forgotten Quarter” by William Nelson and Mary Ann Greene and Alan West, 510-517.
• “The Humanities and the Future of Bioethics Education” by Joseph J. Fins, 518-521.

When selecting a doctor, you might want to ask about his or her religious views. Why? The strength of a physician’s feelings of faith can influence the types of treatment they offer to their patients. (Los Angeles Times)

Ruben Betancourt died on May 29, 2009. Last week, a New Jersey appellate court declined to rule on the heated dispute that had broken out between his family and a North Jersey hospital over stopping his medical care prior to his death. (Philadelphia Inquirer)

The American public bought into the specialist mystique, partly thanks to stories in the media about miracle cures that could only be provided by the right medical expert. Family doctors, general internists and pediatricians started to look a little inadequate. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Using a shorter informed consent form did not hamper — or improve — research participants’ understanding of a study, but may ultimately save time in writing and reviewing important information, researchers found. (MedPage Today)

Picture an active, mentally acute man with prostate cancer who loves life, loves his family, and is described by his urologist as being “remarkable” and possessing “incredible resilience.” Twenty-two years after a radical prostatectomy the man now has extensive disease, including liver metastasis, but he continues to enjoy a good quality of life. The man is a strong and eager candidate for a brand-new treatment that could extend his life by several months with relatively few side effects that will allow him to maintain a pleasant existence. But there’s a catch: The treatment costs about $93,000 and the patient is 93 years old. (Renal and Urology News)

A BRAIN damaged teenager has been ordered by a Sydney court to undergo blood tests against her wishes in an effort to explain her disability. (The Australian)

The news that an international team has found a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease in spinal fluid has surely caused much soul-searching since it was reported two days ago. Perhaps most striking was the observation that, in the dispassionate language of medical science, “The unexpected presence of the AD signature in more than one-third of cognitively normal subjects suggests that Alzheimer’s pathology is active and detectable earlier than has heretofore been envisioned.” This finding suggests that many people who are destined for the disease can be diagnosed some time before they develop any obvious symptoms. (The New Republic)